"Progressives Say We're Proud Of Not Voting For Hillary!" (idiocy from the far left).

[DanTex]

I get some pushback here for posting about the far left and how it consistently tries to help Republicans win elected office. People say I'm exaggerating, or that the far left are good because they keep Dems in line, or whatever. Well, here's an example that I woke up to today.

This morning, I was pointed to a youtube video starring two ignoramuses named Mike Figueredo and Jimmy Dore (google the title if you want to see it, but there's no reason to, you can guess what it's about). If you've never heard of them, that's a good thing. If you have, you know what I'm talking about. I'm not saying that these two particular morons are particularly influential, they aren't. But they are not the only lowlifes who are carrying water for the GOP by pretending to be progressives in online media, there are others. It's a "thing".

It's not a new thing, it's just a continuation of Naderism. But it's not gone, it continues to be a weapon in the GOP's arsenal. And, as long as it does, I will continue to call it out.

[Me.]

1. KR

[SecularMotion]

2. I think it's a continuation of RonPaulism

The same MO as the Paulites who tried to hijack the Republican Party in 2012

[SecularMotion]

10. Flip Republican to Democratic, Ron Paul to Bernie Sanders, Mitt Romney to Hillary Clinton, etc.

and you have a Sanders supporter complaining about the 2016 primaries.

How the Republican Party Stole the Nomination from Ron Paul

If you follow mainstream election coverage, you might think Mitt Romney has coasted to an honest, easy, well-deserved Republican nomination. Unfortunately for Republican voters, nothing could be further from the truth. The primary process has been an all-out slugfest and many of the delegates Romney has won may be the result of dirty tricks and even election fraud. The following narrative includes links to reports, first-hand testimonials, and video evidence highlighting actions taken by the GOP to ensure a Romney victory, at the expense of fracturing the party just prior to the general election. Party leaders at the county and state level have changed or violated party rules, cancelled caucuses, changed vote counts, thrown out entire counties of votes, counted public votes privately, called-in the SWAT team, and inexplicably replaced Paul delegates with Romney delegates to block Ron Paul from winning the nomination.

Iowa: Days before the caucuses, Paul held a commanding lead in the polls and all the momentum, with every other candidate having peaked from favorable media coverage and then collapsed under the ensuing scrutiny. Establishment Republicans, like Iowa’s Representative Steve King (R), attempted to sabotage Paul’s campaign by spreading rumors he would lose to Obama if nominated. Even though the Iowa GOP platform reads like a Ron Paul speech, shortly before the caucuses, Iowa Governor Terry Barnstad told Politico , “[If Paul wins] people are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third. If Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire”. The message from the Governor to voters of his state was: a vote for Ron Paul was a wasted vote.

https://jaretglenn.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/how-the-republican-party-stole-the-nomination-from-ron-paul/

[DemocraticSocialist8]

18. Comparing Ron Paul to Bernie Sanders is extremely problematic and just incorrect

on so many levels. Paul never had the support and strength within the GOP that Sanders does.

[SecularMotion]

20. I'm not comparing Ron Paul with Bernie Sanders

Just pointing out similarities in the tactics of their supporters.

[beastie boy]

48. Trolls or not, this is the reason why I have a problem with a

"progressive" label. Too many boneheaded people with destructive agendas calling themselves progressives and implicitly presuming an aura of superiority vis a vis mainstream Democrats, then demanding unity on their terms. I blame Trump's victory squarely on them.

[DinahMoeHum]

3. (sigh!) That "Nothing-But-The-Best-For-The-Oppressed" attitude. . .

. . .stinks to high heaven and it's no way to support or drop a candidate.

There are no perfect candidates out there, people. NONE.

And as far as the "far left" is concerned, FUCK 'EM. Those turkeys are not our allies, and never will be.

Let them stew in their own wet dream of "revolution". Whatever the hell it means for them these days.

[alwaysinflux]

5. They are no more willing to admit

...that Hillary was unfairly smeared than Trumpkins are.

[SunSeeker]

41. That is a very astute point.

Indeed the far left started some of the smears that the GOP then appropriated, like the assertion that she was not "qualified" to be president because she gave a few speeches to Goldman Sachs.

With "friends" like that, who needs enemies?

[yardwork]

4. I know some folks like this in real life. They are incredibly ignorant.

They're intelligent people, but completely, profoundly clueless about how our political system works. Therefore, they are vulnerable to false info and propaganda. They get their information from social media and most of it is wrong.

