Evangelicals explain their support for Trump. It's the racism that stands out.

[martybegan]

Hey, it's your label. Show me that it actually exists in today's world. And how those people live so long.

You deny left leaning people consider themselves "progressive"?

I actually call them progressive statists. The more hip term these days is democratic socialist.

"Democratic Socialist" at least has a shred of definition, via Bernie Sanders. "Progressive" is a term from the turn of the 19th/20th century that has long faded into history.

What you just used above was "progressive" the adjective. Anything that includes progress is "progressive". At base it means "not static". But your original term was 'Progressive" the noun, to wit: "progressives can't let that happen". And that, sir, is a label.

A label which I might add I've been challenging anyone and everyone to define on this board outside of its 1890-1920 usage, which no one has ever addressed.

Now me, I don't use terms I can't define....

If you use the term progressive today, most people automatically know what you are talking about.

The SJW, big government types that infest the democratic party.

If you think government is the solution to pretty much everything, you are a progressive.

If you think 1st amendment free speech protections have limits beyond fighting words and "yelling fire in a theater" you are a progressive.

If you follow identity politics from a leftist bent, you are a progressive.

It's actually quite easy to define if you actually put some effort into it.

What they are no longer is "liberal" in the classical sense.

First off I'll readily agree that nothing on that list is "Liberal". But the question was "Progressive".

"Most people know what you're talking about" obviously falls on its face as definition. Most of what you've given as examples here are activist leftist stances. If that's what you actually mean --- and I don't know yet if it is but if so --- why not just say that instead of trying to recycle a hundred-year-old already-used different term? That just results in a single term meaning two disparate things.

The problem with this sort of vague terminology is it's weasel-wording. If you charge in without an established definition, you can retroactively plug in (or remove) any trait you want after the fact if it turns out to be convenient or inconvenient to have done so.

So given the only definitions we have, if we're not referring to the corpse of Jane Addams, by "Progressive" you must be describing "people who desire things to improve". That's all we have to go on, and it ain't exactly scary. It should include --- everybody.

A liberal by any other name is still a liberal

Any liberal who wants to skirt around the 1st amendment is not a liberal.

 

[martybegan]

If you use the term progressive today, most people automatically know what you are talking about.

The SJW, big government types that infest the democratic party.

If you think government is the solution to pretty much everything, you are a progressive.

If you think 1st amendment free speech protections have limits beyond fighting words and "yelling fire in a theater" you are a progressive.

If you follow identity politics from a leftist bent, you are a progressive.

It's actually quite easy to define if you actually put some effort into it.

What they are no longer is "liberal" in the classical sense.

teddy roosevelt... (R)... was the founder of the progressive party.

Again, I admit the term progressive means something different now than it did 100+ years ago. Just like liberal means something different.

Conservative has changed as well. Far more radically than I ever imagined it would. People are malleable animals.

That also depends on what you consider a conservative. Libertarians are often lumped into the "conservative" side of the fence, yet most of the things they want to implement would require radical change.

In the end the only real differences are what people think of when it comes to control, i.e. authoritarian vs checked power, federalism vs single power source, private economic control vs. collective economic control, and sovereignty that flows up vs. flowing down.

Libertarians are borderline anarchists

"Big L" Libertarians maybe, but "small l" libertarians are mostly "classical" liberals.

 

[Pogo]

A "pencil" huh?

Dammit. Overqualified again

Overqualified?
Pencils have erasers and allow change ... Something yet have yet to master.

.​

You mean "Yeti"?

Oh do go on. Tell us about your uh, experiences with Yeti.

<< cashews

 

[Pogo]

I'm not the only one using the term, and like most recycled terms, it's use is for convenience, nothing more. If most people understand what I am talking about when I call someone "progressive" what is the real issue?

Progressives back then are different from Progressives now. Liberals in the 1700's to 1800's were different from liberals in the 1950's and 1960's, and the term nowadays is in flux, with classic liberals saying current leftists, i.e. progressives, are often illerbeal.

Labels are there to simplify language. When i say progressive, in most people's mind, the SJW, tofu eating, straw hating, government loving trans-ish pan sexual stereotype is what pops in.

Dang Marty ... Pogo is not going to agree with you ...

Whether or not Pogo is satisfied with your or anyone else's understanding of the labels they commonly use is not a requirement.
It would be easier to honestly respond to Pogo with ... "We don't necessarily give a fuck what you like to use as far as terms".

