General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOther than throwing the 2000 election to Bush, what has the far left accomplished recently?
Angry blog posts don't count.
How has the far left made life better for anyone?
Obama, for example, has passed the most significant piece of social legislation in a generation, which has helped millions and saved many lives. He has passed the toughest financial regulations since WW2. He rescued the economy from the brink, saved the auto industry. His SC appointments were recently part of a historic triumph on gay marriage. He's taken bold executive actions on the environment and immigration. Paul Krugman (notorious neo-liberal corporatist that he is) has called him "one of the most consequential and, yes, successful presidents in American history".
And, if not for GOP obstructionism and control of congress, he would have done a lot more, minimum wage, jobs and infrastructure spending, gun control, etc. But (shocker!), the president doesn't rule by fiat, so those things all died in congress.
Meanwhile, the far left has called him names. And then they complain that people don't pay enough attention to them.
Do they win elections? Of course not. That's beneath them. It's so much more satisfying to make a lot of noise for Nader/Kucinich/Sanders on "principle" than to actually deal with political reality.
After all the sound and fury, I'm left wondering whether the far left actually cares about improving the world, or whether they prefer pointing fingers.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)I didn't vote for Ralphie then and I never will. And NONE of my leftist friends voted for him either.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)brooklynite
(94,911 posts)He turned out to be a mediocre Presidential candidate (try to remember a compelling campaign message he offered) who lost 10 States won by Clinton; any one of which would have made Florida irrelevant.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)brooklynite
(94,911 posts)However, I agree with the OP that they espouse a political philosophy that places ideological purity over political reality.
In that vein, I would observe that OWS's biggest failing, was withdrawing from the political process (on the grounds that "there's no difference" between the Democrats and Republicans) and withdrawing to their camps, effectively trying to create their own mini-political systems.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)get the message there? That's political reality. You are saying not to fight for funds for the poor, or our vets or our seniors because that isn't political reality. Thank Dog our founders weren't listening to your political reality
sketchy
(458 posts)Why do we keep needing to relearn what happened in 2000?
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)I seem to recall this Bush v. Gore case... I dunno. Also Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush... it is all a mist.
I guess it is easier to blame the left than it is to frigging read.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Repeat a lie enough and some will start to believe it. They have no shame and try every year to push that garbage on DU. Nothing about relearning...it is important that you believe their obvious lie or that someone here does.
For every person that does, Rove get a nickle.
Strange right for a progressive site...but after a bit you see whom here are only here to stir up shit and nothing more.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)If he is the nominee......it should be an attack point.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)there any established precedent for doing so when all the ballots had not yet been counted.
You and I may disagree mightily on matters large and small, but on this there is not one millimeter of daylight between our positions.
RobinA
(9,903 posts)agrees. Gore ran an awful campaign, it shouldn't even have been close.
And I'm only "far left" by today's standard where anyone opposed to the death penalty is "far left." By historical standards I'm just leftish.
elleng
(131,292 posts)running from/shunning President Clinton, but MORE than that, imo, please forgive me, the Democratic party (along with Gore) failed to address the egregious behavior of republicans in stealing the election.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)I doubt he'd have ignored "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the United States" warnings.
I doubt he'd let the Banksters off the hook, either.
That would make him a pretty darn good president, IMFO.
Now that you mention it, brooklynite, I don't remember President Clinton lifting a finger on his behalf during the fiasco in Florida.
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)why do you have such confidence in his ability to resist the neocons Iraq war. He didn't show this sort of idealism when he had power. He only showed this side when he had become irrelevant. Every elected dlcer voted for the IWR. Every one of them.
Obama claimed to oppose the Iraq war too, then accepted the surge and took almost to the end of his first term to get us out of it. Since then he has consistently supported overthrowing the government of Syria, which was another pnac target. Meanwhile he ignored an actual Al Qaeda insurgency among the Syrian opposition, which is another neocon policy preference.
sketchy
(458 posts)Link:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/09/gore.bush/
From a speech he made on 11/9/03:
"I want to challenge the Bush Administrations implicit assumption that we have to give up many of our traditional freedoms in order to be safe from terrorists. Because it is simply not true.
In fact, in my opinion, it makes no more sense to launch an assault on our civil liberties as the best way to get at terrorists than it did to launch an invasion of Iraq as the best way to get at Osama Bin Laden.
In both cases, the Administration has attacked the wrong target. In both cases they have recklessly put our country in grave and unnecessary danger, while avoiding and neglecting obvious and much more important challenges that would actually help to protect the country.
