I am a "CENTRIST" Democrat, have been for 46 years, and am proud to be so!

[George II]

[ck4829]

1. AKA to today's Republicans... a Socialist

[UTUSN]

2. I'll add that in my own 46 yrs I've seen Holiers (NADER, Greens, sweet idealists) sink us

To specify: *NO* sarcasm about "sweet idealists" - I consider sweet idealism to be integral to being Democratic.

[Cha]

7. I like that..

"Holiers".. so true.

[theaocp]

21. This is confusing.

"sweet idealists" are integral to being Democratic, but they sink the party?

[GulfCoast66]

123. When they vote against 'unpure democrats'. Yep. They do.

[theaocp]

126. So, what makes them integral?

They sound disposable, at best.

[GulfCoast66]

134. Wow. You come on DU and call someone disposable?

I do not see anyone as disposable. Even those I disagree with.

Your term. Sure as hell not mine

[theaocp]

138. If that's how they're treated within the party, then I suppose so.

"Sweet idealists" cannot be integral to the party with caveats, such as you suggested. This means that under certain circumstances, they are no longer essential. This means the party disposes of them because of those circumstances. How else would you describe this action?

[GulfCoast66]

141. Get real. We elect our leaders. There are no prizes for participating.

Your candidates are ‘marginalized’ because they lose primaries and other local elections. Our leaders are determined by voters. You want your candidates to win, elect them.

And don’t give me any ‘the powers that be’ are conspiring against them.

I guarantee you one thing, if the candidate you support wins the primary against the candidate I support and runs a Democrat, I will vote for them in the general election. Do you do the same?

[theaocp]

144. What are you talking about?

I guess I'm just denying that "sweet idealists" are integral to being Democratic, based on exactly what you told me. Thanks for the input. Whatever else you're talking about, I can't help you. Well, I can answer your last question with a yes. Always have, always will.

[GulfCoast66]

146. So let's replay this whole interaction

You responded negatively to a post by UTUSN where he listed leftist voters who voted against Democrats by voting for Nader, greens and an unnamed candidate he did not mention but we all know who he was referring to.

You claimed that the party was somehow favoring certain candidates and I called you on it.

And you have beat around the bush but still not given a single example of what you are talking about.

We pick our candidates by voting for them. I am still waiting for you to tell me how the party is running off ‘Sweet Idealist’? What ‘Sweet Idealist’ has the party hampered?

Go ahead. Tell me.

Because I considered myself an idealist. And while not always enamored buy my candidate generally satisfied.

[theaocp]

151. Okay, I'll give this a go.

You described them above as "When they vote against 'unpure democrats'." Are these people essential to being Democratic or not, since I'm running on the assumption they're "sweet idealists" until I'm informed otherwise.

[GulfCoast66]

152. Now there is a word salad!

WTF are you saying/asking?

I ask you a simple question. Who is the ‘party’ against? Because the party is a representation of its members.

I am asking for one example of your claim. Nothing else.

[theaocp]

153. I feel it's not complex, nor deserving of such derision.

I'm trying to be wary of naming the 'party', since the original post referred to "being Democratic" and this can be interpreted differently. Nevertheless, it's not a far leap to assume it. I hope they're not against anyone. If we're assuming "sweet idealists" are in the party, but "voting against 'unpure Democrats'", why would anyone keep them in the party? It just doesn't make any sense, so that's why I asked the original question. Good night.

[Squinch]

159. Looks like you're not going to get any answers that make sense.

[George II]

150. Well, I do have to thank at least ONE "holier" from years back. Without Ross Perot running...

..as an independent in 1992 we might not have gotten 8 years of Bill Clinton.

On the other hand Patrick Buchanan prevented Al Gore from winning Florida and the Presidency (with Nader playing a big part in that too), as did two "holiers" in 2016.

[Wwcd]

3. K & R your post.

[JCanete]

4. Good. So who are your favorite centrists? Sometimes when people are labeled as such they take

massive umbrage....then they campaign on leading from the center.

[UTUSN]

5. Butting in here, *my* favorite centrists are FDR, HST, LBJ, BO.

[JCanete]

6. hehe...so what makes somebody a centrist? If its not being so radical that you don't push an

agenda that the American people aren't in favor of, then hell, Sanders is a centrist. If its pushing for things though, that the establishment is resigned to get in the way of, then FDR and LBJ are not centrists. LBJ literally upended the democratic party.

[UTUSN]

10. We Centrists are Left enough for anybody.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

56. Except, maybe those that are actually left.

I mean, be who you are, but how about you don't speak for people that aren't you and respect their political stance, too.

[UTUSN]

88. Of all the posts in this thread, what attracted you to mine?

[tonyt53]

129. Hint. You said "centrist". Bad word to some people on here.

[Orsino]

18. We can offset FDR's New Deal with, say, internment camps.

Last edited Tue Jul 31, 2018, 01:17 PM - Edit history (1)

That's balance.

[Squinch]

33. Are you suggesting centrist Democrats would tolerate internment camps?

Or are you pointing out that internment camps were allowed under FDR?

[Squinch]

31. They're working for the same changes, but they realize they may not all happen tomorrow.

And they aren't willing to jettison any chance at all of it happening if their "tomorrow"" timetable is not met.

Some people feel that attitude lacks purity, and is very third way, doncha know?

[sheshe2]

63. +++++++

[KPN]

66. When things are going in the other direction for 40+ years,

the notion of “jettisoning any chance of it happening” is laughable.

[Squinch]

93. Kay. I'm a woman. I totally disagree that things have all been going in the other direction for

40 years. I am certain that people of color would disagree with you too.

But, hey, all we need is that economic equality, right?

[KPN]

154. Kay. So economic justice isn't an important issue for you

other than as related to women. Got it.

[Squinch]

158. Which nobody ever said, but I hear straw men make nice decorations.

[KPN]

161. Right. Like nobody ever said that there hasn't been

substantive progress on other issues like women’s issues, lgbtq, the environment, civil rights.

[Squinch]

162. Except the person who made the blanket statement that we have been

going in the other direction for 40 years.

[KPN]

163. We have on economic issues: labor, wages,

income distribution, taxes. You know what I meant with my original post. You are the one who introduced the distinction between issues. You are not stupid. Neither am I.

[Squinch]

164. Gosh. You're right. I should have known I was supposed

to respond to what you meant and not what you said. My bad.

You're revealing something throughout this conversation that I don't think you want to reveal.

[KPN]

173. Oh? Let me guess. That i'm a male chauvinist?

A misogynist? If so, how dare you? You don’t have one iota’s clue about me or who or what I am. The fact that you might be making that sort of innuendo on is outright offensive and frankly says a lot more about you.

