Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Love the Russian troll talking point.During Trump's speech Democrat women decided to wear all white as a form of protest.
Of course it backfired as people took note of how it resembled an old Democrat KKK rally.
House Dems wear white in protest of Trump to joint address, turns out to be a VERY bad decision
Do y'all take illiterate pills before signing in here?
The post says nothing about "Democrats" OR "Progressives". What it does say is Liberal. Learn how to read.
Liberals -- who founded this country and wrote its Constitution --- and did so long before there was any such thing as "Democrats" or "Progressives", whatever that means --- came up with the concept "all men are created equal". You can't possibly believe that and believe that slavery is legitimate at the same time. Sorry if that's just too complex for you.
My highlight above.
As you know, they are synonyms, Democrat, Liberal, Progressive.
It is impossible for Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, or the Far Left to have anything to do with writing the Declaration of Independence (which contains the phrase "all men are created equal", NOT the Constitution) or our Constitution. Impossible.
Had it been written by Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, or the Far Left, it would NOT have been written to LIMIT government power (As failed former President Barack Hussein Obama believes) it would have been written to enumerate all the services government must provide for all citizens. In other words, Socialism.
You are COMPLETELY clueless about history, aren't you. Somehow I hadn't noticed the level of your abject stupidity before now.
"Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, and the Far Left" are FOUR DIFFERENT THINGS. Discernible only in the minds of those who lift an intellectual finger to find out.
"Democrats" --- members of a political party. Which has nothing to do with ideology.
"Liberals" --- political philosophy, which has everything to do with ideology. These are the Founders who wrote the Constitution.
"Progressives" -- socio political movement of (roughly) 1890 to 1920. That's a hundred years ago.
"Far left" -- one fringe of the political spectrum.
ANY of the first three could exist concurrently with either of the other two. NONE of them are required to do so.
This is probably way over your head.
As you know, they are synonymous with one another today and are, largely, used interchangeably.
Only by those who clearly have no idea what they're babbling about and can't be bothered to lift a mental finger to find out, that Bozo in the post directly above this one for an example. See also "they all look alike to me" syndrome, as in Ignorami walking around thinking American Indians speak a language called "Indian" or Mexicans speak "Mexican". Intellectual sloth. Failure of curiosity. We're about to get deep into these weeds. Buckle up.
What is the Democratic Party's beliefs?
The same "beliefs" as any political party. Self-perpetuation, end of list. A political party's function is to consolidate power. To that end it will profess anything it needs to profess in order to self-perpetuate. The idea that such an organization "believes" something is simple lack of observation, and the concept that it stands for some ideal etched immovably in stone forever is absurd and easily disproven by history. What a political party purports to profess, shifts with the winds of the time. For an analogy you may plan to take US 64 to get to point B. But it turns out 64 is closed. So you take I-75 which was not what you planned, but your goal is to get to Point B... it is not to take US 64.
A political party is a vehicle, nothing more. A means to an end, where the end is Power. As such a seeker of that power will use whichever vehicle is likely to get him there, whether he/she aligns with that party's purported "beliefs" or not (examples: Strom Thurmond, Donald Rump, Frank Rizzo, Ray Nagin, Arlen Specter, Jesse Helms, Trent Lott, David Duke, Joe McCarthy, Ronald Reagan, Bernie Sanders.... )
This renders the ensuing paragraph irrelevant so it needs no comment. But it will get one anyway.
A: According to Democrats.org, as of 2015, the core beliefs of the Democratic Party are "that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules.". Another belief Democrats hold is that people are greater together than alone.
Advertising hype. You're reading a site that is trying to sell something. If you look around on that same source you'll "learn" that the Democrats trace their lineage all the way back to Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party, which is bullshit. More advertising hype, and wrongheaded, since it presumes "older is better". It isn't. The older a party purports to be, the more it's saying "we're entrenched". Sometimes they'll trace the Party to Andrew Jackson, who had no political party but does have his face on the $20 bill (the reality is the Democratic Party's origin traces to 1834 and Martin vanBuren, who's I guess far less sexy and has no money).
What does being progressive mean?
A progressive is someone who wants to see more economic and social equality - and hopes to see more gains in feminism and gay rights. They're also supportive of social programmes directed by the state - and they'd like social movements have more power in the US.