In both cases, the administration has fostered false impressions and misled the nation with superficial, emotional and manipulative presentations that are not worthy of American Democracy."
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)as I said Obama claimed to oppose it too. That wing of the party that was in power universally supported it. He is from the neocon dem wing just like Obama.
Gore1FL
(21,164 posts)Doesn't sound all that bad,
7962
(11,841 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)whathehell
(29,102 posts)HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)Joe Lieberturd had no business being on a presidential ticket. AT all.
Talk about giving the "Both Parties are the Same" crowd fuel.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)I think thise are making life better for people.
And if the 'angry left', by which i presume you mean 'progressive liberals' like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders can change the discussion, we can then change policy.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I don't consider Warren and Sanders to actually be part of the "angry left." Both of them, for example have said that they like and respect Hillary Clinton, something that the angry left doesn't do. The "angry left" are the people who are constantly bashing people like Obama and Clinton, totally ignoring the huge list of accomplishments the Democratic party has made in the last 8 years (in contrast to the disastrous 8 years before it).
I'm sure you've seen some around.
whathehell
(29,102 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)for people like Obama and Hillary. That's who I'm talking about. Bloggers, noisemakers, etc.
whathehell
(29,102 posts)imo, that is why they are Bernie backers.
From a political standpoint, they don't think they deserve as much respect, and I tend to agree with them.
0rganism
(23,984 posts)i think you may have a significant double standard going here
tularetom
(23,664 posts)OK then.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)There's a trend to pretend that the parties are the same, bash people like Obama and Clinton for every misstep, and at the same time ignore all the good things that Democrats have accomplished. And in the case of Obama, the list of accomplishments is impressive, and would be more so if not for GOP opposition.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Xipe Totec
(43,892 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Or is that still on the "to do" list?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)non-progressive.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)But notwithstanding that:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22end+capitalism%22&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&gws_rd=ssl
johnp3907
(3,734 posts)"Fool" ignore.
Good riddance.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Will Ralph Nader become Al Gore's worst nightmare?
Of more immediate interest, at least to Al Gore, are Nader's respectable poll numbers: 7 to 10 percent in California as of June, 6 percent nationally. If California tips Green enough, Bush could win the state and the whole damn election.
Which, Nader confided to Outside in June, wouldn't be so bad. When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: "Bush."
http://www.outsideonline.com/1837851/ralph-nader-2000-campaign-interview
Nader flew back and forth between California and Florida, finally spending the most of the last few weeks in Florida, and fulfilling his goal of a Bush Presidency.
Mission Accomplished! Eight years of Bush. Thirty years of a right-wing SCOTUS. Citizens United. Massive illegal redistricting. Gun insanity. Permanent state of war. Etc, etc, etc...
DanTex
(20,709 posts)With a Democrat in the White House, accumulating historic progressive accomplishments, the whining just sounds whiny.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)that we almost didn't see. Just barely sidestepped the thing. You guys are just so damned clever! What will us Progressives do? How will we ever defeat that incomparable wit and cunning? Oh, woah is me. LOL!
Rex
(65,616 posts)Otherwise I can see no real good reason to push the canard 'Gore lost' anymore in 2015. Simple desperation imo. They cannot stand it that we are not allowed to fight in GD anymore, it eats them up.
People that re-write history must need something that they cannot obtain on their own.
spanone
(135,920 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)progressoid
(50,011 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)for Bush than leftists voted for Nader, but we so very rarely hear about that.
Democrats for Nixon. Not leftists.
Democrats for Reagan. Not leftists.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Bush would never have become president.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)The Supreme Court was the MVP, but Nader was a very valuable member of the team.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Gore rightfully won the popular and electoral votes.
Nader's actions, however much you dislike them, were legal. When you blame him, you support Bush.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Apparently no one bothered to do any research either.
I seem to recall Choice point, butterfly ballots, Katherine Harris, Scrub lists, massive disenfranchisement leading up to the "President Select" by the supreme court. (and holy irony batman, has anyone considered the insane conservative rationale for the Bush v. Gore compared to the dissensions against the recent decisions in favor of gay marriage)
Is there something about research that scares of the various "hippie-punchers" on this board?
I guess to those folk it is easier just to assume that all lefties voted for Nader and then hang that damned albatross around our neck rather than to accept any blame at all.
And how is this not a post about the primary BTW? It really has all the earmarks of someone trying to anger progressives. I thought the point of creating a Primary GD place was to end this sort of stupid rancor.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)then he wouldn't have lost more registered Democrat votes to Bush than to Nader. Only about 10x as many as registered Democrats that voted for Nader.
