Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Olivaw

Dems, Please Don’t Drive Me Away

Recommended Posts

 

Quote

 

The dynamic pulling the party leftward.

David Brooks

By David Brooks

Opinion Columnist

June 27, 2019

 

I could never in a million years vote for Donald Trump. So my question to Democrats is: Will there be a candidate I can vote for?

 

According to a recent Gallup poll, 35 percent of Americans call themselves conservative, 35 percent call themselves moderate and 26 percent call themselves liberal. The candidates at the debates this week fall mostly within the 26 percent. The party seems to think it can win without any of the 35 percent of us in the moderate camp, the ones who actually delivered the 2018 midterm win.

 

The progressive narrative is dominating in part because progressives these days have a direct and forceful story to tell and no interest in compromising it. It’s dominating because no moderate wants to bear the brunt of progressive fury by opposing it.

 

It’s also dominating because the driving dynamic in this campaign right now is not who can knock off Joe Biden, the more moderate front-runner. It’s who can survive the intense struggle between Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and others to be the surviving left-wing alternative. All the energy and competition is on the progressive side. Biden tries to bob and weave above it all while the whole debate pulls sharply leftward.

 

 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/opinion/democratic-debate-2020.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted in the LO room because it concerns only Democrats. I’m undecided how I feel about this but it is something that needs to be considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting, from a moderate POV.

 

6 hours ago, Olivaw said:

David Brooks:  "So my question to Democrats is: Will there be a candidate I can vote for?"

 

With over twenty primary candidates, why on earth would Mr Brooks ask this question.There are plenty of Moderate - Centrists candidates  that he can vote for. Delaney, Hickenlooper, and Biden come to mind. Does he want more choices?

 

I take it that Mr Brooks' complaint is that the Progressive agenda is polling very well, and driving many candidates leftward, which may result in nominating a non-moderate.

If he is referring to the General Election, is Mr Brooks saying that he will stay home in November rather than vote for a progressive candidate selected by his fellow Democrats?

 

6 hours ago, Olivaw said:

David Brooks: "According to a recent Gallup poll, 35 percent of Americans call themselves conservative, 35 percent call themselves moderate and 26 percent call themselves liberal."

 

Fair enough, but cherry picking polls is misleading. There are many polls out there that show the popularity progressive issues like M4A, climate change, and economic fairness. The problem is that moderates need to come up with proposals of their own that excite voters enough to win national primaries.

"Splitting the difference" with Republicans does not poll very well these days.

 

6 hours ago, Olivaw said:

David Brooks: "The progressive narrative is dominating in part because progressives these days have a direct and forceful story to tell and no interest in compromising it. It’s dominating because no moderate wants to bear the brunt of progressive fury by opposing it."

 

I would disagree. The progressive narrative is dominating in part because it is attracting Democratic voters. Moderate candidates are free to vigorously oppose these policies. If they are afraid of 'progressive fury', then how would they respond to the 'right wing venom', and smears from the right.

Fear is not a virtue for a Presidential candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moderates SHOULD be homeless.  They had an opportunity to vote for Hillary Clinton -- who herself is fairly moderate.  They didn't come out in support of her.  So now they're reaping what they've sowed.

Also, David Brooks isn't a moderate.  He's a conservative who claims he's a moderate.  Like a lot of moderates who are embarrassed by Donald Trump.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ExPDXer said:

With over twenty primary candidates, why on earth would Mr Brooks ask this question.

 

Of course there are moderate candidates.  What he's pondering is whether the final nominee will be too liberal/progressive for him.  I think he should have said "nominee" instead of "candidate".

 

16 minutes ago, ExPDXer said:

is Mr Brooks saying that he will stay home in November rather than vote for a progressive candidate selected by his fellow Democrats?

 

Yep.  I think that's what he's saying.  Or, he might intend to vote for an independent or third party

 

18 minutes ago, ExPDXer said:

The problem is that moderates need to come up with proposals of their own that excite voters enough to win national primaries

.