We see a fair amount of it echoing here on DU but it's much worse on other sites.

[groundloop]

6. I have to wonder if some of these people are paid trolls

I certainly wouldn't put it past any of the well funded right wing PACs / Think Tanks. It sounds like just one of many tactics to divide and conquer.

[Voltaire2]

9. You don't have to wonder. We know that the internet

Has become a cesspool polluted by professional trolls, bot farms, and useful idiots.

[Docreed2003]

11. I think some may very well be...others are bots

There was one poster during the primary who would respond to posts by quoting the previous post, again and again and again. It was clearly a bot. Some are more sophisticated and, yes, I think some are paid trolls. Thankfully, the admins here do a great job of weeding those out. Most of the trolls and far left nihilists are no longer on this board.

[Docreed2003]

7. Some folks just want to watch to world burn...

It doesn't take much digging to see that some of these guys were cheering a Trump win because in their warped mind they believe if they break the system completely that the country will shift to their far left agenda. Others in this same group were motivated by dark reasons, misogyny and, yes, even Russia. Individuals of this ilk, whether overtly or inadvertently, are succeeding at dividing and stiring infighting amongst those of us within the Democratic tent. We saw the same shit this week with your other post Dan. I know that I've personally had exchanges with you during the primary, but the primary has been over for damn near a year. Some folks it seems are continuing to hold personal grudges and can't let shit go. Our current fight is not with each other, it's with the autocratic administration that is trying to undermine our democracy and every sensible law and regulation in the last 75 years that benefit the people. We would be well served to keep that focus and ignore the voices who, even now, continue to divide us. Thanks Dan...keep being you, and ignore the haters!

[NCTraveler]

8. Some have a personality trait that forces the to always be oppositional...

And in order to enforce that they must always justify their need to be with a minority. They will swing their justification from left to right as their personal demand requires them to do so. They are void of cocsistent ideological thought.

[renegade000]

16. The more history I read the more I tend to agree with this thought.

Political and cultural norms change over time and space, but human psychology remains the same.

Democratic socialism/Social democracy is one of the "grass is greener on the other side" ideologies the "anti-establishment" left is really keen on these days in the US, which is great as far as I'm concerned. What tickles me though is that social democratic parties are center-left establishment parties in most of Europe. Back in the 1930s, the communists were literally playing the "both parties are the same" card with the social democrats and fascists (the more things change...).

Lord knows, just the French Revolution is enough to marvel at how much factionalist jockeying within the left is able to turn something into a giant clusterfuck.

[CousinIT]

12. OK. I'm a progressive. But THAT? NOPE.

I voted for Hillary and PROUD to have done it.

Democrats ARE Progressive! Do they/we all agree 100% on all issues? NO. But we have to be UNITED to defeat TRUMP. Else....we can kiss any semblance of the country we ever knew GOODBYE forever.

Nothing hard to understand about that. It's really simple. Those are our choices.

PS: How much of this is Russian interference designed to keep Dems divided and help Trump/Republicans stay in power? Did all that just suddenly stop on Nov 8th, 2016? I doubt it.

[RAFisher]

13. These people are fucking idiots. I listened to 5 minutes of their show after the election.

As the rest of the left was in shock and worried about what a Trump presidency would bring these two spent the whole time attacking protesters. Yeah, the protesters were the problem in their mind. To them having Trump win just is just like when you're team is down at the half. There seemed to be no acknowledgement that Trump could do anything wrong or destructive to the US. Trump would just be what unifies the left in 2018 and 2020. Another gem was they said we didn't have to worry about SCOTUS because Democrats could just filibuster until 2020. Who knows what their excuse is now.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. If you found someone saying "Feminists are proud to vote against males" would you post that too?

Just because someone calls themselves Progressive doesn't mean they are good representatives of that term. I understand your point about the far left - but it is dangerous to link the word progressive with that faction no matter what they call themselves. It is almost as accepted a political term among Democrats as Liberal is.

[kcr]

93. Sometimes I see a post that is just so over the top I wonder if it's a joke

Because I'm on DU and I see a post making a comparison to feminists who proclaim they're proud to vote against men. Because you know, they'll do that!