You wanna complain about Democrats voting for the wrong candidate, but you're being awfully selective about which ones outrage you.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)are happy to call Hillary and Obama and folks who support them corporatists?
You realize that anyone can register as anything, right? You can register as a Republican if you feel like it. Since you support Bernie, if you did that would that be evidence that "Republicans support Bernie". That is as valid as the point you just tried to make.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Which was registered Democrats voting for Nader.
You mean like a crazy liberal Nader voter registering as a Democrat?! Golly, that almost makes the poster's metric meaningless.
Would you prefer that argument to "10x as many voted for Bush, and if Gore only took 10% of those he would have clearly won"?
Gore1FL
(21,164 posts)No use blaming the victims.
sketchy
(458 posts)GeorgeGist
(25,326 posts)Trash thread.
demmiblue
(36,911 posts)demmiblue
(36,911 posts)Why do you want to cause division?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I'm not "causing" division I'm calling attention to it.
demmiblue
(36,911 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)demmiblue
(36,911 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)lame54
(35,343 posts)That just increases the stink
DanTex
(20,709 posts)rec the Obama- and Democrat-bashing threads.
Personally, I think it is entirely appropriate to take issue with people who bash the most progressively consequential president since LBJ or possibly FDR, while at the same time contributing nothing.
lame54
(35,343 posts)Instead of the lie that you decided to go with
DanTex
(20,709 posts)direction of the nation was in 2000, when (along with other factors), Nader tipped the scales for Bush.
lame54
(35,343 posts)About Nader
Nader didn't lose that election for Gore
Nader ran legally and legally earned his votes
there was so many illegal aspects to that election that cost Gore votes
plus the shitty campaign he ran
plus his choosing lieberman
plus his censorship loving wife
Gore lost by 536 votes - votes that would have been found in the state-wide recount had it been allowed to continue
Votes that would have been cast had Choicepoint not purged over 100,000 voters from the rolls
Votes (6000) that would have gone to Gore and not Buchanan (Jewish votes for Buchanan?) if it were not for the ridiculously confusing butterfly ballots
Way too many factors involved to scapegoat Nader
Gore1FL
(21,164 posts)If we are going to arbitrarily label things and assess blame, then let's label the moderates for losing in 72, 80, 84, 88, and 04.
I wonder if Gore had a decent VP candidate instead of his attempts to look moderate, what the outcome would have been. Let's add 00 to the list to blame moderates for on that basis.
What a great and enlightening thread!!
G_j
(40,372 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)stripped the middle class of their wealth. You are against feeding the poor, helping our seniors and call it political reality.
Response to rhett o rick (Reply #171)
rhett o rick This message was self-deleted by its author.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)progressives, get them angry, post something that is (barely) hide-worthy and hope that their friends will be picked for the jury. The end game is, at the very least, get you on a time-out or, preferably, get you banned. (See what they did to cali.) Don't engage them in their topic of choice.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)The OP is functioning in the role of a Republican when he posts things like this. The difference, as you've pointed out, is that if the OP were a Republican, we could reply with something like, "say it again, you misbegotten worthless subhuman piece of dogshit troublemaking fuckstain". But of course, Dan here isn't a Republican so we wouldn't say things like that to him. Still, it would be nice if he would skip these sorts of posts in the future.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)The responses from the usual suspects is nothing less than priceless.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026928453
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I'm glad you're back. You've already made improvements to the place.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)I love the, "Cool story, bro" responses. LOL!
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)They're both overused by people who want to say something but lack the vocabulary to do so.
frylock
(34,825 posts)On Wed Jul 1, 2015, 09:59 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
You're exactly right. What a pathetic hobby the OP has.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6928532
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Passive aggressive, backhanded nasty insults directed at the OP. If you disagree, say so, just save the nastiness.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jul 1, 2015, 10:16 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Still a personal attack
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Funny I knew exactly who the OP author was before I even looked.
Not hide worthy
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: It is a backhanded personal attack but the entire thread is worthless and the OP is nothing but flamebait.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Post is spot on. Fuck the OP's bullshit premise. Let it stand.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Get over it.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I'll work on being nicer to hypothetical Republicans in the future.
Rex
(65,616 posts)That one does it on a regular basis and so do his buddies in this thread supporting him. It is so obvious it should hurt, but I don't think they have the IQ to notice.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)if the left handed Obama or any other Democrat a Congress, we would see progress. If will take every vote. Any of our candidates and our current President deserve support. Put your ideas on the table, but win the election!