Priorities people ... Leave the shit like arguing with Pogo about his desired definitions ...
When you and the rest of the people you are talking to know what you are saying ...
And that doesn't serve a useful purpose ... Alone.

You're not debating policy, ideas, vision, nor direction ... You're arguing about whether or not Pogo can accept change ...

​

​

Meh, on boards sometimes you have meaningful debate, sometimes you have flambe twatwars, and sometimes you quibble over the meaning of words with OCD types.

So you're actually suggesting words should flail around with no definitions?

What's the point of using them then?

 

[Pogo]

Hey, it's your label. Show me that it actually exists in today's world. And how those people live so long.

You deny left leaning people consider themselves "progressive"?

I actually call them progressive statists. The more hip term these days is democratic socialist.

"Democratic Socialist" at least has a shred of definition, via Bernie Sanders. "Progressive" is a term from the turn of the 19th/20th century that has long faded into history.

What you just used above was "progressive" the adjective. Anything that includes progress is "progressive". At base it means "not static". But your original term was 'Progressive" the noun, to wit: "progressives can't let that happen". And that, sir, is a label.

A label which I might add I've been challenging anyone and everyone to define on this board outside of its 1890-1920 usage, which no one has ever addressed.

Now me, I don't use terms I can't define....

If you use the term progressive today, most people automatically know what you are talking about.

The SJW, big government types that infest the democratic party.

If you think government is the solution to pretty much everything, you are a progressive.

If you think 1st amendment free speech protections have limits beyond fighting words and "yelling fire in a theater" you are a progressive.

If you follow identity politics from a leftist bent, you are a progressive.

It's actually quite easy to define if you actually put some effort into it.

What they are no longer is "liberal" in the classical sense.

teddy roosevelt... (R)... was the founder of the progressive party.

Again, I admit the term progressive means something different now than it did 100+ years ago. Just like liberal means something different.

NO, they do not. Again, somebody misusing a term does not mean that term is required to take on their own erroneous definition.

And you yourself agree with this, where you just issued the self-contradiction:

Any liberal who wants to skirt around the 1st amendment is not a liberal.

This is truth. Now STAY there and quit bouncing between the two. Got more bouncing back and forth around here than a Stormy Daniels performance.

 

[martybegan]

You deny left leaning people consider themselves "progressive"?

I actually call them progressive statists. The more hip term these days is democratic socialist.

"Democratic Socialist" at least has a shred of definition, via Bernie Sanders. "Progressive" is a term from the turn of the 19th/20th century that has long faded into history.

What you just used above was "progressive" the adjective. Anything that includes progress is "progressive". At base it means "not static". But your original term was 'Progressive" the noun, to wit: "progressives can't let that happen". And that, sir, is a label.

A label which I might add I've been challenging anyone and everyone to define on this board outside of its 1890-1920 usage, which no one has ever addressed.

Now me, I don't use terms I can't define....

If you use the term progressive today, most people automatically know what you are talking about.

The SJW, big government types that infest the democratic party.

If you think government is the solution to pretty much everything, you are a progressive.

If you think 1st amendment free speech protections have limits beyond fighting words and "yelling fire in a theater" you are a progressive.

If you follow identity politics from a leftist bent, you are a progressive.

It's actually quite easy to define if you actually put some effort into it.

What they are no longer is "liberal" in the classical sense.

teddy roosevelt... (R)... was the founder of the progressive party.

Again, I admit the term progressive means something different now than it did 100+ years ago. Just like liberal means something different.

NO, they do not. Again, somebody misusing a term does not mean that term is required to take on their own erroneous definition.

And you yourself agree with this, where you just issued the self-contradiction:

Any liberal who wants to skirt around the 1st amendment is not a liberal.

This is truth. Now STAY there and quit bouncing between the two. Got more bouncing back and forth around here than a Stormy Daniels performance.

1st: You don't own the ability to define words, word definitions have always been by consensus, Especially words used in the political spectrum.

A dog may be a dog, but a progressive is what people think it is when they use it. and when most people understand what said person is trying to imply, it's a usable word, despite your desire to lock it into it's 1880's to 1910's definition.

 

[rightwinger]

You deny left leaning people consider themselves "progressive"?

I actually call them progressive statists. The more hip term these days is democratic socialist.

"Democratic Socialist" at least has a shred of definition, via Bernie Sanders. "Progressive" is a term from the turn of the 19th/20th century that has long faded into history.