At the turn of the (19th/20th) century, when the term "Progressive" was coined for Political Science parlance it meant a social movement aiming for an evolution from what had then been the norm --- it meant greater public accountability in government, in opposition to an Old Boy network of smoke-filled back rooms and political machines and corporate collusion; it meant greater attention to civil liberties including civil rights (segregation), labor rights and women's suffrage, and institutionalizing social services such as education. To the extent that the political parties of the time sought their goal of self-perpetuation through collusion with large corporate institutions and entrenched political machines, the Progressive Movement opposed that, desiring a shift to transparency.
Hence Teddy Roosevelt's trust-busting earned him a "Progressive" mantle. Women's suffrage is part of the same movement, although attributing that stroke to Woodrow Wilson would be erroneous since he had opposed the idea and only did an about-face when it was clear he wasn't going to prevail in that opposition. Again ---- shifting with the prevailing winds, the goal being self-perpetuation.
The Progressive Movement coalesced from a general social trend that sprang up a Populist Party, farmers' unions, labor unions and "fusion" parties, another sterling example of political parties shifting with the winds. In reaction the two sides of the infamous Duopoly shifted their own focus, both to amass their own constituencies and to diminish the potential of third rails outside the Duopoly, which itself carries the same goal of self-perpetuation (the Duopoly is in effect a single political party with two heads).
So the Democrats absorbed and took on the Populists while the Republicans took on the interests of the wealthy, the railroads, and corporations. These trends may be exemplified in William Jennings Bryan and William McKinley, respectively (who ran against each other). Teddy Roosevelt was an interruption in that shift; his Presidency wasn't in the plan. That's why his party snubbed him when he came into the 1912 convention with a substantial delegate lead from the primaries. TR's Progressivism had been a hiccup and the party didn't want to go that direction so it stayed with the corporatist Taft, and as a result lost bigly. TR was the last third party candidate to outpoll one of the Duopoly and Wilson slithered in on a popular vote of <42%.
This ^^ is also a large part of what we refer to when we look back at history and describe how the two parties "swapped places". It's where the Democratic Party becomes identified with minorities, labor unions, labor in general, while the Republicans become affiliated with the PTB who ruled over those laborers and minorities, i.e. the growing corporations. That Democratic minority bloc eventually encompassed blacks, Jews, women, immigrants, and gays -- anyone "oppressed by the system". And we're still there now.
(Ironically, another of the Progressive Movement's effects was the shift from religious creationism to scientific Darwinism, yet in the famous "Scopes Monkey" trial the aforementioned W.J. Bryan situated himself on the anti-Progressive creationism side, just another example of the exception that proves the rule, and that there are no hard and fast black-and-white labels that completely define anyone to which we affix them.)
This is "Progressive" the noun, as distinct from "progressive" the adjective. Of course the adjective "progressive" simply means "that which progesses", ergo while "a Progressive" (noun) refers to an adherent of a social movement 100 years ago advocating sociopolitica structural changes as cited above, describing someone as "progressive" (adjective) simply says they evolve --- in other words it tells us nothing about them since the only people who do not evolve are the dead. Hence "Progressive" (the noun) belongs to a specific time in the past, which was like anything else a reaction to its own time. As such it cannot be simply plugged into a different time not relevant to its roots. No movement can spring up based on a future it can't see.
I've often challenged posters on this site to define exactly what it is they're talking about when they use "Progressive" (the noun) in a contemporary context. Nobody could ever answer that. You've offered one here (which I can see was copied from somewhere else, the telltale British spelling of "programmes" giving that away). While it does identify some similarities with its linguistic ancestor, it's still vague (if "A progressive is someone who wants to see more economic and social equality" --- then what is the term for that person's adversary who wants to see LESS economic and social equality?) and at odds with some of the Progressive Movement's (the original one) goals such as Prohibition and institutionalized schooling. And some were flirting with eugenics. But to recycle a term from 100 years ago as if plugging in a lamp in an alternate outlet, doesn't work. The term already has its meaning, Recycling is a wonderful thing but it cannot apply to words.