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Sancho
(9,070 posts)here in Florida, the turn out has been awful, so we have not sent Democrats to the Senate or House. We lost Grayson and got him back. We had a split when Crist ran as an independent so the result was Rubio. If the Democrats had put a single candidate forward we could have won that one. In the last election, less than 40% voted.
It's very frustrating. I see a little action at rallies before elections, but most people are not engaged.
Compared to the days of the late 60's and early 70's, the country is not very politically active.
Frances
(8,547 posts)I would call them enablers
The Nader voters enabled the Supreme Court to steal the election
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)And omniscient? And omnipotent? Who knew?
Efilroft Sul
(3,586 posts) It was persistence from the "far left" that led to the Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage
It was pressure from the "far left" that made the president go large on overtime pay rules yesterday
It was outcry from the "far left" after a church shooting that led to public disdain for racists and their symbols
It was a populist message from a "far left" senator that is leading to a growing awareness about income inequality
Your criticism of the "far left" is duly noted.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Trash thread.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)truebrit71
(20,805 posts)What else have 'far-left' 'hippie-punching' haters accomplished recently....
My goodness my ignore list is filling up fast....
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)lame54
(35,343 posts)i didn't know the far left ran Choicepoint or designed the butterfly ballot
or controlled the supreme court that shut down the state-wide recount
Was catherine Harris a member of the far left?
I think that you need to educate yourself before throwing such bombs
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)The SC fucked us not the american electorate.
Yeah please oh please give me a republican in democrat's clothing like both of the Clintons. That is what America needs more of. Compromise. NAFTA and DOMA. Hello of a fucking legacy and I hear that now, now she supports gay marriage. Since, like last Friday or so.
No thanks.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)ananda
(28,891 posts)..
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Theres no room for that in left-bashing!!
kentuck
(111,111 posts)Many would disagree with that.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)H2O Man
(73,668 posts)HFRN
(1,469 posts)not
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)If the party wants the votes of the the Left, quit whining, and run to the left.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)It has been made ABUNDANTLY clear to me by HRC supporters that my fringey vote is not required, but if they lose it will be my fault, not the fault of their oligarch approved candidate.
City Lights
(25,171 posts)leftstreet
(36,118 posts)At least some of you are good for a nice morning belly laugh.
Good lord.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Like it is wrong to want Wall Street criminals prosecuted long with war criminals. Instead they are free to rape, pillage and murder again.
If Al Gore version 2002 had run instead of the Al Gore version 2000, Gore would have won in a land side.
That aside, it seems to me that Obvious Troll is obvious.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)ellie50
(31 posts)Thats how elections work. To blame Nader for the Gore-Lieberman train wreck that allowed the Bush regime to throw the election was Gore-Lieberman's fault, not Nerders.
OP seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the electoral process, with a heavy side order of whine and sour grapes..
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)acknowledged their differences, but emphasized that Gore would be a better president than Bush, and urged his supporters to vote for Gore. How history would have been different, and how much more respect I and many others would have had for Nader, would he have chosen this course.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)And influence over Gore's policies. Instead we got idiot-boy and Iraq and torture.
MattSh
(3,714 posts)I thought that's how a "democracy" worked. Strange how some people have a problem with that.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)they've gone full circle and are actually RIGHT.
Yup, it serves the Right very well, to mock and disenfranchise possible voters for the candidate that they fear the most in the upcoming elections....and that's not Bernie.
Bernie is highly unllikely to win a General Election against a Republican, so it behoves the Right (or far left pretenders) to make the Herculean effort to get Bernie through the Primaries. I've read on several RW sites that where there are open Primaries, they will vote for Bernie as a fulfillment of that strategy.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)No one here is "so far left they've gone full circle and are actually RIGHT."
That is a statement that make no sense and is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what the 'left' and 'right' are.
What does serve the right well is the rightward shift economically by the Democratic Party. It is the centrists in the party that are giving the GOP what they want, not 'leftists' that have somehow magically morphed into the tea party.
You have no way of knowing if Bernie could win in the general or not. A 6 year old could beat the GOP field right now, so your argument is a strawman. Any Democrat that runs can beat the GOP if their campaign doesn't cave to the 3rd Way-ers, Wall Street, and authoritarians.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)pretending to be far left radicals...one can only guess at their agenda, but given the ever increasing tombstoning, I don't think it's far of the mark to assume the agenda I have delineated in my post above.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)What does that have to do with your post?
Posers are wingnuts...well...posing
You were talking about DUers 'so far left they were right.'