What you just used above was "progressive" the adjective. Anything that includes progress is "progressive". At base it means "not static". But your original term was 'Progressive" the noun, to wit: "progressives can't let that happen". And that, sir, is a label.

A label which I might add I've been challenging anyone and everyone to define on this board outside of its 1890-1920 usage, which no one has ever addressed.

Now me, I don't use terms I can't define....

If you use the term progressive today, most people automatically know what you are talking about.

The SJW, big government types that infest the democratic party.

If you think government is the solution to pretty much everything, you are a progressive.

If you think 1st amendment free speech protections have limits beyond fighting words and "yelling fire in a theater" you are a progressive.

If you follow identity politics from a leftist bent, you are a progressive.

It's actually quite easy to define if you actually put some effort into it.

What they are no longer is "liberal" in the classical sense.

First off I'll readily agree that nothing on that list is "Liberal". But the question was "Progressive".

"Most people know what you're talking about" obviously falls on its face as definition. Most of what you've given as examples here are activist leftist stances. If that's what you actually mean --- and I don't know yet if it is but if so --- why not just say that instead of trying to recycle a hundred-year-old already-used different term? That just results in a single term meaning two disparate things.

The problem with this sort of vague terminology is it's weasel-wording. If you charge in without an established definition, you can retroactively plug in (or remove) any trait you want after the fact if it turns out to be convenient or inconvenient to have done so.

So given the only definitions we have, if we're not referring to the corpse of Jane Addams, by "Progressive" you must be describing "people who desire things to improve". That's all we have to go on, and it ain't exactly scary. It should include --- everybody.

A liberal by any other name is still a liberal

Any liberal who wants to skirt around the 1st amendment is not a liberal.

WTF are you babbling about

 

[Pogo]

"Democratic Socialist" at least has a shred of definition, via Bernie Sanders. "Progressive" is a term from the turn of the 19th/20th century that has long faded into history.

What you just used above was "progressive" the adjective. Anything that includes progress is "progressive". At base it means "not static". But your original term was 'Progressive" the noun, to wit: "progressives can't let that happen". And that, sir, is a label.

A label which I might add I've been challenging anyone and everyone to define on this board outside of its 1890-1920 usage, which no one has ever addressed.

Now me, I don't use terms I can't define....

If you use the term progressive today, most people automatically know what you are talking about.

The SJW, big government types that infest the democratic party.

If you think government is the solution to pretty much everything, you are a progressive.

If you think 1st amendment free speech protections have limits beyond fighting words and "yelling fire in a theater" you are a progressive.

If you follow identity politics from a leftist bent, you are a progressive.

It's actually quite easy to define if you actually put some effort into it.

What they are no longer is "liberal" in the classical sense.

teddy roosevelt... (R)... was the founder of the progressive party.

Again, I admit the term progressive means something different now than it did 100+ years ago. Just like liberal means something different.

NO, they do not. Again, somebody misusing a term does not mean that term is required to take on their own erroneous definition.

And you yourself agree with this, where you just issued the self-contradiction:

Any liberal who wants to skirt around the 1st amendment is not a liberal.

This is truth. Now STAY there and quit bouncing between the two. Got more bouncing back and forth around here than a Stormy Daniels performance.

1st: You don't own the ability to define words, word definitions have always been by consensus, Especially words used in the political spectrum.

Zackly. That's why I asked YOU, since you used it. I couldn't presume to tell you what you mean.
If yer gonna use a term you have to be able to say what it means. Apparently in this case you can't.

So lemme guess --- you're gonna go on using it anyway amirite?

 

[playtime]

Evangelicals support the Trump because they truly believe God can use an evil man, think Nebuchadnezzar, to accomplish His Will.

they are alllllllllllll about israel & the end of days.

 

[martybegan]

"Democratic Socialist" at least has a shred of definition, via Bernie Sanders. "Progressive" is a term from the turn of the 19th/20th century that has long faded into history.

What you just used above was "progressive" the adjective. Anything that includes progress is "progressive". At base it means "not static". But your original term was 'Progressive" the noun, to wit: "progressives can't let that happen". And that, sir, is a label.

A label which I might add I've been challenging anyone and everyone to define on this board outside of its 1890-1920 usage, which no one has ever addressed.

Now me, I don't use terms I can't define....

If you use the term progressive today, most people automatically know what you are talking about.

The SJW, big government types that infest the democratic party.

If you think government is the solution to pretty much everything, you are a progressive.

If you think 1st amendment free speech protections have limits beyond fighting words and "yelling fire in a theater" you are a progressive.

