If the Democrats ever put a real progressive up for president could they win?

[AnonymityX1000]

Don't you get tired of this comparison to the military budget?

There these people called republicans. They exist.

Stop blaming democrats for this.

Obama busted his ass and still came up short.

Hillary was advocating for universal healthcare before you were born in 1993.

Just do some fukking research.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...Health-Care-in-93-and-94-Against-the-Clintons

We can totally blame Dems for the military budget. The majority of them voted for the latest budget increase.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/18/sen...-for-steep-increase-in-military-spending.html

The Senate passed a roughly $700 billion National Defense Authorization Act on Monday but failed to include an amendment that would have eliminated the automatic spending cuts under the controversial sequester mechanism.

The NDAA, which sets forth the Pentagon's budget and major programs for the next fiscal year, does authorize an additional $8.5 billion for the Missile Defense Agency to strengthen homeland, regional and space missile defense. That authorization is $630 million above the Trump administration's request.

The final vote was 89 to eight. It required a simple majority to pass the Senate.

The 2018 national defense bill also authorizes just over $141 billion for military personnel costs, including costs of pay, bonuses, benefits and moving expenses. It provides a 2.1 percent increase in pay for troops.

The legislation also includes money to increase troop numbers above the White House's request, adding thousands of new members to the Army and Marine Corps as well as boosting reserve totals.


Also in the final version for the defense bill is a provision that bars the Department of Defense from using security software products from Russian-based Kaspersky Labs.

In all, more than 300 amendments were proposed for the Senate's NDAA.

The House passed its version of the 2018 defense authorization bill (or H.R. 2810) in July, so Monday's passage means the House-Senate conference committee will need to resolve differences before sending the legislation to President Donald Trump.

The final Senate version of the 1,215-page bill includes a base budget of $640 billion and another $60 billion for the so-called Overseas Contingency Operations war funding, which includes money for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and other locations.

One of those who voted against the NDAA was Tennessee Republican Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a member of the Senate Budget Committee. He released a statement saying he voted against it because the bill "exceeds the current budget caps by nearly $83 billion." Corker also was critical of the Overseas Contingency Operations funds, which he said have "been repeatedly abused to fund normal operations at the Departments of Defense and State in order to avoid exceeding statutory spending caps."

However, the Senate failed to vote on repealing the controversial sequestration in Monday's session due to a lack of quorum. Some Republicans charged it was hampered by deal making Democrats plan to use later on the overall budget.

"Whenever a Democratic senator says they are worried about the state of our military, that they are horrified at the kind of cuts that we're making, that they can't sleep at night because of what we're doing to troops in the field — don't believe them," Republican Sen. Tom Cottonof Arkansas said Monday on the Senate floor when there was an insufficient quorum to take up the sequestration repeal measure he proposed.

Added Cotton, "My amendment was the last best chance in years to stop this bust-and-boom cycle of budgeting. But what do Democrats do — they threw it away."

Also excluded from the Senate's NDAA was an amendment that would have slowed Trump's ban on transgenders serving in the military. An amendment with "Buy America" provisions also wasn't included in the final defense bill and a measure that would have restricted defense spending on medical research also wasn't in the final version of the legislation.

And here I thought Trump was a maniac who couldn't be trusted and is unfit for office.
Makes sense to give him MORE money for war.
No Dem even took the time to act outraged over this in the media. lol

 

[DEAD7]

without congress isnt it pointless to elect a dem? kinda.. but not really. if you have an all red congress(in theory..not technically all red but as is today or during obama's time). You will at best be able to keep things as they currently are with a few baby tweaks in the right direction. But at least everything wont get worse.

 

[Geek Nasty]

Yes, Bernie was a late starter with no money and still pushed Hillary after she used every trick in teh book to kneecap other campaigns. Elizabeth Warren will be the first female President when she decides to run.

 

[afterlife2009]

in 2 years "stop the purity tests, vote for mark warren/howard schultz in 2020 or you're personally responsible for another 4 years of trump"

 

[El Bombi]

Why doesn't progressives leave the Democratic party and make their own party.


Why keep bytching about a party and not start your own.

 

[DEAD7]

Progressives are just embarrassed democrats.

 

[wtfyomom]

if bernie runs in 2020 he will win in a landslide and yes i agree the dems dont want a progressive cause theyre sell outs too, they agree with war, for prifit insurance companies, big pharma, bailing out wall street and deregulating every time. they arent even THAT far off on tax cuts for the rich, obama made 96 percent of bushs tax cuts permanent. the thing is. the dems now cant call out trump on his bullshyt cause they also beleive in it, so the only thing they can focus on is bullshyt like russia and stormy daniels. but non partisan democrats dont care about that stuff. where as bernie can actually say, youre a sell out and trump has no answer like he did with hilary, cause bernie doesnt have a record of being a sell out.

dont think just cause trump sucks that automatically a dem will will in 2020. look what happened with bush jr, the dems ran kerry and lost even though bish jr was complete trash, honestly the dems were in a sense lucky that obama was so charismatic, it kind of superseded their deficient strategy. not to mention obama ran the first time as if we was gonna be more progressive but then he wasnt cause who funded his campaign, corporate pacs, wall street etc.

but im awaiting the negs from all the paritsan dems here that are just as delusional about this shyt as they were in 2016. keep going with the same bullshyt strategy. also there is smthtg to be said about having a bernie or a progressive. its called the bully pulpit for a reason. nobody is calling out these sell outs right now so theres no risk of them losing their jobs, therefore theyll keep selling out. dems will prob run biden or cory booker or some other sell out in 2020 and it will be a toss up for who wins. dems are basically paid to lose though.

 

[wtfyomom]

Republicans for 6 years ran on a message of "I hate Obama vote for me". It worked.