That is nonsensical as I pointed out.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)You would have understood....since you clear understood they same premise on the follow up post. Of course that is assuming you weren't so hell bent on slamming someone instead.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Projection imo. A few here probably also post over on Stormfront and FR and marvel at how they THINK they have us all fooled here. When the truth is so obvious (they are horrible at hiding their intention with words) only they being the dullards they are don't see it.
I just laugh and laugh at the poor myopic fools and their belief in some victory that will never happen because nobody was fooled to begin with.
yardwork
(61,748 posts)I see how you defined "far left" as synonymous with Nader. That's a false premise, making your entire argument false.
mopinko
(70,301 posts)65,000 people removed from the roles.
thousands more refused at the polls.
you give nader waaaaaay too much credit.
and yes, gore won. a full state recount showed who the rightful winner was.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)annabanana
(52,791 posts)I remember
HFRN
(1,469 posts)sure, everything was in the process of falling apart, but at the time of the election, the 1993-2000 record looked spectacular
had Gore embraced the record, and simply pointed out the obvious, that it wasn't him with Monica, he would have won
the fact is, the country DID want 'more of the same' (they didnt know it was falling apart yet)
all Gore had to do was say they'd get it, and he would have won
merrily
(45,251 posts)If so, your subject line and the rest of your post could not be more clueless.
No, I take that back. It could, but it would take conscious effort. Then again, conscious effort might be inconsistent with cluelessness.
Never mind.
I was correct the first time.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)the vote, added to the creation of ballots designed to confuse voters, aided by by Popi Bush's CIA ties had far more an impact on that vote than Nader.
I don't support Sanders, or anyone, at this time.
But the theft of the election in 2000 was a Rightwing Republican coupe not the left.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)It would be foolish to even try and respond to such utter nonsense.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Obama To Expand Overtime Pay to Nearly 5 Million Workers
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/obama-raise-overtime-pay-nearly-5-million-workers-n384186
JEB
(4,748 posts)HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts). . . . . all evidence from all parties pretty much DOES point to the fact that, come hell or high water, Bewsh was going to be president whether we liked it or not.
One only needs to look at the way our purchased Fourth Estate desperately and suspiciously behaved throughout the election and the very illegal (but strangely unprosecuted) "Brooks Brothers Riot", among many, MANY other things.
I think if there were an order of actors/entites that doomed Al Gore, mine would be . . .
Joe Lieberturd
Katherine Harris
Sandra Day O'Connor
Jeb Bewsh
John Prescott Ellis
Fox News
Jack Welch
. . . . and somewhere well below them would be Ralph Nader.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)the right wing of the Democratic Party accomplished recently?
Oh yeah, and wound 2,000,000+ and displace (either internally or externally) another 5,000,000+.
Way to go, Turd Way.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)They are talking every day about issues that matter to all of us. Overall, this country likes a lot of what they have to say. The ideas were deionized, often unchecked, for decades by the right. They refused to back down. No matter how much they were made out to be evil, they just kept going. Over decades, that rhetoric begins to resonate.
The far left, as we think of them here and as I believe you to be addressing, aren't all that far left in the big scheme of things. That is a product of our upbringing under the constitution and what we are taught at a young age. The far left is active and relentless. That in itself is huge. The ACA and other excellent pieces of legislation are a direct result of the decades of work by the far left. I give similar praise to Clinton on that matter. No, she is not a part of the far left. What she did was to make the conversation more comfortable by being very public in her words with respect to health care.
So many excellent accomplishments would not be possible without the far left. Start giving them the respect they deserve. If you don't appreciate the far left in this country then you are seriously missing something. Some assholes pissed you off on a website and they represent themselves as the far left. They hold no monopoly on that and you shouldn't act as if they do. That is what this seems to be about. Your feelings are hurt so you must lash out and malign people on our side.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Who are these far left monsters? I've been a democratic socialist for 35 years and never met one. I voted for Nader in 2000 because I used to be active in one of his organizations, met him and talked to him. I think most of these "far left" characters, even though I'm not sure they exist, voted for Obama. Both times.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)What have the New Democrats done for us lately?
corkhead
(6,119 posts)this flamebait doesn't deserve the time it would take to dignify it with a serious response
peace13
(11,076 posts)If you lived in Ohio you would know all about it!
4lbs
(6,866 posts)For about the last 100 years, every candidate that won the Presidency won his home state. Gore didn't. If he would have won Tennessee, he would have been POTUS, and we would be spared the hanging chads of Florida, and the 8 years of crap that followed.
Obama won Illinois both times
Bush Jr won Texas both times
Clinton won Arkansas both times
Bush Sr won Massachusetts
Reagan won California both times
Carter won Georgia
Nixon won California both times
LBJ won Texas
Kennedy won Massachusetts
Eisenhower won Texas both times
Truman won Missouri
FDR won New York all 4 times
and so on....