If you follow identity politics from a leftist bent, you are a progressive.

It's actually quite easy to define if you actually put some effort into it.

What they are no longer is "liberal" in the classical sense.

First off I'll readily agree that nothing on that list is "Liberal". But the question was "Progressive".

"Most people know what you're talking about" obviously falls on its face as definition. Most of what you've given as examples here are activist leftist stances. If that's what you actually mean --- and I don't know yet if it is but if so --- why not just say that instead of trying to recycle a hundred-year-old already-used different term? That just results in a single term meaning two disparate things.

The problem with this sort of vague terminology is it's weasel-wording. If you charge in without an established definition, you can retroactively plug in (or remove) any trait you want after the fact if it turns out to be convenient or inconvenient to have done so.

So given the only definitions we have, if we're not referring to the corpse of Jane Addams, by "Progressive" you must be describing "people who desire things to improve". That's all we have to go on, and it ain't exactly scary. It should include --- everybody.

A liberal by any other name is still a liberal

Any liberal who wants to skirt around the 1st amendment is not a liberal.

WTF are you babbling about

Figure it out, skippy.

 

[martybegan]

If you use the term progressive today, most people automatically know what you are talking about.

The SJW, big government types that infest the democratic party.

If you think government is the solution to pretty much everything, you are a progressive.

If you think 1st amendment free speech protections have limits beyond fighting words and "yelling fire in a theater" you are a progressive.

If you follow identity politics from a leftist bent, you are a progressive.

It's actually quite easy to define if you actually put some effort into it.

What they are no longer is "liberal" in the classical sense.

teddy roosevelt... (R)... was the founder of the progressive party.

Again, I admit the term progressive means something different now than it did 100+ years ago. Just like liberal means something different.

NO, they do not. Again, somebody misusing a term does not mean that term is required to take on their own erroneous definition.

And you yourself agree with this, where you just issued the self-contradiction:

Any liberal who wants to skirt around the 1st amendment is not a liberal.

This is truth. Now STAY there and quit bouncing between the two. Got more bouncing back and forth around here than a Stormy Daniels performance.

1st: You don't own the ability to define words, word definitions have always been by consensus, Especially words used in the political spectrum.

Zackly. That's why I asked YOU, since you used it. I couldn't presume to tell you what you mean.
If yer gonna use a term you have to be able to say what it means. Apparently in this case you can't.

So lemme guess --- you're gonna go on using it anyway amirite?

I've explained it repeatedly, and most people who read my posts know what I am talking about when i use the term progressive.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Just because someone misuses a term beyond its common accepted definition does not mean anyone else has to adopt it.

The misuse does require a public correction every time it is misused.

 

[martybegan]

Just because someone misuses a term beyond its common accepted definition does not mean anyone else has to adopt it.

The misuse does require a public correction every time it is misused.

Why is the default assumption that the term is being misused?

Progressives self identify with the term as well.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are confused again.

Misuse the definition of a word, expect to be corrected.

 

[martybegan]

You are confused again.

Misuse the definition of a word, expect to be corrected.

I am not misusing it. People understand what I am talking about when I use the term to describe SJW twats like you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are confused again.

Misuse the definition of a word, expect to be corrected.

I am not misusing it. People understand what I am talking about when I use the term to describe SJW twats like you.

People are LTAO at you when you misuse words.

 

[BlackSand]

Just because someone misuses a term beyond its common accepted definition does not mean anyone else has to adopt it.

The misuse does require a public correction every time it is misused.

Do you know how many definitions there are for the word "table" ... Or the multitude of variables they include?

To attempt to correct someone because you don't agree with their definition ...
When they still communicate in a manner that expresses the ideas they wish to express ... Is your problem ...

Difference between Socialism and Progressivism | Difference Between

.​

 

[JakeStarkey]

Poor comparison, BlackSand. To correct someone who is deliberately misusing a definition outside of its common accepted purpose is a holy purpose.

 

[martybegan]

You are confused again.

Misuse the definition of a word, expect to be corrected.

I am not misusing it. People understand what I am talking about when I use the term to describe SJW twats like you.

People are LTAO at you when you misuse words.

I am not misusing it.

There are "classical" progressives, and today's progressives, just like there are "classical" liberals and today's liberals.

 

[BlackSand]

Poor comparison, BlackSand. To correct someone who is deliberately misusing a definition outside of its common accepted purpose is a holy purpose.

Really ... What's God got to do with it ...

.​