[Tom Rinaldo]

96. It was meant to be over the top, isn't that obvious?

Some points become more obvious through exaggeration. Yes there is such a thing as separatism and I assume at least some of those women also call themselves feminists and likely it is possible somewhere to find seperatists who say they refuse to vote for men. Let's say a tenth of one percent of people who call themselves feminists could hold such a view. Clearly citing one of them to represent feminism in regards to voting for one gender only would obviously be ridiculous.

Sure there are many self called progressives who are proud to not have voted for Hillary. The fact that one can literally track down thousands of them makes it a more tempting linkage to draw. After all almost all of us activist types know at least one person who fits that description. Yeah, but they still represent a very small percentage of people who self describe themselves as progressive. My estimate would be that over one percent may fit that description, but well below ten percent in total. Hell, I've seen Hillary Clinton self describe herself as a progressive, so highlighting an association between progressives and proudly not voting for Hillary is misleading at best and bogus at worst.

[randome]

15. "And we're going to KEEP voting for non-Hillaries until the poor & minorities do what we say!"

That about sums it up, no?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[Bradical79]

17. There are a number of fake leftists out there

We used to have plenty here. Really they were Russophiles or anti-American contrarians. I'm sure some were Russian infiltrators, but plenty were just morons who wanted to pretend they're enlightened socialist revolutionaries.

[DemocraticSocialist8]

19. While I agree it's stupid at this point to profess how proud you are of not voting for Hillary

Jimmy Dore is right on a number of issues and he has a large following. Whether or not you define that as "influential" is a matter of perspective. To say though that they want the GOP to win just because they're critical of establishment Democrats is part of the problem with the current discourse in the Democratic Party.

[DanTex]

21. I agree, these people do have a following. That is exactly the problem.

I've seen a few Jimmy Dore videos, and from what I've seen he is basically a conspiracy theory spewing moron, with no grasp of any issues whatsoever. The Figueredo guy doesn't seem quite as stupid, but still pretty dumb.

And, yes, they do want the GOP to win. Or at least they act exactly like someone who wants the GOP to win would: there is no rational reason for anyone to advocate for a Green Party vote other than to reduce Democratic turnout and help Republicans get elected. If they really don't want the GOP to win elections and are helping them anyway, then they are even dumber than I thought, which is a pretty low bar.

[DemocraticSocialist8]

76. People talk about 3rd parties because of how disillusioned they've become

with the Dems. You gotta remember, most Greens are former Democrats anyway. If the Dems started actually pushing progressive policies that are POPULAR like single payer, then they'd shut up people like Dore. Problem is the party doesn't do that because they're too beholden to the corporate cash. It's a clear conflict of interests if you ask me.

[Eko]

78. No, they dont do it because of corp cash.

They don't do it because "progressive independents" will never back them in large enough numbers to offset loosing the middle no matter what they do. The Democratic party could promise free unicorns, healthcare, college, housing, money and still very little "progressive independents" will back them because of something or other. Disillusioned? The majority of America is an idiot when it comes to politics, they dont even know what it is they are disillusioned about for the most part other than vague talking points of "crooks" or "they are all corrupt" or "establishment". Perfect example is the ACA, in 2016 54% of people disapproved of the ACA, now, 54% approve. Did the ACA change somehow?
Nope.

[DemocraticSocialist8]

79. The numbers prove it though Eko

There have been a number of people who have left the party. This can only be due to disillusionment. Progressive Indies will back more progressive policies because they really have no other choice. There are more indies now than Democrats and Rethugs.

[Eko]

81. Huh,

ok what numbers?

[Eko]

82. And this makes no sense.

"Progressive Indies will back more progressive policies because they really have no other choice."
Then why did they not vote for Clinton in larger numbers? She is clearly more progressive than Trump right?

[DemocraticSocialist8]

86. On some issues yes

[Eko]

88. On some issues?

You mean the majority, like 99%? Don't mistake isolationism and nationalism for progressive.

[Eko]

84. Here ya go.

Pretty much shoots that narrative right out of the water. There's some numbers for ya.

[DemocraticSocialist8]

85. Those are select states and only applies to those who turned out to vote

Here is something more accurate. Not to say what you showed isn't accurate...but it's not the entire picture.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/188096/democratic-republican-identification-near-historical-lows.aspx

[Eko]

87. That doesnt show that Democrats are leaving the party.

The Republicans have dropped the most and you have to take into account new people now being able to register. So, it doesn't prove your point. Could it be possible, sure, but once again it doesn't prove your point and you have yet to show anything to do so. You can also see here that independents voted 48-42 for republicans for the 2016 presidential election. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html
So,
No.