[Squinch]

197. Now you're just shadow boxing. Buh bye.

[George II]

127. Interestingly in the last 40 years:

House Majority: Democrats 20 years, republicans 20 years
Senate Majority: Democrats 20 years, republicans 20 years
Presidency: Democrats 20 years, republicans 20 years

Democrats had majorities in both Houses AND the Presidency for 8 years
republicans had majorities in both Houses AND the Presidency for 4 years

But it's fashionable sometimes to claim otherwise.

[KPN]

155. You make my point.

[betsuni]

156. Is your point that you think both parties have been the same for the last 40 years?

Or something else?

[KPN]

160. No I don't think the two parties have been the same over the past 40 years.

I don’t think they are the same now and I don’t think there are any Democrats here at DU who think so. Frankly, I find that claim against other Democrats here at DU quite offensive. None of us are so imbecilic to think that just because both parties have some elected members who take the same or similar positions on some issues and some legislation that they are the same. influenced by corporate money that they are the same.

[betsuni]

188. "influenced by corporate money that they are the same"

[KPN]

192. Oops ... As an example,

just because both parties are ... was what I typed —- must have inadvertently deleted.

[wryter2000]

226. That's what I call bleeding heart liberal

And I'm one

[UTUSN]

228. Here's to *us*!1 And, whew, what a relief for a nice Reply.

I just got away from being flamed by one of those who never stop (believe in last-word-wins), so when "My Posts" showed a Reply, I was dreading the worst, so your post is that much more delightful, thanks!1

[wryter2000]

229. I know what you mean about dreading to see a reply

Doesn't happen to me often, but it does happen.

[Marcuse]

8. Radical Centrist Philosophy

[Cha]

9. I don't know what the

heck I am.. I know this much, though.. I will Not allow some holier than thou to label me.

I admire Politicians like President Obama who don't try to manipulate people for their own use.. he's straight up. Even though I didn't agree with him every time.

I looked at the Big Picture and knew he was the best to make PROGRESS! Not some Pot Shotters from the sidelines always Whining about the job he was doing. President Obama actually got Further than any of those who weren't doing the work.

And, I felt the same about Hillary.. she would have taken us further.

Link to tweet

President Obama and VP Biden out there actually wanting to help people.. not trying to take down the Democratic Party

[sarah FAILIN]

11. Must be hot

My POTUS has an extra button undone.

No, I am not complaining.

[BannonsLiver]

13. Saw another poster infer joe was an "asshole" in another thread

Over the Anita Hill thing, from 30 years ago. There was no accounting for how he actually treats women. Just venom. Sad to see folks on our side, allegedly, filled with so much hate for our party leaders.

[Squinch]

34. No. Not just venom. It is a terrible blot on his record. It does us no good to pretend otherwise.

[BannonsLiver]

37. And it does us good to live in 1991?

That cuts both ways. And I for one am not so clueless that I form an opinion based solely on a few days 30 years ago. Thinking people look at the totality of a person’s career. Also, remind me again which way he voted?

[Squinch]

39. Did anyone say their opinion was based solely on that? I must have missed that.

It happened. It has had terrible long ranging ramifications and was a terrible moment it the fight for women's rights. Pointing that out is stating fact, not spewing venom.

Your post full of straw men, on the other hand...

[bettyellen]

58. No they said he's not a viable candidate for POTUS in '20, because too many women can't get behind

him. I should know, I wrote it. And the assholes were the committee he allowed to attack Hill while leaving her bereft of a proper defense. Since the blue wave we’re experiencing is powered by women, people should not be discounting how much our support means.

[Squinch]

82. I don't think you're wrong. He seems to me like a well meaning person,

but he had little success when he ran for president in the past, and he does have baggage. Real baggage, not Benghazi and email baggage.

[EffieBlack]

49. People beat Hillary up over the Crime Bill, which was just a couple of years after Anita Hill

And she didn't even vote on that bill (while Biden did, with apparent impunity).

I guess the statute of limitations date varies depending on to whom it's being applied ...

[KPN]

67. And who is applying it.

[Hortensis]

70. You said it all right.

I had a very poor opinion of Biden from his actions of the 1990s. Clarence Thomas and the national legacy of tragedy from the crime bill made sure that never changed. I only developed a better one because Obama valued the person Joe was 20 years later. He would have liked him as his successor, and I trusted his judgement. Still don't really trust Biden not to be squishy in a crunch, though.

[comradebillyboy]

50. If Joe runs the videos of Joe attacking Anita Hill

from the Senate floor in defense of Clarence Thomas will be prominent in the campaign against him. His track record as a presidential candidate is terrible.

[bettyellen]

59. That and his record being so very cozy w banks. I'm hoping for young blood myself.

[BannonsLiver]

61. yeah I bet you are

But I’m not sure a 76 year old senator from Vermont qualifies as new blood.

[bettyellen]

62. You've got me completely wrong, yet again. I don't support anyone who already ran for president or

Worked in the WH. And pointing out a candidate is not sufficiently popular with women is not venom- it’s an issue it would serve you well to hear about.

Any candidate we put up has to have a great record on women’s issues- period. We’re driving this blue wave.

[KPN]

68. Yes you are -- if my local Democratic Party organization

is any indicator. And doing a fine job! Go ladies!

[Squinch]

83. You've classified bettyellen as a bro?

[bettyellen]

91. If it wasn't such divisive bullshit I'd laugh!

[Squinch]

92. It is really funny!

[Cha]

108. bettyellen is Not that person.

[Squinch]

84. TAMMY DUCKWORTH!

[BannonsLiver]

60. 1991 called and wants its news back

All the Biden hate is fascinating to watch though, especially from those who are supposed Dems.

[comradebillyboy]

64. So the past doesn't matter unless we are taling about the Clintons?

[bettyellen]

72. Divisive attacks on fellow DUers. Nice going there.

[Squinch]

87. It's not hate. It's realism. He has a good deal of baggage - real baggage, not

Benghazi-style baggage- and no matter how much you or I might like his personality, that baggage has made him unsuccessful in his past attempts to run for the presidency, and would make him unsuccessful in the future.

[RandomAccess]

111. Right. We must have PERFECTION, dammit.

[Squinch]

112. No, nothing like perfection. But we probably shouldn't go with

someone who has tried numerous times and didn't get very far in any of them.

I like the guy, but he has never done well as a presidential candidate.

[RandomAccess]

115. Then you'd also be against Hillary running again??

[Squinch]

116. How did she do when she ran? She kicked ass. So the issue is not the same.

But much as I love her, no. She probably wouldn't be my first choice this time around. If she got a lot of support and I felt she could win the general this time, I would be thrilled to vote for her in a primary, but I don't think that will happen for her this time.

[Squinch]

120. Oh, just stop.

[Squinch]

148. Just for the record,

that wasn't me. It was a crap post and I thought about alerting, but didn't when I saw it would flag you.

[wryter2000]

227. I watched the hearings

I do not recall him attacking her. You can certainly make a case for him not defending her adequately.