Same with "Liberal". "Liberal" is a political philosophy that is the essence of this country's Constitution, if not always its behavior internally and externally. It means a rejection of the idea that government should be administered by a authoritarian "nobility" and clergy with a series of underclasses from merchants to serfs ---- which is simply how the European world was operating up to that point. Liberalism declared that such class striations were bullshit, that the People could and should amass together to govern themselves ("consent of the governed") in direct opposition to the idea of some dictator acting unilaterally, or as it was practiced, bilaterally using the Church as a terrorist arm to keep the rabble in their place. That's why I say the opposite of Liberalism is Authoritarianism. Both those terms are neither "right" nor "left" and can be supported or opposed from either. "Right" and "left" describe the POV of a political dynamic while "Liberal" and "Authoritarian" describe how they're administerd.
That's the distinction between "left" and "Liberal" which is a bullshit conflation invented by long-out-of-power Republicans as a emotionally-based demonization tactic. It deserves to be flushed down the toilet of time. It's long overdue. So leave us not conflate a handful of terms that all have their own distinctions, as if they don't. A "Liberal" may also be a Democrat, may be a Republican, may have some other party, or be associated with no party at all.
Hell, the Republicans of the mid-19th century were the Liberals of their time by virtue of taking a then-radical stance of following the Constitution and its precept that "all men are created equal". But that of course was when the party was less than a decade old, while idealism still energized it. Given time, as with all political parties the prime directive shifted to self-perpetuation for its own sake.
Anyone who got this far --- thanks for reading.
It doesn't get more desperation that giving up all discourse in favor of user-generated Googly Images. Particularly ones that show wet trolley tracks in a Wisconsin December and try to sell themselves as a political convention that already happened six months before and a thousand miles away.
It doesn't get more desperation that giving up all discourse in favor of user-generated Googly Images. Particularly ones that show wet trolley tracks in a Wisconsin December and try to sell themselves as a political convention that already happened six months before and a thousand miles away.
Do you have someone who would translate that into English? Not only does it make no sense, but your comment has must have been intended for someone else.
Or, sleep it off and try it again tomorrow.
It doesn't get more desperation that giving up all discourse in favor of user-generated Googly Images. Particularly ones that show wet trolley tracks in a Wisconsin December and try to sell themselves as a political convention that already happened six months before and a thousand miles away.
Do you have someone who would translate that into English? Not only does it make no sense, but your comment has must have been intended for someone else.
Or, sleep it off and try it again tomorrow.
Yyyyyeah ummmm..... guess what's not going away.
The memory is the second thing to go.
During Trump's speech Democrat women decided to wear all white as a form of protest.
Of course it backfired as people took note of how it resembled an old Democrat KKK rally.
House Dems wear white in protest of Trump to joint address, turns out to be a VERY bad decision
KKK's official newspaper supports Donald Trump for president - The ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../the-kkks-official-newspaper-has-endorsed-donald...
Nov 2, 2016 - What Donald Trump is doing on the campaign trail. ... Among the small number of American newspapers that have embraced Donald Trump’s campaign, there is one, in particular, that stands out. It is called the Crusader — and it is one of the most prominent newspapers of the Ku Klux ...
"Why we voted for Donald Trump": David Duke explains the white ...
"Why we voted for Donald Trump": David Duke explains the white supremacist Charlottesville protests
Aug 12, 2017 - The former KKK leader sees it as part of the president's vision for ... in 2016, and Trump's reluctance to disavow that support was, briefly, a big ...
During Trump's speech Democrat women decided to wear all white as a form of protest.
Of course it backfired as people took note of how it resembled an old Democrat KKK rally.
House Dems wear white in protest of Trump to joint address, turns out to be a VERY bad decision
KKK's official newspaper supports Donald Trump for president - The ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../the-kkks-official-newspaper-has-endorsed-donald...
Nov 2, 2016 - What Donald Trump is doing on the campaign trail. ... Among the small number of American newspapers that have embraced Donald Trump’s campaign, there is one, in particular, that stands out. It is called the Crusader — and it is one of the most prominent newspapers of the Ku Klux ...
"Why we voted for Donald Trump": David Duke explains the white ...
"Why we voted for Donald Trump": David Duke explains the white supremacist Charlottesville protests
Aug 12, 2017 - The former KKK leader sees it as part of the president's vision for ... in 2016, and Trump's reluctance to disavow that support was, briefly, a big ...
except Davis Duke is now supporting the very progressive tulsi gabbard