[emulatorloo]

59. Dore and TYT have a Republican sugar-daddy who funds them.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-the-young-turks-raises-4-million-from-former-louisiana-governor-20140416-story.html

[LenaBaby61]

62. Dore and TYT have a Republican sugar-daddy who funds them.

I stopped following them a while back once I figure out what was going on with them.

[BainsBane]

22. They are fascists, not the far left.

Quit calling them that. Fascism is as fascism does.

[DanTex]

40. I think "far left" is accurate. But you have a point.

There's the whole "horseshoe theory" when you get far enough on either left or right, you and up in a very similar same place (e.g. Hitler and Stalin).

One thing here is that it's not just about political ideology. For example, Noam Chomsky is pretty far left, but he had the sense to argue that a presidential election is not a time to play purity games. Having said that, since people like Jimmy Dore and Figueredo are part of the far left, and they get play in lefty media, I think the far left has a certain responsibility here.

For example, TYT, which I consider pretty far left, has some decent people on it. I might not agree with Cenk on everything, but I can respect him. But by giving time and exposure to the likes of Jimmy Dore, they become complicit in the Naderism. Sort of like the pre-civil rights Dems were complicit by carrying along the racist Dixiecrats.

[DanTex]

24. What "Democratic division"? These people are not Democrats.

And, even though they like to use the word "progressive" a lot, they are not progressives either. I am a progressive, and I am proud of it, and I will continue to call out people who hijack the term to help the GOP win elections.

[Glitterati]

27. LOL, yeah, winning hearts and mind.

Way to go!

[DanTex]

30. Hearts and minds of who? Are you seriously defending these guys?

What else: am I supposed to take it easy on Alex Jones because pointing out what a lunatic he is might offend some of his lunatic following?

[Glitterati]

31. I'm defending no one. Didn't follow your link.

Have no desire to.

I'm just telling you that the Daily DanTex name calling thread is not productive.

But, you know that, of course. That's your goal.

[DanTex]

33. Would you object if I called Alex Jones names? Or Richard Spencer?

Tell me what's wrong with calling Jimmy Dore what he is, which is a GOP-enabling idiot.

[NurseJackie]

71. I believe that user has left the building.

[BainsBane]

25. He's not talking about Democrats

That should be obvious by the not voting for Democrats part.

[Glitterati]

28. I'm certain this kind of thread will convert them, right?

[SunSeeker]

43. The point is not to convert them but to call them out. nt

[tblue37]

26. Dore is sometimes on "The Young Turks," isn't he? IOW, he does get heard. nt

[DanTex]

35. Yes. And TYT also has a few other nutjobs on there sometimes too.

[tblue37]

37. +1. nt

[stonecutter357]

29. K&R!

[Dopers_Greed]

34. Progressives Say We're Proud of Falling for Russian Propaganda

[Expecting Rain]

36. Liberals are Progressives

We should never allow Trump-enabling far-Leftists to claim the title of "progressives."

They are "regressives" who help turn back hard-won progress.

[lark]

38. Could they be Russian plants?

After the guy pushing Seceed California moved back to Russia, I now question everything. I consider myself far left, but I'm not stupid and wouldn't waste my vote on Nader, Stein or any other idiot who just serves to put the worst possible candidate, the Repug, in office. Just because someone says they are lefties, doesn't mean they really are, especially in today's Russian false info climate.

[ihaveaquestion]

39. There are idiots everywhere.

I'm a progressive and sometimes even find myself to the left of Bernie on some issues.

I used to listen to Jimmy Dore, but he went over the edge, started promoting Jill Stein, saying that if Trump got elected and messed up the country it would be good for us all in that things would then turn around - or some such nonsense.

I stopped listening to him about 6 months ago or so.

[ananda]

42. Well..

I'm about as far left as you can go, and I'm glad
I voted for Clinton.

She was moving left. Sanders was a good influence.

[JHan]

44. It's busterisms that we need to be worried about..

Naderism was busterism, Jimmy Dore and his foolishness - also busterisms.

We need a lil more pragmatism in the way we approach gaining power ( Yeah .. that word.. "pragmatism" )

[mcar]

45. K&R

[ZX86]

46. This is not a good strategy for dealing with the far left.

If this is "punching down" it makes us looks like arrogant, elite bullies. If these guys are dumb losers why waste your energy on them?

If this is "punching up" it's conceding that the far left has the upper hand and should be feared.