I do recall him chairing the committee that kept Bork off the Court.

[mcar]

35. This!

I looked at the Big Picture and knew he was the best to make PROGRESS! Not some Pot Shotters from the sidelines always Whining about the job he was doing. President Obama actually got Further than any of those who weren't doing the work.

It was, and is, about the big picture, not purity. The smears against this good man, on this Democratic board, still make my blood boil, Cha.

[Cha]

137. I know.. the dead enders..

all they're good for is sitting home and stomping their feet or voting for Liars like stein.

mcar

[heaven05]

86. ++ nt

[tonyt53]

130. Well said!

[sarah FAILIN]

12. I'm with you.

Nobody wins playing the edges. I'm a middle of the road type too.

[demosincebirth]

14. Amen to that, George!

[OnDoutside]

15. Well said.

[TheBlackAdder]

16. Pragmatism ONLY works when all sides are pragmatic. If one side is not, pragmatists lose every time

.

When one side is extremely polarized, and refuses to flex, pragmatists lose every time, because they are starting their negotiations at the 50 yard line, and during debate most often will be dragged further to the right. The best case scenario is achieving their moderate proposals.

As with all negotiations, you make sure you have something to give up, hat is acceptable and leads the final negotiation to end at the point where you want to be. Starting at a position, where most normal people would find agreeable is no longer an option, at least not with this current GOP crowd.

.

[dansolo]

17. And people who are unwilling to compromise will also lose

That goes for both sides.

[TheBlackAdder]

25. True. But when you start form a position where you have nothing to barter, you've already lost.

[bunny planet]

29. Absolutely agree....

we can't afford to bring a knife to a gun fight anymore....people are hurting out here...big time and the other side has NO honest actors.

[KPN]

69. Ditto.

[KPN]

71. Exactly.

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. That's fine. When it works

I get the logic of centrism. There is usually some merit on each side of divergent opinions. Centrists look for what is good and workable from all sides. Centrists keep lines of communication open with others with divergent views, helping us all to find a way to come together to proceed on a course of action when inaction is not an option. Centrists are not wed to rigid ideological beliefs that blind them to "inconvenient truths" etc.

But there are also times when you can't split the baby in half to be fair to both sides in a custody dispute. Climate Change is a good example of an issue where a centrist approach is a "fail". Slowing down the car racing toward the cliff is not a sensible compromise between those who argue for full speed ahead and those who urge slamming on the brakes before the brink is crossed.

Some of us on this board feel that the societal playing field was wildly tilted toward the right about 35 years ago so that, in too many cases, what now passes as a "centrist position" is merely a less extreme rightest position from what is called rightest today.

[NurseJackie]

20. Oh brother.

Slowing down the car racing toward the cliff is not a sensible compromise between those who argue for full speed ahead and those who urge slamming on the brakes before the brink is crossed.

Oh brother. You're smart enough to know that when it comes to an "all or nothing" argument... the "nothing" side always wins.

All I'm saying is, while there may be a lot of personal satisfaction to be had in DEMANDING "all" ... I would think that there would be more pride in achieving SOMETHING (even if not "all'') that moves us closer to the goal.

I'm always baffled at how some prefer to walk away empty-handed and boasting about their own political purity... beaming with pride because they were unwilling to "split the baby" and for not being one of those "lousy centrists."

I think we can all agree that when you're hungry, negotiating for half a loaf is better than being stubborn and walking away with a plateful of pride and vanity. (Mmmm... pride and vanity... so rich, so filling, so tasty!)

[theaocp]

22. Could this be more simply stated as, "clap louder"?

As MLK said, “This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism.” Would you have told him he was walking away with a plateful of pride and vanity for his expectations?

[NurseJackie]

23. Enjoy dining on the pride and vanity. Mmmm... so tasty!

Don't gobble it down too fast... you might choke.

[theaocp]

24. Okay. Thanks for treating DU like Twitter.

Your projection is strong as ever.

[lapucelle]

41. Wait...what?

What does that even mean?

[Squinch]

44. .

[NurseJackie]

101. "Thanks for treating DU like Twitter." --- Umm, okay-y-y-y? You're welcome?

Your projection is strong as ever.

[LanternWaste]

202. If you are projecting...

You're projecting optimism, dynamism and strength.

[NurseJackie]

215. ...

[Cha]

209. All you have are insults, theaocp.

[NurseJackie]

212. That tells me...

That tells me when somebody is arguing from a position of weakness.

[Cha]

213. Very much so.

[LanternWaste]

204. Then you'll provide a valid means of achieving all stated Democratic goals this year, yes?

Otherwise, it would appear you're doing the very same thing you obliquely indict others for.

[Tom Rinaldo]

73. I said nothing about "all or nothing"

Not even in the metaphor I used. It's a matter of what positions are important enough that it is worth making an all out fight for. Some have a tendency to want to prematurely meet in the middle. Some times I might even settle for a third of a loaf, depending on what was at stake, sometimes anything less than 9/10ths of a loaf won't cut it - not if something as fundamental as voting rights, for one example, is at stake.

[NurseJackie]

75. Doesn't matter. Your meaning was clear...

Not even in the metaphor I used.

Doesn't matter. Your meaning was clear. Not wanting to "split the baby" made your message clear... you didn't have to say the words to mean those words. (I'm NOT stupid, you know.) The all-or-nothing approach is a recipe for continued failure, no matter how much pride one feels from walking away with nothing. Pride and purity may be tasty, but they're not as filling as half a loaf.

[Tom Rinaldo]

80. I don't think you're stupid

but that was a dumb interpretation of what I said. Yes there are some virtual all or nothing scenarios and I am confident that you and I can agree on quite a long list of them. A woman's fundamental right to choose would be one. Equal justice before the law regardless of race, religion etc etc would be another. Equal pay for equal work regardless of gender would be another. When absolute push came to shove it is conceivable I could agree to some tactical compromises in areas of those sorts rather than lose everything. But it sure as hell wouldn't be for half a loaf. That's what I meant by maybe settling for 9/10ths temporarily

Nurse Jackie, Unions call strikes when an unacceptable offer is made. And when they do there is always a chance that they will risk everything by not accepting a poor offer to settle. Sometimes unions have been busted because of strikes. It's a risk. But organized labor would never have won the victories that it did had risks of that sort not been taken when it really mattered.

Not every situation is worth drawing that type line in the sand over. When the Affordable Care Act was being developed Single Payer was not allowed on the table for serious consideration. I as you might guess favor Single Payer, but the ACA still represented meaningful progress. Which is why, of course, someone like Bernie Sanders voted for it - and I still regard it as a step forward.

[NurseJackie]

97. "but that was a dumb interpretation of what I said" -- How charming.

that was a dumb interpretation

Personal insults are so persuasive. I should have expected as much.