JHB
(37,163 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)Or did we never leave?
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)I hear ya, brother!
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,398 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Your concern trolling here is amazing, excellent title! I think you have this down to an artform.
Bravo! Skill like that deserves a hat tip!
A Hippie Bashing thread once every other day huh guys? Yeah I guess doing it daily (even under different usernames) would be too obvious now that they moved the fighting to GD-P.
Prism
(5,815 posts)It's almost like you don't want to pay attention.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Qutzupalotl
(14,340 posts)a debate they're doomed to lose. It's ridiculous to hear some of them sounding like Bernie Sanders when they've done nothing to help the little guy. Or to try to blame Obama for the rise in income inequality, when it really goes back to Reagan.
Iggo
(47,586 posts)Oh yeah.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)- deregulated financial markets, leading to the 2008 crash
- passed NAFTA, which caused hundreds of thousands of jobs to be lost and set the stage for sending jobs overseas later on
- enacted welfare reform, which punishes poor people who can't find a job
- passed the Telecommunications act of 1996, which deregulated the media and allowed Clear Channel and Cumulus to grow incredibly and consequently allowed right wing radio to become big in America (and thus propagandize Americans.)
- legitimized conservative economics among Democrats, was the champion for corporatizing the Democratic Party
- passed DOMA, sided against marriage equality
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)I admit that I too am not quite there yet.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Marriage equality was once "the far left wanting a pony". Now it's the law of the land.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026928615
bobalew
(323 posts)You have gorged yourself on the Cake of Skewed politics so much that the Old Democratic liberals are now the "Far left" You have NO IDEA what 'FAR Left " is...
Zorra
(27,670 posts)The "Far Left"!
bowens43
(16,064 posts)Response to DanTex (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Rex
(65,616 posts)They really came out of the woodworks after it was apparent Centrists had fucked up the Nov elections as hard as they could. They had to come here and shout a lot in order for people to not notice.
Haha...jokes on them, everyone noticed!
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Nader did not cause the 2000 loss, it was the SCOTUS that gave shrub the win.
And who is the "far left" that you hate so much? Communists? Socialists? Liberals?
Do tell, oh wise one....
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Is that ~10,000 number for just one rally starting to sink in?
The far left pulls the discussion in that direction. If it were not for the far left than Pres. Obama would never have had enough support to accomplish what he has.
Far left is where we start to negotiate from. Starting from the center is just stupid.
Vinca
(50,323 posts)The Supreme Court stopped the counting of votes and anointed him. If all of the votes had been counted, Gore would have won.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I think the final vote count was a sampling, though. In any event, I've changed my statement to "arguably" or something that is less of a flat statement than I used to post .
But, you're correct. It is insulting. If Gore lost, he lost for many reasons related to his campaign; and, if he lost Florida, it was also for many reasons, ranging from the confusing ballots and hanging chads, to the fact that so many RW Democrats voted for Bush. Then again, punching left seems to be the favorite pastime of centrists.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)It's been that way for about seven years now.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)fundamental policy differences from a republican's. In those debates Gore was Mr. Me too when bush spoke.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)And other silly-ass questions.
Guy Whitey Corngood
(26,509 posts)Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)can we just stop this?
What the hell do YOU hope to accomplish by continuing to alienate and name-call a significant portion of the party you're claiming to represent?
Oh look! A mouse trap I'm supposed to stick my finger into!
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)we should all go out and punch some hippies now.
uppityperson
(115,681 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)First, you missed the part about 5-4.
You also forgot these right wing assholes.
Speaking of pointing fingers, the GOP wasn't in control of either the House or Senate from 2008-2010. What did the centrists and conservative Democrats do then? Nothing, apart from expend the "political capital" on debating social issues instead of implementing new programs and raising rich turds' taxes. Which is just what the conservative Republicans liked.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)So you're right, that was probably a mistake.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Gore1FL
(21,164 posts)What did I do to throw the election to Bush, exactly?
reflection
(6,286 posts)If they adopt the centrist positions, then they're not "far left" anymore. It sounds as if your complaint against them is that they're not weather vanes spinning with the political winds.
I think the "far left" is a hell of a lot more accommodating than the "far right," that's for sure.
I disagree they threw the election to Bush anyway. Votes are earned. You want the votes of the "far left," go get them. If your message resonates, you'll peel them off.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)for all the old farts to die.
Kudos to Obama.
Now let's elect Hillary and get single payer health care.