That seems like a good point, but it's almost impossible to get press coverage for a sensible, well-balanced proposal these days.  AOC got massive coverage for the "Green New Deal", mostly because those on the right were holding it up for ridicule, which obligated the left to defend it as a litmus test of their true liberal credentials.  Unless your proposal is 'out there', the press couldn't care less.   Political coverage these days is largely tabloid style with misleading headlines and cherry-picked quotes intended to inflame...and attract eyeballs so money can be made.

 

The point has been made that Biden leads because of name recognition.  That's a fair and true point.  But that's also why the most progressive (and unrealistic) proposals poll so well.  Those are the proposals that get all the press coverage.   Once voters find out the details of these proposals, they may not like them so well.  If the press spent as much time talking about sensible ideas as they did the unrealistic, they'd certainly poll better.

 

26 minutes ago, ExPDXer said:

Moderate candidates are free to vigorously oppose these policies.

 

I think what he's saying is that the farthest left voters/activists/candidates are the most committed, loud, aggressive, and energized.  Those with a more calm, practical, incremental approach don't want to anger this group.  But, the fear is that these energized voters still only get one vote each in November.  

 

It's a trade off.  We need the energized and aggressive folks to run a campaign.  But, we also need a good number of the less progressive 35% to come out and vote.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Cecelia said:

Moderates SHOULD be homeless.  They had an opportunity to vote for Hillary Clinton -- who herself is fairly moderate.  They didn't come out in support of her.  So now they're reaping what they've sowed.

 

This is true.   Hillary's positions were spot-on.  And, given Trump's personal qualities, it's hard to understand how anyone could select him over her for personal issues.  I think moderates are very sorry they let this happen.  Given the chance, perhaps they would correct this mistake?

 

36 minutes ago, Cecelia said:

Also, David Brooks isn't a moderate.  He's a conservative who claims he's a moderate.  Like a lot of moderates who are embarrassed by Donald Trump.  

 

If folks are embarrassed by Trump, whether they're moderate or conservative, let's give them someone they can vote for and show them that the earth won't open up and swallow them if they vote for a Democrat.  They might decide they're not conservative after all.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, David Brooks is from DC IIRC.  And uhh... the chances of the democratic candidate losing DC is about the same chances as Marianne Williamson becoming the next President of the United States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Olivaw said:

David Brooks:  Please Don’t Drive Me Away

 

Sounds like a veiled threat.  After a lifetime of political moderation, Brooks may be loathe to let go of his cherished world-view.  But if one of the more progressive nominees becomes our candidate, moderates may find themselves in the position of having to hold their noses at the ballot box;  If they really want to get rid of Trump ...  Many of us progressives know the feeling, having had to reluctantly vote for moderates in past elections.

 

Brooks, it would seem, is feeling less relevant these days.  And for good reason.  In the face of contemporary problems, moderate stances are becoming increasingly impractical.  While progressive ideas are emerging as more constructive for today's world.    So it's a good thing that progressives are so energized. 

 

Moderate Democrats have been unsuccessful at stemming the tide of Plutocracy.  The solution lies in progressive measures like Medicare for all and a return to the enlightened tax policies of the 1950s.  This has been amply demonstrated abroad.  Similarly, moderate measures are inadequate to deal with the crisis of mass extinction and catastrophic Climate Change that we are now entering.  Also, moderates have failed to deal with the increasing corruption in Washington.

 

And Democratic "moderation" has shown itself to be ineffectual at deterring the rise of Right Wing extremism.

 

Perhaps bold progressive values are already replacing the more timid ones of the past 40 years.  Maybe Mr Brooks senses that his philosophy is going the way of the dinosaurs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Olivaw said:

By David Brooks

Opinion Columnist

June 27, 2019

 

I could never in a million years vote for Donald Trump. So my question to Democrats is: Will there be a candidate I can vote for?

 

If you are serious about what you say, Mr Brooks, there will be a candidate you MUST vote for.   Failing to cast a vote would show that The Donald appeals to you more than you claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points all. 

 

The more I think about this article, the less impressed I am with it. If Mr. Brooks wants the Democrats to nominate Joe Biden, perhaps he should join the party and work on his campaign.