Which is why, of course, someone like Bernie Sanders voted for it

Okay, uh-huh, right. It's always about Bernie, isn't it?

[Tom Rinaldo]

105. You call that an insult? Seriously

I don't mind it if someone thinks an observation I make is dumb. That is not the same as calling me dumb. I am off sometimes, I will always freely admit it. What matters is what happens next, where we get into talking about WHY someone thinks my observation was dumb. If the discussion is substantive, I am fine with it.

Sorry if I got the subtext wrong about Bernie. It's just that lately he is used, by some people who sound a lot like you, as their archetype of someone who has unrealistic political expectations.

[NurseJackie]

165. Again, Tom... I'm NOT as stupid as you're treating me. Stop it!

Last edited Wed Aug 1, 2018, 08:44 AM - Edit history (1)

Again, Tom... I'm NOT as stupid as you're treating me. Stop it! I see exactly what you're doing (and this is not the first time either.)

"but that was a dumb interpretation of what I said"

Your choice of words reveals your intent. You could have said it was the "wrong interpretation"; or that it was "very wrong"; or that "misinterpreted"; or that I "misunderstood"; or that I "took it the wrong way"; or that I "misread" it.

But no. You chose the word "dumb" as your adjective to talk down to me... to mansplain things to me. In your mind, it wasn't just an ordinary mistake, it was "dumb"... and you didn't hesitate to say so with your backhanded insult and put-down.

I get it. I see it.

...I am fine with it.

Why? What good purpose does it serve to talk down to me? I don't deserve to be treated this way from you. And unfortunately, I'm not the only who gets this type of treatment.

I know I'm not the easiest person to love. I'm sarcastic and dismissive. I'm critical and impatient. But I never call people dumb (or even hint at it.) And you don't have the right to characterize me in that way either.

All I'm saying is that you need to check your tone and proofread. Maybe it would help if you try to imagine what you'd say if it were your own mother that you were responding to. I'm sure you wouldn't talk to your own mother the same way you insult and talk down to me.

Other women have noticed too. I'm not alone.

[Tom Rinaldo]

171. I didn't choose the adjective "dumb" for the reasons you think

It was triggered by word association, specifically your use of the phrase "i'm not stupid". I write semi-professionally, and sometimes I reach too far in trying to be clever playing on words because I enjoy crafting word play - I do it almost without thinking about it. I can get too cute at times trying to craft a phrase that plays upon another. In this case it was my writing something akin to "I don't think you are stupid but that interpretation was dumb" as a conceptional couplet.

That is the honest truth. It is the reason why a word like "misunderstood" did not come to me instead. I did not mean to talk down to you. My first thought expressed, "I don't think you are stupid", is the truth. I don't. Sometimes I do think you can be "sarcastic and dismissive" but I greatly respect you acknowledging that about yourself. I can get too full of myself. I know that. People aren't perfect and that includes us.

When I wrote "I am fine with it" what I was referring to was when people say something derogatory to me about something I said. I didn't mean "I am fine " with you feeling insulted. I am fine with people saying derogatory things to me in the context of an honest exchange. You just wrote some derogatory comments to me about my attitude as you experience it. Perfect case in point. I "am fine" with your having done so because I can tell you are being sincere about how you felt. I am sincerely sorry that I made you feel the way that I did

I can get frustrated with you at times because it seems we have a hard time engaging on the substance of our disagreements - and perhaps that frustration leaks through. In addition to having written a phrase to you about a "dumb interpretation" I also tried to open up a discussion on the theme you raised, the pros and cons of seemingly taking an all or nothing position. I put thought into that because it's a serious question. You "accused" me of supporting "all or nothing" thinking which you framed as highly negative. I felt that attempt at actual dialog was ignored by you. You felt insulted which explains why your reply focused on how you perceive me treating you.

Though you didn't exactly have anything nice to say about me in the post I am replying to here, I appreciate the openness you expressed. I would love to have more real contact with you while we share this board. Again I do not think you are stupid, I would appreciate knowing more about your thoughts that underlie the statements that you make here.

[lapucelle]

186. I was "triggered by word association...because I enjoy crafting word play

which led me to write "that was a dumb interpretation" when I really meant

"something akin to 'I don't think you are stupid, but that interpretation was dumb' as a conceptional couplet",

but for some reason chose not to write that because I was "triggered by word association"....

[Tom Rinaldo]

196. I did write that I didn't think NJ was stipid. On two posts

If you have still have questions about my intentions, PM me (I promise I won't post it). Enough DU time has been wasted on this sub thread already.

[ehrnst]

172. +1000

[ehrnst]

174. Look what Tom Rinaldo decided to message me:

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, Tom.

Ehrnst

[Tom Rinaldo]

176. I'm fine in the kitchen

I would have posted that reply directly to DU except I foolishly assumed you would prefer that I respond to you first via PM in case you actually wanted to, you know, say anything.

I am happy to have both my response to Nurse Jackie and to you in the public record. Hope it works out for you too.

[ehrnst]

177. The "foolish assumption" on your part was not that I

"prefer that you respond to me first via PM," but you thinking that allowing me to "speak to you directly" about my post that might be "violating some guideline" might lead me to delete or revise my post for fear of having you "pursue a route like that" instead.

Your insinuations are about as subtle as a cement block being dropped from a second story window, which is likely why you decided to PM me with one that was a bit more... mean spirited than those on this thread, which are more along the lines of insults.

I hope that you are smarter than to try this on anyone else.

[Tom Rinaldo]

178. You read too much into what I said

I meant exactly what I wrote. I never had any intention of alerting on you. If that was what I was thinking I simply would have done so without saying anything to you about it. It pissed me off a little that you piled on but so fucking what? I've dealt with so much worse. Instead of just being annoyed with you I decided to PM you directly to see if there was anything you wanted to pursue directly with me, through PM where you wouldn't run the risk of running afoul of any DU rules - anyone could alert without my knowing anything about it. I thought a private channel would be more constructive. That is all.

It was always your choice whether you wanted to delete your first post but I didn't expect you to nor did I care if you did. What Nurse Jackie wrote to me was potentially a lot more damning to me than your "+++ a thousand" or whatever it is you posted. I couldn't care less if you delete that or not. I took what Nurse Jackie wrote seriously because she took it seriously and she deserved a real reply from me. I would gladly have had a real exchange with you if that was what you had chosen. Like I said, you didn't give me a lot to respond to in your first comment about me on this thread.

[ehrnst]

180. " through PM where you wouldn't run the risk of running afoul of any any DU rules. "

That pretty much confirmed what I said in my post - that you were insinuating that I was running afoul of DU guidelines...

Instead of just being annoyed with you I decided to PM you directly

Perhaps it was you who didn't want to "run the risk of running afoul of any any DU rules," by unloading and accusing me of some sort of "violation of DU guidelines" where others could see.