GoneOffShore
(17,342 posts)She'll be more than happy to propose more of the same old same old.
That way her pension will be secure.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)back in the early 90s for single payer. It's one of the reason Republicans hate her so much.
I can see her supporting a law of medicare for all if any portion of the ACA is ever struck down.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)and the reason fascists are able to destroy democracy.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)let a progressive win the nomination.
This is very simple logic. If Sen Sanders wins the nomination, most agree that they would support him in the general. The same is not the case for HRC. So why would some be so anxious to nominate someone that the whole party isn't happy with?
The answer is that the conservative Democrats would rather see HRC lose than see Sen Sanders win.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)It is always amazing to me how those who voted for Nader narcissist still refuse to own the consequences of their decision.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)tularetom
(23,664 posts)Are you on social security? Medicare? Do you get paid sick leave where you work?
You can thank the "far left" for all of this.
You are either for the people or you are against them. If you support the actions of Democrats who act like republicans you are against them.
The "far left" didn't stop Obama from doing more about wealth inequality here in America, he stopped himself.
When he finally channeled his inner LBJ and twisted a few arms on Capital Hill, it was to pass a regressive "trade agreement" that will eventually result in many more middle class jobs leaving the country.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)"both parties are the same corporate sellouts" meme that is still so popular. Who can you thank for medicare, SS, sick leave? You can thank Democrats. You can also thank Democrats, specifically Obama, for ACA, gay marriage, the continued existence of the auto industry, the fact that we're not in a depression right now, etc.
And the people who stopped Obama from doing more about wealth inequality are the Republicans. Who blocked all his proposals for jobs, minimum wage, etc? The GOP.
And those are the people that the far left helps get elected. Sometimes directly, as with Nader, and sometimes indirectly, by bashing Democrats who are actually accomplishing things so as to lower voter turnout.
progressoid
(50,011 posts)bullwinkle428
(20,631 posts)that happens to be a topic you've posted on with relative frequency and enthusiasm lately. I guess that makes the majority of Democrats in Congress "far left" as well.
Why are you opposed to most of the Congressional Democrats?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)There are solid reasons to be opposed to it. For example ISDS, intellectual property monopolies, enforceability of labor and environmental standards.
What I think is absurd is dismissing everything progressive that Obama has accomplished and labeling him a conservative/corporatist because of this one issue.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)LOfuckingL
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I basically agree with Krugman about TPP. It's not the end of the world like some people think. It's also not the great progressive trade agreement that Obama claims. The harms probably slightly outweigh the benefits.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)bullwinkle428
(20,631 posts)topic, now that all of its elements will be brought to light, out of the cloak of secrecy. My guess is that it will look even worse than predicted, but hopefully, there will be enough time for the American public to digest it and weigh in on it.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)Which is far more accomplished than any centrist in Texas, or other parts of the South. Remember Davis, Grimes, and Nunn. Ooops!
Nader is in a different category. He ran third party. He was a successful left activists that got a lot of good consumer legislation passed, particularly in the area of automobile safety.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Nader was a successful activist, yes, but unfortunately throwing the 2000 election was his crowning achievement. Had he remained an activist rather than becoming a political tool of the GOP, his legacy would be very different, and so would the nation.
BTW I'm a liberal, and I live in New York.
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)so I don't think history would have been that different. Gore was a centrist and had neocon Lieberman running has his vp. What would have been differnent is the antiwar backlash would have led to the election of a republican in 2004 or 08, instead of Obama.
I voted for Gore in 2000, but I blame Gore for his own loss, not Nader. I don't think the dems are owed votes for nuthin.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Al Qaeda and the terrorism threat to begin with.
But even with 9-11, I can't imagine the Gore administration manufacturing false evidence to attack a country that had nothing to do with 9-11.
I agree that the Dems aren't owed votes. People can vote for the GOP if they want. But people who don't vote for Dems are hurting the country, and the world.
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)Obama has ignored Al Qaeda's involvement in the Syrian and Libyan opposition, so why have confidence in Gore? Gore chose neocon Joe Lieberman as his vp and had Martin Peretz as his foreign policy adviser. Ignoring the DLC Democrats complicity in the Iraq war is pure wishful thinking. The people who manufactured evidence in the state department under Bush were neocons. Neocons still dominate the state department. Look at Victoria Nuland, wife of PNAC Robert Kagan. All democratic neocons aka Scoop Jackson Democrats were members of the DLC and most were members Blue Dogs. Gore fit both categories. Obama and his mentor Joe Lieberman fit one.