 

Democrats  need to think about general appeal of the nominee but the primaries are also about progressive ideas. If we learn one thing from 2016 it has to be that the coronation of a safe candidate without a debate about the issues will leave us ill prepared for the coming general election. What are we  supposed to say on the doorstep if we don't even know what the candidate stands for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, bludog said:

If you are serious about what you say, Mr Brooks, there will be a candidate you MUST vote for.   Failing to cast a vote would show that The Donald appeals to you more than you claim.

 

You're putting a lot of faith in the "I'm not Trump" issue motivating moderate voters to get out and vote.   If the Democratic nominee is from deep in the progressive wing, I'm not sure that will be enough. 

 

The moderate voter (Brooks, for example) really doesn't like Trump, but they don't feel the burning hatred that keeps progressives up at night.  The moderate voter doesn't see him as a threat to democracy as we know it.  They don't even see him as the single greatest threat to our nation.  They believe he's incompetent, uncouth, and lacking strong morals, but that's not exactly unique among politicians.  True, he's taken those faults to a new level.  But, they can see that he's been President for 4 years and nothing truly disastrous happened (nothing as bad as GWB's Iraq war and the great recession).   

 

If the Democrats nominate someone who wants to end private healthcare, pay reparations for slavery, and make guns illegal while prioritizing anything and everything ahead of jobs...some moderates just might decide to stay home or vote 3rd party.  Maybe those votes matter to the outcome; maybe they don't.   

 

6 hours ago, bludog said:
16 hours ago, Olivaw said:

David Brooks:  Please Don’t Drive Me Away

 

Sounds like a veiled threat.

 

I don't think it's a threat.   It could be a warning.  But, to me, it sounds more like a plea or maybe well-intended advice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, Renegade said:

The moderate voter (Brooks, for example) really doesn't like Trump, but they don't feel the burning hatred that keeps progressives up at night. 

 

As you know, I'm a Progressive and this does not remotely describe me or my sleeping habits.  Please don't include me in your assessment of progressives, again.  Additionally:  I don't know a single progressive who falls into this category.

 

4 hours ago, Renegade said:

I don't think it's a threat.   It could be a warning.  But, to me, it sounds more like a plea or maybe well-intended advice. 

 

Okay.  "Warning" is good enough.

 

I voted for Hillary to stave off Trump because I value the state of the Nation more than the temptation to give in to my own, personal feeling of disapproval.  Should the tables be turned, I expect no less from any patriot, left of center. 

 

4 hours ago, Renegade said:

The moderate voter doesn't see him as a threat to democracy as we know it.  They don't even see him as the single greatest threat to our nation.  They believe he's incompetent, uncouth, and lacking strong morals, but that's not exactly unique among politicians.  True, he's taken those faults to a new level.  But, they can see that he's been President for 4 years and nothing truly disastrous happened (nothing as bad as GWB's Iraq war and the great recession).   

 

Is this your evaluation of Trump's presidency so far? 

 

I see a dangerous emboldening of Far Right Wing sentiment throughout the nation.  And a buildup of unstable economic factors, not the least aggravated by Trump's trade wars.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/the-time-bomb-in-the-trump-economy

Quote

“The World Is More Leveraged Than It Has Ever Been Before”: Beware the Time Bomb in the Trump Economy.

Addicted to the unnaturally low interest rates Trump keeps pushing on the Fed, Wall Street has begun experimenting with risky new financial instruments. Sound familiar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Renegade said:

The moderate voter (Brooks, for example) really doesn't like Trump, but they don't feel the burning hatred that keeps progressives up at night.  The moderate voter doesn't see him as a threat to democracy as we know it.  They don't even see him as the single greatest threat to our nation.  They believe he's incompetent, uncouth, and lacking strong morals, but that's not exactly unique among politicians.  True, he's taken those faults to a new level.  But, they can see that he's been President for 4 years and nothing truly disastrous happened (nothing as bad as GWB's Iraq war and the great recession).  

You could say the same for Republican voters, right?

 

I get it, but what are they feeling so nervous about? A few policy proposals?