Like I said, you didn't give me a lot to respond to in your first comment about me on this thread.

But you certainly thought it was enough to fire off a pissy PM that implied that I was violating a DU guideline with "whatever it was" that I posted.

I suggest that putting me on ignore will relieve you of being the victim of "piling on" and won't feel you have to work so hard to convince anyone that your feels towards said "piling on" is "so fucking what?"

[Tom Rinaldo]

179. P.S.

If I would have been tempted to alert on anyone it would have been NJ, but clearly I wasn't. The record speaks for itself, directly above this on this thread.

[ehrnst]

181. I think you were trying to avoid being alerted by PM'ing me.

Your responses to me speak for themselves.

If I would have been tempted to alert on anyone it would have been NJ, but clearly I wasn't.

How would we know that you didn't? All we do know is that you want kudos for NJ not having posts removed.

Do go on.

[Tom Rinaldo]

182. I know you are wrong but you are free to believe that I am lying to you.

You seized on the line "prefer that you respond to me first via PM"as if that was a threat that I would alert on you if you didn't delete you post or something, but that phrase came from my reply to your posting my private email to you. Again, I chose to see if you wanted to actually have a dialog. I didn't threaten to alert on you. I would have responded to any actual complaints about me sincerely expressed by you directly to me in the same manner as I did to what Nurse Jackie had to say. Now maybe you think my last reply to her was insulting or mean spirited or whatever. I don't. It is public record. All can reach their own conclusions.

I'll say it. This is getting silly. If I ever wanted to alert on you I simply could have done so immediately without saying a word to you. It's not that big a deal to me no matter how many negative things you continue to say about me. I have no one on ignore. You can ignore me if you wish.

[Gothmog]

175. Great post NJ

[GulfCoast66]

132. Ms. NurseJackie. You hit the nail on the head with your astute Bernie pickup

Which is why I seldom insert myself into these types of threads.

There is no real division between ‘progressive’ Democrats and ‘centrist’ Democrats on DU. Or in the real world for that matter. Policy wise we all pretty much want the same thing.

There is only division between Bernie supporters and other Democrats. It got somewhat better after 2016. But as the midterms ramp up it is, predictably, returning to summer 2016.

I enjoy your posts. Hope this one of mine last long enough for you to read it.

[NurseJackie]

135. Thank you!

[Autumn]

121. Strange isn't it? I've lately noticed I'll post one thing and someone

will decide I mean something else.

[NurseJackie]

166. That's why I always proofread and spell-check.

All I'm saying is that strong writing and communication skills are good to have if someone wants to get their true meaning across (obviously) but I always take a moment to "preview" and proof-read before clicking the "Post my Reply" button.

There's always room for improvement, especially when someone writes a reply (or an OP) in haste or in anger or in bitterness or resentment... that's often when and how someone's meaning and intent become lost.

[Autumn]

167. Yep I see you do that.

[progressoid]

36. Yup. n/t

[lapucelle]

42. So "centrists" are merely "less extreme rightists" at this point in the discourse?

Three Democrats frequently labeled "centrists" (or "moderates" ) by those on the fringes: HRC, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi.

[Tom Rinaldo]

74. The shifts I have been concerned about deal with issues such as the respective roles

of the public and private sectors for example. Almost every shift in the last 40 years has been in the direction of "privatization". Also income inequality, as in the exploding differential between the pay of average workers in a corporation and that of the CEO. Also the de-progressive "evolution" of our tax structure, with progressive income tax brackets flattening out and more revenues being raised through regressive means such as sales taxes and fees.

[lapucelle]

76. I would recommend that anyone concerned about such "shifts"

revisit (or perhaps read for the first time) the 2016 Democratic Platform.

[Tom Rinaldo]

81. It was a good platform

The two leading candidates for the Presidential nomination that year worked hard in good faith negotiations to hammer out agreement on a unifying platform.

[lapucelle]

89. That it was, and that they did.

The danger of having only doctrinaire or intractable ideologues controlling either or both parties and/or the legislative process is that nothing ever actually gets done because (as President Obama might caution) "the perfect becomes the enemy of the good."

This is one of the reasons why the Democratic big tent is so important and why it's crucial that amorphous, individually defined labels like "progressive" or "centrist" become neither shields nor weapons.

[Hortensis]

85. Your caveat makes the point that democracy REQUIRES

dominant centrist-leaning majorities to work. We didn't meet the challenges of climate change BECAUSE our working center was divided by malignant enemies and became too separated to reach agreements on big issues.

You know,

United we stand, divided we fall.

None of this was an accident, or natural. It was engineered.

Also, centrists provide the stability that allows non-centrist factions to work for greater and more radical changes without risking destroying our democracy. Extremists on both sides will always be with us, but a healthy centrist core allows their energies to be healthy contributions instead of dangerous. We don't have one now.

[ucrdem]

26. Lest it be forgot, the far left California presidential candidate in 2012 was . . .

Roseanne Barr.

http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/component/content/article/106-2012-november-election/1017-roseanne-barr-for-president

That's not to knock the P & F party, of which I was once a member, just to say that labels can be misleading and people can call themselves Karl Lenin Trotsky Marx if they want, and it won't make them a "leftist," though it will doubtless fool a few newbies.

[Trust Buster]

27. The farther one moves from the center, the higher the level of narcissism IMO.

[NurseJackie]

38. Boom! True! This!

[lapucelle]

40. And the further one is on the fringes of the spectrum,

the less likely one is to understand where the center truly lies. Here are the pictographs for the ideology ratings of two "centrist establishment Democrats" (Chuck and Nancy) and one "progressive Democrat" (E. Warren), in no particular order.

[Fiendish Thingy]

28. MLK said about the centrist:

[saidsimplesimon]

54. A great human being, Rev. King.

He had his flaws, as I do. His message stands for the ages, I remember.

[tonedevil]

103. That's what I thought of too. /nt

[theaocp]

140. I think I actually looked up this image today, too.

I was thinking about posting it, but I would like to hear from other people in this thread, regarding the parallels. Cheers and thanks.

[Harker]

30. Given the mobility of the center

do you feel as though you've changed along with "it" over 46 years, or have your beliefs remained constant?

I ask in the hope of better understanding.

[George II]

45. Yes I have. The "center" is only a vague description of the majority of Americans and...

....a larger majority of Democrats.

I have been described over those years as both a "conservative" and a "communist". The fact is that I've never been called a "radical" or "far" anything. I've never been called "establishment", either.

There are no borders in the Democratic Party between the right, center, and left, and the dividing lines, such as they are, shift constantly. I guess I'm on the "left-leaning" side of the Democratic Party. But I'm not a purist, I don't demand that all members of my party agree with me 100% of the time on all issues, i.e., if they don't they're not "good" or "true" Democrats.

Inasmuch as anywhere from 60-80% of the members of the Democratic Party can be considered "centrist", being such is not a bad thing or impure.