Ignoring Saudi funded threats has a long bipartisan tradition going back to the first Afghan war, when we bankrolled the Al Qaeda linked factions of the Mujahadeen, under Jimmy Carter. That was where bin Laden learned to shoot and handle explosives.
I think your opinion is uninformed.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)part of the problem.
Obama didn't ignore Al Qaeda as a direct threat to the US, the way Bush did. It's well documented that Bush didn't take Al Qaeda seriously until 9-11. Bin Laden was a big target for Clinton, then when Bush got into office the focus was supposed to be Russia rather than terrorism.
And I think it's absurd to think that a Gore administration would have gone to the lengths to manufacture evidence for a war that was irrelevant to 9-11. This is the same kind of "both sides are the same" nonsense. Sure, Dems were complicit, in that they voted for the war, but voting for it and manufacturing it are entirely different things.
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. If people don't trust Gore, that is Gore's problem. His performance should hardly inspire the confidence of the antiwar movement. There was evidence Bush was lying long before Hersh wrote the stove piping article. Hanz Blitz said there was no evidence for WMD, but the DLCers chose to trust Bush over the UN Inspector. Common sense was against it too. The secular Bathists of Iraq were no friend of Al Qaeda. The biggest protests against the Iraq war happened before the DLCers voted yes on the IWR. Pelosi called them a "focus group."
Let's just ignore the fact that Obama's supporters are now calling Hersh a conspiracy theorists for discrediting them on the claim that Syria used chemical weapons. Hersch found evidence it was actually the Al Qaeda linked Syian opposition, so now Hersch is enemy number 1 just like he was under the Bush administration.
merrily
(45,251 posts)never get tired of repeating the same myths.
cannabis_flower
(3,769 posts)well documented in Greg Palast's book, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy". What threw the election to Bush was the systematic disenfranchisement of thousands of voters in Florida and the bad judgement of the Supreme Court of the United States. You can't blame that on the far left.
DFW
(54,478 posts)To me, it is a very nebulous term, used more for convenience in an argument than for anything else, exactly like "corporatist." They're just like how Republicans use "libbruls." Boo, did I scare ya?
I prefer specifics, and have no use for either term.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)I think it's great many on the left want to change the system, the nation, the economy, etc. However, barring a violent revolution, it will have to take place within the legal confines of our democratic system. That takes changing hearts and minds and getting people to vote consistently every election for progressive causes.
Ideals are fine. Just don't lose sight of unpleasant realities that must be transformed. All the best to you and your lovely family!
DFW
(54,478 posts)In 3 weeks, we'll all be under the same roof, something that rarely happens any more these days. Even my brother is coming up from his ("somewhere in northern Virginia" to be with us for a while. It's gonna be great!
I think "unrealistic" is relative, too, for no other reason that no one thinks THEIR political stance is unrealistic--only everyone else's!
But you're right about sitting an election out. All you do is watch everyone else dance, and grumble, asking yourself why you're not.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Not just as a concept but also because it is being made out of trees.
They think we should all be subsistence farmers and abandon technology en masse, they have.
That we should all walk and ride bikes and leave our cars behind, today, they have.
That we should abandon national political movements because they are a waste of time and energy, they have.
Those are a few of the folks that spring to my mind when I hear far left.
I'm not that far from far left myself, but I'm not that far, yet.
Victor_c3
(3,557 posts)I grew up in a center-right leaning household and my politics were very skewed by my upbringing and nievete of my young and unworldly 20-year-old thinking. I voted for bush which I flat out admit was a huge mistake. Fortunately I voted in New York State so my vote didn't really matter. It's a solidly left state and Gore carried that state in 2000.
I never thought that a single president could be so destructive like bush was. I've more than paid the price for my initial support for bush and the republicans. Not to get into my life story too much, but I've been suffering from very severe PTSD since I returned from Iraq in 2005. I don't know what I was thinking, but I volunteered and ended up being an infantry platoon leader for 13 months and I participated in more than my share of combat. My life has been spiraling downward in slow motion for years while the likes of bush aren't the least bit sorry for the carnage they unleashed on Iraq and he gets to enjoy painting shirty pictures.
DFW
(54,478 posts)Just because you didn't lose your legs doesn't mean you came back uninjured. There's no pill or operation that cures PTSD. I'm sorry it had to be something of that nature that brought you here. I'm sure there are times you wish you were a naive unscathed Republican again instead of a stressed out, aware (but at what price?) Democrat. I'm glad you're with us now, but not thrilled at the price you had to pay to get here.
Initech
(100,129 posts)SCOTUS throwing out the popular vote and installing Bush in office via a 5-4 decision is considering "throwing the election"?