A moderate candidate (Biden) is leading all the polls by a healthy, and significant margin.

Moderate Democrats control caucuses in both the House (Pelosi), and Senate (Schumer).

Moderate Democrats also firmly in control of both the DCCC, and DNC.

 

 

1 hour ago, Renegade said:

If the Democrats nominate someone who wants to end private healthcare, pay reparations for slavery, and make guns illegal while prioritizing anything and everything ahead of jobs...some moderates just might decide to stay home or vote 3rd party.  Maybe those votes matter to the outcome; maybe they don't.    

 

So as I much as identify with progressive issues, (including 'downsizing' private healthcare insurance companies), I am not naive about such things. If a progressive gets elected President, there would still be plenty of insurance company, fossil fuel, NRA lobbying still going on in Congress.

 

Even if lobbying magically disappeared, these issues are the domain of moderate Senators, and moderate Congressman, not the President. Except exercising veto power, Presidential power is primarily foreign affairs, treaties, and Commander in chief.

I would love to end private healthcare insurance companies, or at  least severely limit their dominance of the healthcare industry. I pay them a significant amount of money  every single month. More money than I pay in taxes, almost as much money as rent.

 

For that, what do I receive? The for-profit Insurance industry drives up the cost for everyone, and would like to limit all payment to their customers healthcare provider. It's how they make money.

 

They do not provide healthcare to me, my Doctor provides healthcare. The Insurance company often gets in the way, by denying procedures, or attempting to exclude pre-existing conditions.

 

Are moderate voters big fans of Insurance companies like United Healthcare?

I really do not understand why individuals care would who they pay their premiums to.

I hear no one complaining about Medicare benefits. It's actually a good program for consumers of their product, which is basically replaces basic private healthcare Insurance.

 

Many of the moderates who decry 'socialism', will not reject their Social Security check, when they retire.

In fact, even the most fiscally conservative republican will be cashing that check every month, just like you and I.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Renegade said:

 

 

The moderate voter (Brooks, for example) really doesn't like Trump, but they don't feel the burning hatred that keeps progressives up at night. 

 

I think this is an insult to progressives who are also our fellow liberals. It also insults bludog by inclusion. Please be sensitive to that.

 

I for one sleep well despite my hatred for Trump. Like many progressives (not sure if I qualify as one) I am able to channel my feelings constructively.

 

If you had said "some" or even "many" progressives I would not have called you out.

 

Other than the way that particular comment was worded I appreciate your insight and encourage you to participate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, bludog said:

As you know, I'm a Progressive and this does not remotely describe me or my sleeping habits.  Please don't include me in your assessment of progressives, again.  Additionally:  I don't know a single progressive who falls into this category.

 

The sleeping habit reference is a figure of speech.   It isn't meant to imply that progressives literally lose sleep over Trump.  It's a way of saying that many (this time I'll be literal) hate the man to the point that they oppose everything he says or does and anyone who associates with him or even fails to condemn him publicly.  

 

  If you don't believe many progressives hate Donald Trump, then I'm not sure we're living in the same country.  I'm not commenting on whether the hatred is justified...only observing that it exists and that many moderates don't share it.  As with any group, progressives are individuals.  This was a general observation I shared with you as it was relevant to your post.  There was nothing there for you to take personally.

 

I judge the general progressive opinion of Donald Trump as 'hatred'.  Do you think that's too strong of a term?  The dictionary says  "hatred: intense dislike or ill will".  That seems accurate to me.  Are you telling me that you don't personally feel an "intense dislike" for Donald Trump?      

 

12 hours ago, bludog said:

I voted for Hillary to stave off Trump because I value the state of the Nation more than the temptation to give in to my own, personal feeling of disapproval.  Should the tables be turned, I expect no less from any patriot, left of center. 

 

That's absolutely a fair request.  But, just as some Bernie backers refused to support Hillary (Newsweek), the reverse could also happen.  I think the Democratic party is somewhat divided right now between its moderate and progressive wings.  Hopefully, the eventual nominee will be someone who can unite the party.