[Harker]

46. Thanks!

I appreciate your thoughtful reply, and offer my regards and my respect.

Yes... "purists" of any sort seldom fare well.

[mcar]

32. I consider myself a liberal Democrat

but I'm probably centrist according to some.

All said and done, I'm a Democrat and proud to be so!

And proud to know you, George.

[Skidmore]

53. With you.

Proud to be a liberal Democrat for the last 40 some years. Progressive, too, because Democrats are progressive by nature. Anyone saying otherwise is blowing smoke up your jeans.

[progressoid]

43. What does that even mean?

The political needle has moved quite a bit in 46 years. Today's centrist Democrats would be considered moderate Republicans three or four decades ago. So did you move political winds or are you still a 1972 centrist Democrat?

And are you centrist in all areas? Like, some rights for gay people, but lets not get too carried away and treat them like full citizens. Maybe pro-choice(ish)?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

57. I see a lot in Chicago. They are the old Reagan Democrats.

Pro union - but only their union.

Pro social security as far as cashing the checks - but don’t want anyone else getting “handouts” from the government.

Pro Medicare but only for themselves.

Claim to be liberal but don’t want anyone getting any “free stuff”

Opposed gay marriage until the entire country came around.

Claim to support minorities but think black lives matter are too pushy.

Completely silent on the bloated military budget but the first to scream bloody murder over paying for healthcare.

[progressoid]

77. I rarely talk politics with clients but after a few years one started to bring up the subject

from time to time. Turns out she was a Democrat. Cool, I think. We agreed that the Iraq was was a disaster, and Bush was a disaster, etc. Boiler plate obvious stuff. Then she tells me that the church she attends is getting a little too progressive (I don't remember what flavor of Christianity it is). Apparently they've hired a lesbian as a back-up pastor and now it's always "love this" and "rainbow that."

I kind of laughed it off. We're still friends. I just don't think she can get past the "ick" factor or something.

[George II]

94. Reagan Democrats? I find that very very offensive. Carry on, carry on.

[NurseJackie]

98. Agreed. It's just as offensive as that divisive sig-line cartoon...

... offensive for reasons that need no explanation from me.

[George II]

99. Some seem to like scouring the internet to find offensive and/or violent graphics...

...especially those that are violent towards women/girls.

Truly sad.

[lapucelle]

124. It's argument from an atypical sample, a fairly common flaw in reasoning.

"This one Democrat I know" or a vague number ("a lot" ) of people of a particular age in a particular region who sometimes vote Republican do not comprise a representative sample of any type of Democrat.

[mcar]

125. I caught that too

That entire post is insulting.

[JustAnotherGen]

184. #metoo

It's almost like the poster is saying you are actually a Republican.

Carry on my fellow Democratic in the streets. The reality is - most people will never give as much to our party as you do. Someday I hope to 'catch up'.

It's just extremely disheartening as a committee person devoting time, money, energy, my living room when there are duplicate Young Democrat/County Democratic meetings on our assigned borough committee meeting day (double booked) to read that folks like you and me are 'Reagan Democrats'.

For the record - I was 7 when God Damn Ronnie (as my father called him) entered office. He (dad) used to accuse of acting like Republicans (acting Stupid) and threaten to make us go live with the Reagans when we were bad.

Crazy how you and I align yet - I was always taught to hate those people. Crazy I tell ya!

It's almost like this person doesn't want the Democratic Party to be a big tent of beliefs so isn't spending any time getting candidates elected this November.

[George II]

206. Yes, you've "done your time" and walked the walk, rather than simply being a keyboard Democrat....

...like many we come across here. People like you and I don't do it for money or fame or "favors". Sure it's personally gratifying when our candidates win, but it's more gratifying when policies are implemented (most often Democratic policies) that help the entire community, not just a small minority of people.

And once our candidates are determined, whether they're ideologically center, right of center, left of center, or even far left (I've yet to see a Democratic candidate who is "far right" ), I support them. Period.

[MountCleaners]

96. Amen!

I grew up in the south suburbs and know the type well.

[Cha]

104. Oh you Poor Thing.. ALL you have are INSULTS In your SIG LINE

and such wishful thinking So sad your little insulting scenario is all made up.

And, I don't think you see any of that in Chicago.

[lapucelle]

106. Why are the donkeys wearing Hillary buttons? This is 2018.

The cartoonist needs to get over the primaries and move on. HRC is a private citizen, and AOC is a registered Democrat and a Democratic candidate. Why would anybody draw such a divisive and backward-looking image?

[Cha]

109. Exactly, lapucelle! The only reason to draw something like that

.. is they're bitter and can't move on.

Mahalo!!

[ehrnst]

183. I see a lot of rabid "anti-centrists" around

On the right, they support DT and believe anyone who tells them the "the party establishment is corrupt, and any competent politician is a corporatist whore!"

On the far left, they believe anyone who tells them the "the party establishment is corrupt, and any competent politician is a corporatist whore!"

Mirror images of each other, and do the very same thing to Democratic party efforts towards progressive acheivements. But they certainly are heroes on social media!

[LanternWaste]

205. I'm sure you'll pretend your sample is valid.

"The guy I talk to in the apartment downstairs from me said...."
Well, damn. It strokes my wee bias, so it must be accurate!

[bigtree]

47. name some policy positions that you represent/support as a centrist

...be specific.

[George II]

95. You can start here:

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

[sheshe2]

122. Bazinga!

[bigtree]

131. that's a predictable deflection

...I'll assume you support what I know 'centrists' have supported in the past, since you're playing this 'centrist means Democrat' game.

Honestly, I don't know why you try this nonsense here.

Try this, without deflecting. Where do you most closely stand on this chart? (I'm at the top)

[George II]

139. That chart is exactly my point - if you add up the % of all those who consider themselves....

...."moderate" (i.e., "centrist" ) on either all or some issues, the result is 64%, almost two-thirds. THAT is the majority of the Democratic Party. Only 25%, one-quarter, consider themselves to be socially and economically liberal, i.e. "pure".

Thanks for the chart (by the way it's more than three years old)

[bigtree]

145. just tell us what issues you support

...voting with the republican majority.

That's what characterizes 'centrist' politicians in the Democratic party. We just brace ourselves every time we need a solid Democratic majority on issues. Which one of these centrist Democrats is going to jump ship and vote with republicans?

That's where it matters, not what you believe, but what that centrist Democrat you might support is willing to stand for. Where will theuy draw the line on judges. Where will they draw their line on immigration, health care, climate change and other environmental challenges, social justice and law enforcement...

Anything else is navel-gazing nonsense.

[George II]

147. Let's see now, how about Russia sanctions? Sure if I was in the Senate at the time...

...I would have voted for them along "with the republicans".