If anything is to be learned from the last several election cycles is that voters respond to positive messages. Reagan crushed Carter and Mondale with positive messages. Clinton crushed Bush and Dole with positive messaging. Obama crushed McCain and Romney with hope and change. Trump beat Clinton with MAGA.

Negativity does not generate votes. It does the opposite. It depresses voter turn out. This has been proven time and again in study after study. If Democrats truly want to win voters and elections we have to have a superior POSITIVE message.

[emulatorloo]

60. They've coopted the term progressive. There is nothing progressive about them

Progressives give a shit about the people who are most vulnerable in our country. Progressives don't allow a racist fascist in the White House and brag about it.

They aren't progressives.

And FWIW they are the bullies.

[hay rick]

47. The terms liberal and progressive are useless.

The terms are used to mean so many different things by so many different people that they have become hopelessly vague. I will say that anyone who is proud of not having voted for Hillary is a fool at best. They share responsibility for enabling the Trump agenda and the assertion that Hillary would have been just as bad is pathetic self-deception.

A lot of people have been complaining about elected Democrats who are unwilling to endorse single payer health care recently. I support single payer but if my candidate wants to stick with saving and improving Obamacare I can still support him or her. The real political alternatives at this time may or may not include a progressive who supports single payer (Hillary would have been just as bad), but it surely includes a Republican who will throw away existing coverage in favor of useless vouchers, credits, and tax cuts for the wealthy.

[Gothmog]

49. Any progressive who voted against Hillary Clinton is an idiot

[nikibatts]

50. And not our friend.

[NurseJackie]

53. ... or is not a progressive. Or is rich and white and has an Academy Award.

#FuckYouSusanSarandon

[ZX86]

57. So Susan Sarandon holds more power and influence over elections than the Democratic party

which spent over billion dollars nearly and 100% endorsements from Democrats and Hollywood alike?

[NurseJackie]

58. LOL

[hrmjustin]

51. I can't afford these purity people's principles.

It costs too much.

[Lil Missy]

52. Purity is a losing proposition. n/t

[Starry Messenger]

54. It would be more accurate to call these people dogmatists

They only have a hammer, so every problem looks like a nail. Nothing will ever move them. I just avoid them now. Anyone who wasn't on board to avoid the fascist threat of Trumpism is living a very different reality from mine.

[cwydro]

55. I've seen this said here, that somehow trump will be good.

Sickening.

But we have to stop fighting amongst ourselves.

[JCanete]

90. never that HE will be good. If you mean, people have said that his bombastic

shitty, unsubtle and incompetent approach to governance might actually set the GOP back rather than advance them, that's an entirely different framing. I'm not sure if there's anything "sickening" about that hopeful outlook.

Of course it doesn't mean they're right that this will be better for us in the long run, because in my opinion, the American people have a ridiculously short attention span, or perhaps, are simply easily fatigued by lingering issues, and then there's whatever damage gets done in the mean-time, and its not like we have forever to right climate change and all kinds of big picture things that have an expiration date, but I can recognize a small glimmer of hope. This does seem to be a wake up call for a lot of the population. Civics seems to be something people are suddenly remembering.

[Paladin]

56. K&R. Enough of the destructive Purity Police. (nt)

[bathroommonkey76]

61. You can blame the Russians for the anti-Hillary propaganda they pumped at Sanders' supporters

Some of your frustrations during the election should be directed at the Russians and Trump campaign for spreading the lies and anti-Hillary memes.

Major Bernie Sanders backers suspect Russians flooded their social sites with anti-Hillary memes

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/sanders-staffers-confirm-that-russian-trolls-were-pushing-anti-hillary-memes-on-social-networks-and-comment-threads/

[emulatorloo]

63. Russians pumped hate at HRC, not Sanders

They targeted BoBs, Bernouts in order to swing them to Trump or Stein.

Some folks fell for it, others didn't.

That is a great article btw. Thanks for posting it.

[bathroommonkey76]

64. Sorry, I corrected my post.

[emulatorloo]

66. Thanks again for the article!

[DanTex]

65. Oh, I have plenty of frustrations pointed at Putin, and Comey, and so on.

But people like Jimmy Dore and Susan Sarandon are not Russian moles. They are American Naderites. Though I'm not sure if it would be worse or better if they were moles.

