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

[Pogo]

Ah the label game, the 1st and last resort of the person with nothing better to provide.

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.

"Fighting Bob" LaFollette (R) and Henry Wallace (D) later ran under similar names, 1924 and 1948. The latter died over 50 years ago. His Progresisive agenda was ending segregation and calling for universal health care. LaFollette's Progressive policy was to outlaw child labor, discontinue Wilson's imperialism in Latin America and defend civil liberties.

Oooooh, scary stuff.

That's why it just falls flat when the careless wags want to recycle the term as if it's some kind of slur. The original Progressive movement was all about government accountability, ferreting out corruption and public civic participation.

Apparently they think those are bad ideas. Hard to figure out. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[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 ...

​

Change requires a destination --- something to change TO. You can't change if you don't know, and can't define, what it is you're changing to. You can't just get in the car and go "somewhere". You need a destination.

What we have so far is not a definition --- it's an IOU.

Pogo don't take no credit.
And he almost never gets any too. ​

 

[BlackSand]

​

Change requires a destination --- something to change TO. You can't change if you don't know and can't explain what you're changing to. That's not a definition --- it's an IOU.

Pogo don't take no credit.
And he almost never gets any too. ​

That's what I said ... You don't know where you are or where you are going.

Change requires a destination you don't know and cannot plan (accurately on the societal level in any case).
It changes from what it was when you started to what it is along the way and when you get there ...

Now shut up before I take your cashews away.

.​

 

[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.

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.

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?

Nor are you the only one I've asked a definition of, yet somehow nobody anywhere has one.

What do you think that means?

Once again, "most people know what I mean" is not any kind of definition. What you keep telling me is that you don't have one. And if you don't have one then you have no point, as your subject is a blank space.

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.

Uh nnnnno. "Liberal" means what it means. "Progressive" means what it means. You can't just slap the same term on wildly different things, even directly opposite things, and expect coherency to result. Terms are not "in flux"; they are misused by those who just don't understand what they're using. "Leftists" for example may very well be illiberal. They don't mean the same thing, nor are they supposed to. A leftist being illiberal is not an incongruency, any more than a baseball bat that is not aluminum.

That's why I'm asking for a definition. The fact that you can't think of one should be a great big screaming clue that the term for whatever you're trying to express, is inadequate. I put it to you that you are using a term that has no function.

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.

Finally --- something stabbing at a definition, yet woefully inept. This word salad starts with some activist-leftist principles, mixes in tofu (wtf?) and then "straw" (completely lost now), with a dash of authoritarianism (we're all over the map) all wrapped around a gooey center of sexual liquidity.

Care to essplain how the ingredients to all that goulash stew have anything to do with each other, let alone go somewhere?

And once again we're back to "what pops in most people's mind [sic]". Again that's, to quote Bob Uecker, juuuuuuust a bit outside of anything specific.

 

[Pogo]

​

Change requires a destination --- something to change TO. You can't change if you don't know and can't explain what you're changing to. That's not a definition --- it's an IOU.

Pogo don't take no credit.
And he almost never gets any too. ​

That's what I said ... You don't know where you are or where you are going.

Change requires a destination you don't know and cannot plan (accurately on the societal level in any case).
It changes from what it was when you started to what it is along the way and when you get there ...

Now shut up before I take your cashews away.

.​

You wanna wrassle me for my nuts? Gotta lose the wet suit first.

Wait.... on second thought, leave it on.....

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

 

[BlackSand]

You wanna wrassle me for my nuts? Gotta lose the wet suit first.

Wait.... on second thought, leave it on.....

Whoa-Whoa-Whoa ...
Wrestling, your nuts, wet suit, leave it on ... We are gonna need a pad, pencil and couch to carry this conversation and further.

.​

 

[Pogo]

You wanna wrassle me for my nuts? Gotta lose the wet suit first.

Wait.... on second thought, leave it on.....

Whoa-Whoa-Whoa ...
Wrestling, your nuts, wet suit, leave it on ... We are gonna need a pad, pencil and couch to carry this conversation and further.

​

​

A "pencil" huh?

Dammit. Overqualified again

 

[BlackSand]

A "pencil" huh?

Dammit. Overqualified again

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

.​

 

[martybegan]

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.

 

[martybegan]

so? they are plentiful. with Muslims, it's pretty much fundie or moderate...

They also keep to themselves mostly.

I don't see snake handlers going on jihad.

At the risk of re-posting what's surely already been....

oh hell- there's no such thing as redundancy when it comes to proving something with facts...

note the date.

And?

They are exercising their political rights. You don't lose your rights when you get Religion or if you are a bigoted asshole.

Put it this way, if they ever got their way, it means they are a supermajority in the country, and your problems aren't limited to just some laws being passed.

the point being they are just as active 'today' as they were back then... only their violence has been curtailed because of the law. you tried to pass that ideology off as something that isn't happening today. just wait until august 12 in DC... all those christiany taliban types will be out & proud of themselves.

No, it's because they have no real political strength and much fewer numbers. Unless of course progressives keep making them the boogeyman and give them free advertising while at the same time pushing identity politics.

The best thing to do August 12th is ignore them.

 

[martybegan]

Ah the label game, the 1st and last resort of the person with nothing better to provide.

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.

 

[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.

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.

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?

Nor are you the only one I've asked a definition of, yet somehow nobody anywhere has one.

What do you think that means?

Once again, "most people know what I mean" is not any kind of definition. What you keep telling me is that you don't have one. And if you don't have one then you have no point, as your subject is a blank space.

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.

Uh nnnnno. "Liberal" means what it means. "Progressive" means what it means. You can't just slap the same term on wildly different things, even directly opposite things, and expect coherency to result. Terms are not "in flux"; they are misused by those who just don't understand what they're using. "Leftists" for example may very well be illiberal. They don't mean the same thing, nor are they supposed to. A leftist being illiberal is not an incongruency, any more than a baseball bat that is not aluminum.

That's why I'm asking for a definition. The fact that you can't think of one should be a great big screaming clue that the term for whatever you're trying to express, is inadequate. I put it to you that you are using a term that has no function.

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.

Finally --- something stabbing at a definition, yet woefully inept. This word salad starts with some activist-leftist principles, mixes in tofu (wtf?) and then "straw" (completely lost now), with a dash of authoritarianism (we're all over the map) all wrapped around a gooey center of sexual liquidity.

Care to essplain how the ingredients to all that goulash stew have anything to do with each other, let alone go somewhere?

And once again we're back to "what pops in most people's mind [sic]". Again that's, to quote Bob Uecker, juuuuuuust a bit outside of anything specific.

Wow, talk about OCD. I thought I was bad.

 

[Flash]

Big Trump rally in Tampa yesterday. Five hours before he was to speak there was about 18,000 people standing outside in line with the threat of impending thunderstorms. At the time of the speech the police estimated close to 30,000 people inside and standing outside.

Some of them were evangelicals. All of them want this country to be great again and know Trump is doing a great job.

These stupid Moon Bats really need to get professional help for this epidemic of mental health illness known as Trump Derangement Syndrome.

 

[Flash]

Trump crossing the swamp

 

[dblack]

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.

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

 

[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.

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.

 

[dblack]

"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.

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.

Well, those are the differences that matter to me. On most issues, I see Republicans and Democrats as being on the same side. But they still find plenty to argue about.

 

[rightwinger]

Ah the label game, the 1st and last resort of the person with nothing better to provide.

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

 

[rightwinger]

"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.

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