That vote turned out to be 98-2, with two of the most "radical" Senators, one from the far left and one from the far right, voting against them. Got the idea now?

[bigtree]

170. I didn't think you'd be straight with me

...what about this capital gains indexing republicans are talking about. Is that a 'centrist' position?

What about support for Kavanaugh? Would that be a centrist position? I see a few Dem 'moderates' are still mulling it over.

What about banking regulations? I see centrist Democrats working with republicans on watered down legislation which omits almost all of the consumer protections in the Democratic legislation and exempts many large banks from regulations. One Democrat actually worked with republicans in committee to block Democratic provisions, mainly consumer protections.

What about gun safety legislation?

That's the type of 'voting with republicans' that I'm talking about. I really don't expect you to acknowledge it in this substance-free declaration of your political identity. I do think it would help if you would stop being coy about what issues and positions define your centrism.

Until then, I'll just associate your centrism with the way Democratic centrist legislators have defined their political distancing from majorities of Democratic legislators on critical, progressive Democratic initiatives.

[George II]

207. I don't make policy, but I support Democratic candidates and office holders....

...no matter how pure or impure they may seem to some. Our candidates make policy, and the fact that they're our candidates means that Democrats as a whole support their positions overall.

I'm certainly not going to go down a list of policies, especially when they're presented subjectively, and "rate" my agreement with them. No thanks.

[bigtree]

216. we know the role of centrist legislators in our party

...has been to limit the influence of progressives in crafting legislation in committee, and in staging crucial votes against the party where the majority of our legislators are unified, preventing progressive initiatives from becoming law.

In fact, it's hard to find instances where their agenda has been a positive one, often using their votes and influence as leverage against a majority of Democrats prepared to act together to oppose republican legislation or advance initiatives of our own. They posture and act against the majority of our party to protect corporate interests, gun enthusiasts, or a host of conservative interests which are an anathema to our Democratic agenda.

So, it's probably smart to refuse to subject your declaration that you're a 'centrist' to any specific critique, lest you have to explain the actions against the majority of the party which characterizes almost everything self-described centrist legislators actually do.

Better to stick with empty rhetoric to make it appear that you're every Democrat, not part of the insurgent minority of 'moderates' who also tout the 'centrist' label as they posture against our leadership and majority of Democratic legislators.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

218. Absolutely. Well said!

[Lordquinton]

219. Damn Bigtree, you are not playing games!

I'm wary of people who loudly proclaim their allegances but refuse to back it. Beligerantly refuse to state them at that.

[NeoGreen]

230. THIS! and it should be its own OP (nt)

[progressoid]

157. Uh, wut?

This platform emphasizes the extent to which 2016 isn’t a year to move to the center.



Democrats Adopt Most Progressive Platform in Party History

[George II]

169. Uh, wut?

[progressoid]

194. When asked to name some policy positions that you represent/support as a centrist, you said to start

at the party platform. So everything in the platform is centrist?

Didja actually look at the link to the platform? Because after the preamble, it dives right into economic planks negotiated by that infamous NON-Democratic senator.

[George II]

211. "So everything in the platform is centrist?" Illogical projection. No, but I agree with....

....just about everything in the platform, center/left/far left. But with some of those positions that I don't agree with I'm certainly not going to stalk out of the party and refuse to vote or vote for a lesser non-Democrat.

You see, many people think all of this is a matter of absolutes. There's no such thing.

We don't have a party of 100% "right of center" (indeed, we have very few), nor a party of 100% centrists, nor a party of 100% left of center.

Should we reject anyone who does not agree with 100% of our positions? If we did, there's a good chance we'd have a hundred million one-person parties.

PS - the premise that those economic planks were "negotiated" by the infamous Senator is blown way out of proportion and/or exaggerated.

[progressoid]

220. You agree with just about everything in the platform, center/left/far left.

That's not really centrism then. That's just being a Democrat.

[George II]

221. Whatev'

[progressoid]

222. Hahaha. So your proud declaration and this entire thread was meaningless.

[George II]

223. No, but your attempt at boiling it down to black/white, up/down, left/right, etc. is.

[progressoid]

224. No boil down. Just trying to understand "What does that even mean?"

During this discussion, we've discovered that for you being a proud centrist means, "center/left/far left" or "whatev".

OK. That's fine.

I too support center/left/far left policies. Not really sure why this is even a thing.

[George II]

225. Thanks for the reminder to update my signature

[Act_of_Reparation]

48. Your butt's not sore from setting on that fence all these years?

Good for you.

[mcar]

128. What?

[Gothmog]

51. I live in Texas and I am good and proud democrat

[Blue_true]

52. I am left-center. Been there since high school. nt

[CrispyQ]

55. The center has shifted a lot in 46 years.

Obama is just an icon for the entire Democratic Party in this cartoon & they've been doing this since Reagan.

[progressoid]

78. Yep. That's been going on for a long time.

Time to start moving back to the left.

[lapucelle]

107. If Obama were just an icon, wouldn't he be wearing a donkey button

instead of an Obama button?

[lapucelle]

110. That's why it's best to rely on detailed, criteria-based empirical evidence

provided by experts who compile ideology assessments as their profession using a standard methodology.

Here's Nancy Pelosi's ideology info graph and related information.



http://www.ontheissues.org/VoteMatch/candidate_map.asp?a1=1&a2=1&a3=1&a4=5&a9=1&a16=4&a10=5&a5=5&a7=5&a8=5&a14=1&a15=1&a17=2&a19=5&a18=2&a6=1&a20=2&a11=1&a12=5&a13=1&i1=1&i2=1&i3=1&i4=1&p=90&e=10&t=21

[Squinch]

113. I love these things!

[lapucelle]

117. I learned about the website OnTheIssues.org from a highschool social studies teacher

who uses it with seniors in his government class to prepare them to be informed voters.

[KPN]

65. How do you define centrist? Labels without

universal understanding and agreement about what they mean are meaningless. I am a moderate in my view, but I have no idea what that means to you or any one else.

[Afromania]

79. Center, Left, all the way left. You are a Democrat and no distinct should need to be made.

Last edited Tue Jul 31, 2018, 09:45 PM - Edit history (1)

The only thing any of us need to do is vote straight Democratic for whoever the candidate is. That's it, the rest of it needs to be stowed away for a time when Democracy isn't under attack from insane and/or evil people.

[George II]

100. Amen! Thank you.

[tonyt53]

136. BINGO!!! What the hell does it matter as long as they vote Dem?????

Starting to see a few such threads on here. instead of supporting Democrats, they attack Democrats that do not think just as they do.

[aikoaiko]

90. I used to call myself a left of center Democrat.

Now I realize I just idiosyncratic on issues but generally left.

[vi5]

102. I personally believe in facts, data, and history....

...and at this point in my life and in history I have seen how bad the other side's policies are and how much they have failed when enacted. And I've seen how much it erodes our side and what we are trying to accomplish (equality, fairness, growth for all) when we pepper our goals and our ideas with bits and pieces from their side.