[sharedvalues]

67. Problem is your title. They are NOT progressives.

[DanTex]

69. I agree with you. I took the title from a youtube video, for illustration purposes.

[LenaBaby61]

68. Jimmy Dore and the like ....

Need their own clown cars

[alarimer]

70. Define the "far left"

How do you know they actually represent whatever the "far left" is? Or is this a broad brush to tar people who are skeptical of the Democrats commitment to progressive issues?

When I hear people criticize the "far left", it sounds like more hippie-punching to me.

[DanTex]

72. That's a fair point, and there's no sharp delineation.

One quick definition could be, anyone who supported Jill Stein, or Ralph Nader before that. The Green Party certainly contributed to Trump's victory. But the far left is larger than that (and some far leftists, like Slavoj Zizek, actually supported Trump). For me the distinction between "left" and "far left" happens when the arguments people make start descending into nonsense. Certainly people like Chris Hedges, Jimmy Dore, Jill Stein, etc. all fall into that category. Even before this election cycle, the attacks people like that were making against Obama were fueled by ignorance.

[alarimer]

73. There has to be some acknowledgement of the Dem Party's participation in its own downfall.

To wit: the decision by some years ago that the way to win elections was to try and sway disaffected Republicans by moving to the center with free trade, loosening regulations on Wall Street, lack of support for labor unions, etc. When the Republicans moved further right, the Democratic Party moved to the center. It is this that feels like a betrayal of all that Democrats accomplished over the years.

I have no wish to exile people on the left I might disagree with. I think there is value in everyone's ideas and there is no need to throw folks under a bus, just because we think they might be wrong on some things or even a lot of things. Or voted for what we see as the wrong the people. They may be misguided, or wrong, or deluded. But the intolerance among so-called progressives here is what disturbs me the most. No need for calling them traitors or worse. They are not.

[DanTex]

74. Sure. That doesn't have much to do with the topic of the OP, which is the fact that for at least

two decades now the far left has been helping Republicans get elected. But, yeas, the Dem Party has made plenty of mistakes.

I don't know if the mistakes are the same ones you listed. Yes, they did move to the right in the 90s, which is 20 years ago. And in fact, it worked: they got the presidency back after 12 years of GOP. They held it for 8 years, and would have held for at least 12 if not for the fact that Nader and the far left did everything in their power to make sure that W Bush was elected.

After 8 horrible years of W, including a near collapse of the world economy, it seemed that the far left had finally realized that the "both sides are the same" argument is both stupid and harmful. The Dems took back the White House, this time with a young charismatic candidate who was significantly more liberal than the "New Democrats" of the 90s.

Did that satisfy the far left? No. A few years into Obama's term they were back at it with their crazy accusations that he was a Wall Street sellout and a warmonger and a "corporatist" and all that. I will agree, the party under Obama did an extremely poor job of paying attention and resources to local races, and converting Obama's popularity into electoral success downballot. But this has nothing to do with the supposed selling out of the working class that far leftists like Chris Hedges accuse him of.

And, finally, yes, I am going to call people like Jill Stein her supporters traitors. What other word is there? They help Republicans get elected, and that's pretty much all that they do that has any consequence. And it's totally obvious to everyone that this is what they are doing. It's not a mistake. It's not complicated to figure out what the effect of third party candidacies is in our electoral system.

[Akamai]

80. Obama's refusal to prosecute the Banksters following the

Economic meltdown (given the robo-signing, the fraud perpetrated on unwary citizens which caused so much misery to do many), his not calling out the Republicans for their utter intransigence following the "Caucus Room Conspiracy," and his utter support of the TPP (with the incredible problems of that agreement) were decisions that I strongly disagreed with.

But clearly he was far, far better than any Republican, and I strongly supported his re-election. (I was a very big supporter for his election.)

I have never regretted voting for him but the above issues rankled me. And I imagine they troubled many other Dems as well.

Those decisions of his will probably always bother me.

But frankly in almost all other ways, Obama has been more than exemplary, in most ways the very best of the recent presidents.

[MountCleaners]

92. The far left to me is....

The far left to me consists of groups like the Revolutionary Communist Party, or the Maoists.

Depends on your own political persuasion, I guess.

I don't see what is so "far left" about the Green Party. For the record I DO NOT VOTE THIRD PARTY. I vote a straight Democratic ticket. I say this before I get demonized. I just don't think of the Green Party as "far left". One can be nutty and be moderate, or a centrist. I disagree with the Green Party's tactics - not their politics.