 

12 hours ago, bludog said:

Is this your evaluation of Trump's presidency so far? 

 

I see a dangerous emboldening of Far Right Wing sentiment throughout the nation.  And a buildup of unstable economic factors, not the least aggravated by Trump's trade wars.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/the-time-bomb-in-the-trump-economy

 

My evaluation would take too long to write here.  I started and it just got too complex.  Overall, I believe it's clear that he's been a very poor President, though not as bad as GWB.  And remember, GWB got re-elected.

 

I agree with your article.  But, I don't put all this on Trump.  All politicians are ready to take on debt for their favorite policies.  Republicans are complete hypocrites on this.  They tout financial responsibility when Democrats are in power, then spend like drunken sailors (that's a figure of speech...sailor's please don't take offense) when they're in power.  They say that this spending will yield dividends from economic growth.  Liberals aren't that different.  If it's something like free education, we believe it'll pay us back in the long run, so it's OK to run up the debt.  I don't think many of our leaders really appreciate the dangers highlighted in your article, to our peril.  

 

13 hours ago, bludog said:

It is highly unlikely someone of this description will be the Democratic candidate.

 

Awesome!   The reparations issue, in particular, gets me incensed.  It would be interesting for me to discuss that issue with someone who supports reparations.  From listening to the debates, it sounds like there are options other than just writing a check to folks who claim to be descended from slaves.  Maybe there's a proposal I wouldn't be so opposed to.

 

13 hours ago, bludog said:

Failing to cast a vote would show that The Donald doesn't repel him as much as he claims.  In that case, he's hypocritically using his column to advocate for a less progressive Democratic candidate.

 

This, I don't understand.  He doesn't like Trump and refuses to vote for him, no matter what.  So, he's hoping the Democratic nominee will be closer to his moderate positions.  If the eventual Democrat is also unacceptable (to Brooks), how is he a hypocrite for choosing not to vote?   Not liking a progressive candidate isn't the same thing as liking Trump.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ExPDXer said:

You could say the same for Republican voters, right?

 

The sensible ones, maybe.  Not the partisans with blinders on.  They'll tell you Trump is the best President since Reagan.  They love the man.  Many moderate Republicans should agree with what I wrote for moderates in general.

 

13 hours ago, ExPDXer said:

I get it, but what are they feeling so nervous about? A few policy proposals?

A moderate candidate (Biden) is leading all the polls by a healthy, and significant margin.

Moderate Democrats control caucuses in both the House (Pelosi), and Senate (Schumer).

Moderate Democrats also firmly in control of both the DCCC, and DNC.

 

Moderates are still in power...for now.  But, every election is a separate thing and President is the single most important selection that we make.  Moderates see how the media has made AOC spokeswoman for the party.  It reminds of when the media tried to make Palin spokeswoman for the Republicans.  I think there's plenty to be nervous about.  Over a period of time (within 8 years) I think it's inevitable that progressives will take over.  It happens with every generation.  In his time, even Biden was probably a progressive.   

 

13 hours ago, ExPDXer said:

 Except exercising veto power, Presidential power is primarily foreign affairs, treaties, and Commander in chief.

 

Don't forget about all the regulatory agencies.  So much of what our government does involves federal agencies interpreting vaguely written laws.  Think about Trump's EPA, for example.

 

13 hours ago, ExPDXer said:

I would love to end private healthcare insurance companies, or at  least severely limit their dominance of the healthcare industry. I pay them a significant amount of money  every single month. More money than I pay in taxes, almost as much money as rent.

 

For that, what do I receive? The for-profit Insurance industry drives up the cost for everyone, and would like to limit all payment to their customers healthcare provider. It's how they make money.

 

Are moderate voters big fans of Insurance companies like United Healthcare?

 

Probably not "big fans".  But, they will be fearful of change.  Most folks are actually satisfied with their healthcare.  A Gallup Poll from December says:

- Majorities rate quality (80%) and coverage (69%) as excellent or good

- Americans rate coverage and quality in the U.S. in general less positively

- Majority satisfied with cost of their personal healthcare

 

It will be an uphill battle to convince these people to support a President who wants to take this away.  What do you think about John Delaney's ideas on this subject?