So yeah, if there's something from their side and their ideas that's been proven to work then sure I'll take the "centrist" approach. But at this point in time there's very little they've tried that hasn't failed.

At this point I've seen the middle of the road gets us nothing but run over. Repeatedly.

[Squinch]

118. No one is "peppering our goals with bits and pieces of the other side."

But nice try.

[KentuckyWoman]

114. I am impressed

A simple statement spawned a megathread.
I have no idea why.

[dchill]

133. I, on the other hand, am a RADICAL LEFTIST!

I believe in free health care for ALL (including unregistered immigrants and all colors of people,) a woman's right to choose, free and fair elections, science, legal marijuana and free internet. Please don't tell anyone!

[ehrnst]

185. I hate to break it to you, but

that all sounds sounds pretty much like the establishment Democratic Platform with the exception of "free" healthcare, because no health care is "free" - physicians don't volunteer. There is no "free" healthcare anywhere, just different ways that it is paid for. Believe me, I lived and worked in the UK, and loved the health care, but it wasn't "free." However, at my last in the US, employer, I paid no healthcare premiums, and very little out of pocket - and that was as close to "free" as I have ever seen. So there's that. Universal, affordable and accessible health care for everyone in whatever form will get it to people is the goal, and Democrats aren't limiting themselves to just one method or bust. The ACA is the closest we've ever come, that that was acheived by "establishment" "Centrist" president.

What is in the platform is (affordable and accessible) Universal Healthcare, a woman's right to choose, free and fair elections, science, "a free and open internet at home and abroad" and a pathway to Marijuana legalization.

I think you may be way more "establishment Democrat" than you think, along with most people in this country. But you really are a "radical leftist" when it comes to the GOP platform, if that helps.

[dchill]

187. "when it comes to the GOP platform..."

That's what I'm saying. "Free" is relative. No one should have to pay more than they can afford for health care.

[ehrnst]

189. Any centrist Democrat is a "radical leftist" when it comes to the GOP.

So, no are not on the other hand a "radical leftist" when it comes to Democratic establishment policy. You are right there with the establishment Democrats. Centrist Democrats, even. The differences are not in the goals, but in the strategies used to get to those goals. Dogma, if you will.

You didn't say "affordable" you said "free." The ACA, which is an establishment Democratic accomplishment, was the closest we have ever come to universal (affordable and accessible) health care. It costs less for some, more for others. And despite being damaged and partially dismantled, it's still the only thing that is enabling millions of Americans to get health care who otherwise could not.

[dchill]

190. Relative. To a person making $8.50 an hour...

"Affordable" would just about have to mean "free."

[ehrnst]

191. That's what "accessible" and "affordable" means.

What is accessible to someone with less money will be different than what is accessible to someone with lots of money.

"Free" is not "relative." It means "free of charge." And especially if something is socialized, that person making minimum wage will be paying something via their payroll taxes. I know - I worked in the UK and had an equivalent of 4 hours pay a week deducted from my check for national health. Accessible and affordable - yes. Free? Not at all.

That is why HRC stated that her debt free college plan would not extend tuition waivers to wealthy families, who would be responsible for paying more, in order for it to cost less or nothing for those who had less or nothing.

You can't honestly promise "free" anything, because it's not going to be free for everyone, it can't be. Of course, it's a fabulous campaign slogan, if not an accurate one. It certainly gets voters pissed off at one's opponent for bursting their bubble about how things actually work.

[betsuni]

149. "But I'm sure that's all the fault of the people that haven't been running the party."

Are saying that stagnant wages, declining unions, eroding educational systems, increasing racism, the party in the worst shape since reconstruction, the longest war, widening income gap, and a conservative supreme court are caused by the people running the Democratic Party?

[nini]

143. I'm far left in theory.. left of center voting because I'm realistic

We're not going to go to my way of thinking in one sweep. we fight the biggest battle first of getting control again.then chip away at the right leaning people.

[Adrahil]

214. Well said.

Philosophically I am farther left than I vote. We are unlikely to successfully implement transformational change when we can't even maintain control of any branch of government. And now that we lost our two best chances of shifting the SCotUS to the left , we have to overcome that hurdle as well.

[RandiFan1290]

168. Bold Position!

[Eliot Rosewater]

193. Not me, I am as far left as you can get, I am however also not a complete idiot

and as such realize that the centrist position has to be taken into account as well as others.

Personally I think the country is ready for single payer, education that doesnt bankrupt you and more; only problem is we cant do any of that while ACTUAL NAZIS AND TRAITORS AND FASCISTS are occupying not just the WH but control all government.

So, what we do is take back the government first, then we do the other stuff.

This is common sense. Nothing more. And we not only need centrists to do that but THEY will in part have to later pave the way for the stuff I mentioned so everybody is on board, but talking about it now is stupid.

[Squinch]

198. Perfect! What Eliot said!

[Quixote1818]

203. We are in the same page exactly nt

[PrairieBlueCat]

195. Hi, first time poster, long time lurker!

Last edited Wed Aug 1, 2018, 03:04 PM - Edit history (1)

DU is part of my daily reading.

Just wanted to show my support for the strong centrist wing of the Democratic Party that is constantly overshadowed by a certain Not Democrat and Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, who is well-meaning but misguided.

The center-left of America is huge, but currently, kind of leaderless.

The ONLY way to win the House, Senate, and Presidency is to run candidates that appeal to both centrism and liberalism. I think nearly all of us recognize this.

[George II]

199. +1,000,000

[PrairieBlueCat]

200. Doug Jones.

Conor Lamb. Cheri Bustos, one of my favorites. Steve Bullock. John Bel Edwards. Heidi Heitkamp. Jim Himes. Sanford Bishop. Henry Cuellar. Roy Cooper. Joe Donnelly. Joe Manchin.

I'm fond of these folks. We need them. I don't agree with them on everything, and they don't agree with each other on everything.

But they're making small, though important inroads in some states that haven't been kind to Democrats since the 60s, 70s, and 80s.

Anyway, my $.02.

[George II]

201. One thing I've been saying for months (started during the Conor Lamb "impure" campaign)...

...is that I'd support a Democrat that I agree with 80% of the time who can get elected than one I agree with 100% of the time who can't get elected.

[LAS14]

208. Are you a Canadian???? nt

[George II]

210. I was born in NYC and have lived my entire 70 years (except for 6 mos. in Ohio) in NY, NJ, and CT.

[LAS14]

231. Then why the Canadian flag icon? nt

[Garrett78]

217. So, did "centrist Democrat" mean the same thing 46 years ago, or have you changed your positions?

Either you think "centrist Democrat" means the same thing now as it did in 1972, or you've changed your position on various issues. So, is it the latter or the former?