Why can't Democrats do the same with Trump? That's what I find so hypocritical with this country.

Republicans get away with almost everything. Democrats always have to kowtow to conservative & Republican voters. SMH.

Also, Democratic candidates all across the country have run campaigns that is not just anti-Trump. They have run on Medicare for All, renergizing unions, spending more money towards public education and infrastructure, comprehensive immigration reform, raising the minimum wage, proper gun control laws, etc.

What more do people want? God damn.

the dems that have ran on those issues are usually the oens winning but it isnt all dems. i agree the dems are bytches, there isnt a reason why they have to kowtow they just do. repubs be finding bullshyt rules and stipulations to get their looting done while the dems sit there and do nothing. how did you let a supreme court pick get stolen?? theyre paid to lose thats why they dont do or say shyt.

 

[Cynic]

The country just elected a fukking Nazi and half of the country jerk themselves to sleep fantasizing about Ayn Rand’s teachings. Would love to see the environment that breeds this progressive base.

A Nazi who lets Isrealis dictate his foreign policy ?

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

dems will prob run biden or cory booker

a five hundred year old creep or a gay black man

fukk it, let's run bob mueller

 

[wtfyomom]

A Nazi who lets Isrealis dictate his foreign policy ?

the trump situation with isreal is weird, in one sense hes more subservient to isreal than past us presidents, which is saying a lot cause theyve all been isreals bytch, on the other hand trumps base is largely anti semetic, so he cant really denounce them, in charoltesville they were chanting "jew will not replace us" but yet they were "fine people on both sides" even the pastor that gave the speech at the Jerusalem embassy has made anti jewish remarks in the past but it doesnt matter, the relgious right also wants the embassy there because thats how armageddon will happen in their minds

 

[wtfyomom]

The country just elected a fukking Nazi and half of the country jerk themselves to sleep fantasizing about Ayn Rand’s teachings. Would love to see the environment that breeds this progressive base.

the country according to polls is all over 50 percent when it comes to major progressive issues. universal healthcare, free college, etc but the dems dont offer that, then bernie offers it and hes by far the most popular politician in the country. but no he cant win

 

[storyteller]

I guess I dont agree that the definitions are outdated. The definitions deal with the underlying philosophy, whereas the zeitgeist is schizophrenic and devoid of philosophical underpinnings. If you understand that philosophy it's easier to swallow policies that might not agree with the moral high ground. So called "Real Progressives" criticizing Hillary for being a Capitalist is a good example of the disconnect here. Progressive Liberalism is still founded in Free Market theory. It just is. If you are anti-Capitalist you aren't a Progressive, regardless of what the zeitgeist says. Even the Nordic Model is still Capitalist, just on the more extreme spectrum of Progressivism. They're not Socialist.

What I mean when I say the definitions are outdated is that you can't apply Democratic Socialist's historical context to Bernie imo. He pretty clearly falls into Social Democrat (Nordic categorization and most of his supporters in my experience have fallen closer to that end of the spectrum) though the DSA is supposedly killing it in membership, but I don't communicate with enough of 'em to get a great feel for their principles from an insider perspective. Virtually everyone is proposing policy within the context that we are a capitalist society and they're all playing fast and loose with this terminology. I won't make assumptions about why that is, but I will say that if you ignore the zeitgeist and just pin them to a title, you're making assumptions that wouldn't hold after more exposure to those people's ideals. Socialist is still being thrown out as a boogeyman phrase and it's drowning out what imho actually matters...the policy proposals. My thing is, they can title it what they want as long as they're going help get the policies I support passed without pushing harmful ideals elsewhere. This is especially true because the policies I want are not supported by those in power, we need the numbers.

As an aside, I'm curious who you mean is critiquing Hillary purely for being a capitalist. In my experience, her criticism comes from a) taking advantage of the capitalist model that we're currently beholden to and b) not being willing to make what people see as necessary adjustments to capitalism (ie: you don't need to take over banks to regulate them and changing campaign finance laws doesn't need to be anti-capitalist in any way).

Agreed, and the Progressives should put effort into trying to campaign to those people rather than marching Beyonce and LeBron across the stage. My biggest critique of Clinton's campaign is that she ignored those people because they were morally deplorable. As difficult as it is to swallow, if you don't see those people as redeemable then you aren't a Progressive. If you see them as an enemy to be defeated then you aren't a Liberal, either.

I think Clinton's biggest failure was ignoring swaths of the base as well. There were a LOT of mistakes overall but that one stands out. I will say, that I don't think she ever really bought in to the current Progressive mindset. She was too incremental and at a time when Medicare-For-All is as essential to courting Progressive support as being pro-life is to courting Tea Party support; she attacked Bernie on that issue. I'd point to Cuomo for a comparison, his recent policy moves are a response to Nixon rather than a true move left. He's been dragged left by a threat. Definitely agree with you on the fact that you have embrace ALL to fit into these categories and that has become MUCH MORE challenging in a world where we can visibly see just disturbing levels of ignorance. But the goal needs to be to educate more, expose them to the reality and drag them out of their bubbles so that we don't get a rubber band effect when an Obama shows up (snaps back to an extreme like Trump).

 

[5n0man]

So did Hillary. Hillary had an extensive job training and placement program that was far more thorough than Trumps. She also had substantive plans for the improvement of healthcare and education. She was just less charismatic, and she was a woman, and she had to include minorities into her platform to win.

She had all those proposals but didnt visit any of states she needed to win, to talk to people about those plans.

You had Trump out here talking about drain the swamp and that people like Hillary allowed him and other billionaires to do what they wanted and even work in their benefit.

Then you have Hillary, who's practically ignoring the portion of the country she needed toit's part.

Alot of shady fukkery got Trump his win, but Hillary's lack of action played part.