 

13 hours ago, ExPDXer said:

They do not provide healthcare to me, my Doctor provides healthcare. The Insurance company often gets in the way, by denying procedures, or attempting to exclude pre-existing conditions.

 

I understand why they exclude pre-existing conditions.  Normally, I pay my own dental bills without insurance.  My teeth are good, so I'd be paying more than I get from a dental insurer.  But, now my wife has decided she wants implants.  Wow....big $$$$.   So what do I do?  I go looking for dental insurance.  I don't feel like an immoral person, but I'm exactly the kind of person who the insurance companies have to look out for.  I'd sign up, get my wife's implants, and then cancel.  Objectively, that's bad and wrong.  If I'm willing to do that, I bet most others would as well.

 

So, that's a good argument for having the government handle these things.  If everyone is insured all the time, this issue goes away.  Now the issues become things like cost, capacity management, and doctor/hospital compensation.  I'd just like to see some details on how it would all work so I could feel comfortable with it.  There are so many ways they could get this wrong, it scares me.  I have a lot of experience with the government and I'm not willing to just trust them to get it right.

 

13 hours ago, ExPDXer said:

Many of the moderates who decry 'socialism', will not reject their Social Security check, when they retire.

In fact, even the most fiscally conservative republican will be cashing that check every month, just like you and I.

 

Yes.  This bi-partisan bit of socialism is popular with everyone.  I really don't understand why we can't do something like that with healthcare.  I really believe that if both parties would work together they could get it right.  How did we manage to select better politicians in 1935 than we do today?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, WillFranklin said:

 

I think this is an insult to progressives who are also our fellow liberals. It also insults bludog by inclusion. Please be sensitive to that.

 

I for one sleep well despite my hatred for Trump. Like many progressives (not sure if I qualify as one) I am able to channel my feelings constructively.

 

If you had said "some" or even "many" progressives I would not have called you out.

 

Other than the way that particular comment was worded I appreciate your insight and encourage you to participate.

 

I do appreciate you alerting me that I've been insensitive.  Apparently, I have a blind spot here.  For me to avoid repeating my error, I need to understand why it's offensive for me to say that progressives (I understand that I should have said 'some') hate Trump.  You even said that you have "hatred for Trump".  Why is it insensitive for me to mention that?  How is that an insult?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Renegade said:

 

I do appreciate you alerting me that I've been insensitive.  Apparently, I have a blind spot here.  For me to avoid repeating my error, I need to understand why it's offensive for me to say that progressives (I understand that I should have said 'some') hate Trump.  You even said that you have "hatred for Trump".  Why is it insensitive for me to mention that?  How is that an insult?

 

I think it is more the latter part of your statement where you attribute it to insomnia which paints a dysfunctional picture of progressives. And the blanket statement itself is also inaccurate as you conceded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, WillFranklin said:

 

I think it is more the latter part of your statement where you attribute it to insomnia which paints a dysfunctional picture of progressives. And the blanket statement itself is also inaccurate as you conceded.

 

Got it.  Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Renegade said:

 

Got it.  Thanks.

 

No problem. I am not a typical liberal either. I am actually very politically incorrect. But for this forum I have to be very careful!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Renegade said:

The sleeping habit reference is a figure of speech.   It isn't meant to imply that progressives literally lose sleep over Trump.  It's a way of saying that many (this time I'll be literal) hate the man to the point that they oppose everything he says or does and anyone who associates with him or even fails to condemn him publicly.  

 

And the rebuttal is also a way of replying in kind.  Next time, I'll try to be more literal. 

 

When Trump does something laudable, he deserves credit.  Like when he recently called off a bombing raid in Iran because too many people would be killed.  I made a post in NHB praising Trump for this action and took  heat for it from another Liberal.

 

To elucidate further:  Trump sometimes does the right thing but it's rare.  I, for one don't hate him in the slightest.  But I am embarrassed by his insensitivity and crassness every time I read about his antics.  In a more serious vein, I feel he's a danger to the US economy and World Peace. His economic policies are like a time bomb with an indefinite fuse.   And he is widening the wealth gap as fast as he can.  I could go on and on. 

