The official progressive agenda thread

[DEAD7]

My bad I'm out.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

The democrats just don't have that initiative though; they're afraid of speaking their mind on what their vision for america is and as of right now will do anything to maintain the arm bar they're trying to lock in on the moderates. Now, things might be different by 2020, and you might be right about it coming sooner rather than later, but as of right now people aren't trying to hear that shyt just yet.

Wait for the WWII gen to die off a little more, then we might have something.

The people in the progressive caucus of the Democratic party generally do speak their mind and present a progressive vision though. And there's 71 of them...but only one in the Senate (Bernie Sanders).

But I don't necessarily agree about the people not trying to hear that shyt part...maybe they're just trying not to hear it in a certain way or by a certain people or group of people or party. I think if you showed most people the proposals say in that progressive caucus peoples' budget, and then showed them the proposals in the Ryan plan, and didn't tell them what was what and who said what, most people would choose the peoples' budget and I base that on polling on the issues. For whatever reason, there's a huge disconnect between peoples' beliefs and legislative outcomes.

We make fun of how dumb the tea partiers are and how unpopular they with the people, but they've managed to pack the House with their members and effectively sabotage and neuter a whole Democratic presidency. A lot of that is do to gerrymandering, and that's a key issue obviously. Maybe there needs to be more threat of primaries against Democrats from liberals.

But at the end of the day yeah, money in politics is the elephant in the room. Right-wingers are fighting with hurricane winds at their back whereas progressives are fighting into them.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

The people in the progressive caucus of the Democratic party generally do speak their mind and present a progressive vision though. And there's 71 of them...but only one in the Senate (Bernie Sanders).

But I don't necessarily agree about the people not trying to hear that shyt part...maybe they're just trying not to hear it in a certain way or by a certain people or group of people or party. I think if you showed most people the proposals say in that progressive caucus peoples' budget, and then showed them the proposals in the Ryan plan, and didn't tell them what was what and who said what, most people would choose the peoples' budget and I base that on polling on the issues. For whatever reason, there's a huge disconnect between peoples' beliefs and legislative outcomes.

We make fun of how dumb the tea partiers are and how unpopular they with the people, but they've managed to pack the House with their members and effectively sabotage and neuter a whole Democratic presidency. A lot of that is do to gerrymandering, and that's a key issue obviously. Maybe there needs to be more threat of primaries against Democrats from liberals.

But at the end of the day yeah, money in politics is the elephant in the room. Right-wingers are fighting with hurricane winds at their back whereas progressives are fighting into them.

I think there is a huge 'personality' deficit for progressive members of the legislation right now. Just all around boring people, and nobody with that element that is key for progressive success on a large scale; a clintonesque ability to simplify and present why progressive methods of doing things are either morally correct or logical. The Republicans basically do it with FUD, that won't work for liberals.

 

[Blackking]

My bad I'm out.

damn, ive never seen a fall back like this..



Anyway, progressives aren't taken seriously because some of these issues aren't top 2 on the minds of most Americans. We know that progressive isn't this caricature, but most Americans think of some fukk shyt when they envision what a typical progressive is.
Stats show most American's agree with these progressive causes..... But are more concerned with Economy and their own niche social issue.

The most out spoken people (as we can see) are the people who are against some of that shyt (immigration, gays, welfare, peace, environment, etc). The politicians that progressives champion aren't even liberal they are left leaning moderates -- and liberals are terrified of putting a real liberal in the progressive spot on the ticket (democrat ticket)....... and any 3rd party is a joke.

Economy is a toss up that goes back n forth on what is considered the best party for it. If you ask in random polls (I've done this) you might get people who agree with all of these issues...... but that shyt isn't affecting their voting. The personality of the person, the economy, and security are the issues.

believe it or not security is a issue. I have respect for the GOP because they will put that crazy person on the ticket and win. Dem's will never have a Bush. We will keep pretending with the Clintons and Obamas

 

[DEAD7]

damn, ive never seen a fall back like this..

Seems like a serious progressive pow-wow. I'll respect it... as much as i can.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

We've come out of the great recession and despite all the populist angst, there's even greater income inequality than there was before it and there doesn't seem to be any realistic solution coming out of the current political system.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

I honestly don't believe the average american believes in liberal economic policies at all. these dudes all think Reagan is some economic hero.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

I honestly don't believe the average american believes in liberal economic policies at all. these dudes all think Reagan is some economic hero.

Depends on what you call liberal. Most people want the rich paying more taxes, no Medicare and SS cuts, defense cuts, Wall Street regulated strongly, and a public option in healthcare.

My primary point is the country is to the left of what we're getting from Washington.

 

[No1]

America needs to abolish first past the post asap. I'm convinced it's at the heart of our issues. I just don't have the faith in the democrats that I used to, they don't have any reason to adhere to progressive ideology for real because they're so terrified of the other side. That "peoples budget" is like a democrat 40 year plan or something, I don't see much of that stuff being even on the table till 2020, and even then.

The funny thing is one of my friends works for a U.S. Senator actually was told by one of the high-level staff members that the stuff they're bringing up is definitely has no chance for another 40 years. As for abolishing the first past the post system, you'd have to be more explicit in that. Republican attempts to modify redistricting and to get rid of the winner take all votes in national elections would have made Romney president was receiving millions of votes less. There's a great Rolling Stones article on it right now. It's long though. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-republicans-rig-the-game-20131111

Republicans aren't finished in their campaign to rig the political system. The party has been seeking to carry over its built-in advantage in the House into a new edge in presidential elections. In a project with the explicit blessing of Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, a half-dozen Republican-dominated legislatures in states that swing blue in presidential elections have advanced proposals to abandon the winner-take-all standard in the Electoral College. These states would instead apportion electoral votes by the favored candidate of each congressional district – a method currently practiced by only two, small, homogenous states, Maine and Nebraska. Thanks to the GOP's gerrymandering, such a change would all but guarantee that a Democratic presidential candidate in a big, diverse state like Michigan would lose the split of electoral votes even if he or she won in a popular landslide.

"You'd see a massive shift of electoral votes," a senior Republican official who backed the proposal told the National Journal, emphasizing that the change would be much less work than persuading a majority of voters to back the GOP candidate: "There's no kind of . . . outreach," the official said, "that can grab us those electoral votes that quickly." In September, a Republican lawmaker introduced a bill to implement the scheme in the biggest swing-state prize in the land, Florida. Had it been in place in each of the states that have introduced the plan – including Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania – Mitt Romney would be president, despite receiving 5 million fewer votes than Obama.

I'm assuming you apportionment by popular vote.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

The funny thing is one of my friends works for a U.S. Senator actually was told by one of the high-level staff members that the stuff they're bringing up is definitely has no chance for another 40 years. As for abolishing the first past the post system, you'd have to be more explicit in that. Republican attempts to modify redistricting and to get rid of the winner take all votes in national elections would have made Romney president was receiving millions of votes less. There's a great Rolling Stones article on it right now. It's long though. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-republicans-rig-the-game-20131111



I'm assuming you apportionment by popular vote.

Nope. I want the alternative vote.

 

[No1]

Nope. I want the alternative vote.

I don't know what this means.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

I don't know what this means.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

@Candor if you're at work http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/alternative-vote/

 

[No1]

Oh, we didn't call it that in my Michigan poli sci class . I think it was just called some variation of run-offs. That's definitely not a bad method, but I still think that I would rather a proportional system than that.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

Oh, we didn't call it that in my Michigan poli sci class . I think it was just called some variation of run-offs. That's definitely not a bad method, but I still think that I would rather a proportional system than that.

Proportional system?

edit: nvm, looked it up.