I'm feeling increasingly unwelcome here on DU as a progressive, because of the hysteria about some imaginary "far left".

[Blecht]

75. Enough already

Welcome to ignore.

[Akamai]

77. Jimmy Dore has some good ideas but is kooky about Hillary in the

General. I don't know about the other guy, but I am very progressive, vote Bernie in the primary and gladly voted Hillary in the general, contributed money, knocked on doors for her, rooted for her at the debates, and all of my friends and family did as well.

I don't know any,any, Bernie supporters who later voted for trump. I imagine the percentage that did is very, very small and I doubt that there are many of them here.

Or am I wrong?

What's the data say?

[JI7]

83. They aren't progressives

[Spider Jerusalem]

89. Using two random morons from Youtube to smear "progressives" generally is rather lame.

[DanTex]

95. I'm not smearing "progressives", I'm smearing the far left.

[JCanete]

91. Jimmy Dore doesn't trust the establishment in any of its forms. He may be wrong or right to think

that way. I think its possible to disagree, even vehemently about politics and still think that people have a point. I see Dore's and I see establishment Democrats points as well. He may be too rigid and out of bounds when it comes to making calls about motivations, but then, in my opinion, anybody willing to be 100 percent unquestioning of our party or the intentions of our leaders, even to the point of assuming anybody out there who has those criticisms is trolling or attempting to divide the party, or working for Putin, Trump, etc. are exercising an overabundance of trust that our party leaderships intention's or perspectives need not be scrutinized and questioned.

For my part, I can but hope. I see Dems do good. Then I see them do things not so good. And of course this is to some degree, a matter of us having a big tent and needing to work with fellow democrats with different political realities and constituencies. But it also comes with a lot of unconditional support, and not speaking ill of one another. I mean jesus, some prominently liberal Lawmakers went to bat for Lieberman in his primary...the same primary that once he lost, he said fuck you to the whole party and ran anyway as an independent. That kind of back-scratching is infuriating to me .

Sometimes it just seems like the Democrats strategic approach to politics is almost designed to lose. Sometimes, because it is worth questioning, I wonder if its all just a shell game...elaborate kabuki theater in which the plot and climax has already been written(I don't think its actually orchestrated...its far far too complex for that...but the motions are at times predicable, and maybe that's a matter of the capitalistic and political machinery at work that gives us the same tapestry of players that we always seem to have.)

Clearly, I keep coming back, and I keep voting Dem, and there's enough evidence that makes me believe, even if Dems aren't always on the right page, that the hearts of its leadership are actually in the right place, but anybody saying this with conviction, without leaving room for doubt, when it comes to people in power and what motivates their choices or when questioning whether or not their own world-view is just too cozily, is in my opinion, being as zealous as Dore with his own opposite assertions.

[DanTex]

94. Alex Jones doesn't trust the establishment in any of its forms either.

Sure, I can "see the point" that either Jones or Dore are making, but I can also see that their point is a stupid one. And more importantly, they are not honest people.

Any honest advocacy for Green votes has to include the understanding that by doing so you are helping the Republicans win. This is not debatable, the math is simple. When Jimmy Dore goes on youtube and tells his viewers to vote Stein, he effectively becomes an ally for Trump. It is impossible for me to have an ounce of respect, either intellectual or moral, for someone who advocates Green but denies or skirts around this essential fact.

The other thing is, I find far left commentators like Dore, Chris Hedges, etc., to me much, much more slavishly unquestioning that mainstream liberals like Krugman, Maddow, etc. Mainstream liberals question Democrats and Democratic policies all the time. There's debate, there's opinion, and so on.

The far left is much more rigid. Like I said above, nobody on the far left is allowed to acknowledge the fact that they are helping Republicans win elections. Also, nobody on the far left can acknowledge that, for example, Obama was a pretty good president. If you watch Dore or Hedges talk about Obama, their face will turn red and their eyes will bulge with rage. Also, the far left is completely unquestioning of Jill Stein's many many flaws, much more so than mainstream liberals were about Hillary. The other funny thing is that the far left writes off MSNBC and the NYT and as corporate owned, but they have no problem whatsoever with RT, owned by a man who assassinates journalists who say things he doesn't like.

So, anyway, no I don't think Jimmy Dore has a point, at least not a coherent one. He has as much of a point as a 17-year old stoner in a parking lot saying "the system is eeevil, man". The difference is, Dore has a much wider audience.