 

All I want is for Trump to be replaced by a Democrat.  If need be, I would even vote for Joe Biden, Michael Bennet, Tim Ryan or John Delaney to accomplish it.  (Although I have to say:  It appears to me that Biden is at the beginning of senescence.)

 

1 hour ago, Renegade said:

If you don't believe many progressives hate Donald Trump, then I'm not sure we're living in the same country.  I'm not commenting on whether the hatred is justified...only observing that it exists and that many moderates don't share it.  As with any group, progressives are individuals.  This was a general observation I shared with you as it was relevant to your post.  There was nothing there for you to take personally.

 

I judge the general progressive opinion of Donald Trump as 'hatred'.  Do you think that's too strong of a term?  The dictionary says  "hatred: intense dislike or ill will".  That seems accurate to me.  Are you telling me that you don't personally feel an "intense dislike" for Donald Trump?      

 

My observations are that "strong disapproval" would be more descriptive of most Progressive's feelings about Trump than "hate" or "ill will".  I was surprised to see WillFranklin express hatred for Trump.  The progressives I know spend time parodying him together.  And more serious criticism.  But "hate" doesn't enter it.

 

1 hour ago, Renegade said:

But, just as some Bernie backers refused to support Hillary (Newsweek), the reverse could also happen.  I think the Democratic party is somewhat divided right now between its moderate and progressive wings.  Hopefully, the eventual nominee will be someone who can unite the party.

 

I hope the same.

 

1 hour ago, Renegade said:

He doesn't like Trump and refuses to vote for him, no matter what.  So, he's hoping the Democratic nominee will be closer to his moderate positions.  If the eventual Democrat is also unacceptable (to Brooks), how is he a hypocrite for choosing not to vote?   Not liking a progressive candidate isn't the same thing as liking Trump.

 

Brooks asks the leading question "Will there be a candidate I can vote for?" and says "Never in a million years, could I vote for Donald Trump".  The latter is a fairly strong sentiment.  But Brooks "wants his cake and eat it too".  He's picky despite his supposed detestation of Trump.  Methinks there is an element of hypocrisy here.  If Brooks couldn't vote for Trump in a million years, one would think him willing to make small ideological sacrifices to get Trump out.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, bludog said:

 

My observations are that "strong disapproval" would be more descriptive of most Progressive's feelings about Trump than "hate" or "ill will".  I was surprised to see WillFranklin express hatred for Trump.  

 

 

Anyone who would try to turn Medicaid into a block grant program while giving more than the money away in tax cuts mostly to corporations and wealthy individuals deserves my hatred and contempt.

 

That is how seriously I take Medicaid and Medicare.

 

You know this about me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, WillFranklin said:

Anyone who would try to turn Medicaid into a block grant program while giving the money away in tax cuts mostly to corporations and wealthy individuals

 

This and many other Trump policies are deplorable and I  passionately disapprove. 

 

1 minute ago, WillFranklin said:

deserves my hatred and contempt.

 

I see how you could arrive there, but I don't take it personally.  I just want Trump replaced by a Democrat to stop the social and economic destruction. 

 

6 minutes ago, WillFranklin said:

That is how seriously I take Medicaid and Medicare.

 

You know this about me. 

 

I know you are as fully committed to social justice as I.  And for that reason, we both want the perpetrator of injustice to be gone from power.  But from my point of view, hate for Trump, or the lack of it, makes no difference in the outcome.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bludog said:

But from my point of view, hate for Trump, or the lack of it, makes no difference in the outcome.

 

 

No it may not make a difference, but I admit that the hatred is there. It may not be there in your case. I am glad that you hate his policies. That is what affects your vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hatred and anger lead to political activism which can lead to progress. 

 

As long as we are talking about channeling those emotions for positive change, I don't think it is unhealthy to feel them. 

 

A little lost sleep is sometimes part of it. I wasn't at all offended by the comment about being kept up at night. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...