Well, you were emphatic about mainstream Democrats never compromising.
Which seems you are pretty steadfast in you belief.
So, when I say that Democrats do listen and compromise, I might not be listening to your opinion of ‘never compromising’ because that’s a non-starter argument and, frankly, un-compromising.
You can certainly be skeptical about the candidates, I would consider that the most important duty of a voter, you need a way to filter out all the BS noise.
You could also look further into someone’s Liberal history than just stopping at a few things that you don’t see eye to eye with. The foundation of liberalism is about equal rights for everyone, and you can’t say that Hillary just gives that lip service. S**t, she’s going to be the first freekin’ Woman President for crissakes. And if you don’t think that isn’t progressive I think you are missing a significant point of history.
Well, it starts with ‘make college free at public colleges and universities’, so no student loans at all for anybody going to a public university (which contains lots of great ones)
Then there’s loan changes for those who choose to go to a private college instead, mostly just reducing profit.
And lastly there’s the payment source, which I’m quite fond of (taxing wall street speculation… please yes)
They’re basically transplants of European systems, so there’s plenty of precedent and examples of how things could play out. Certainly there’s no reason to put more students in debt when they’re increasing our competitiveness.
Which is relevant to my statement how? I said vote in those who pursue your agenda, not those that have the same label. Yeah, you might be able to make some progress by comprising, but it won’t be spectacular.
Be glad, I suppose, that Clinton didn’t try or couldn’t manage to pry Sanders or Warren out of the Senate, I suppose. Heck, choosing Tim Kaine opens up a seat for a Progressive to possibly take, while putting him in a nominally weak office.
Especially if she can get a liberal majority in Congress. It’s instructive to remember that the cost of getting Obamacare passed was the rise of the Tea Party - pushing for change can remove your ability to change.
I don’t understand what you’re driving at here. What I observe is what I observe…the concept of “compromise” doesn’t factor in. Sense data goes in through my eyes and ears and I interpret it.
It’s my direct observation that the Democrats never compromise. if you want to convince me otherwise, you have to show me that they do compromise. I backed up my case that they never compromise with the far left by giving specific examples of how the last two Democratic presidents pushed very hard and succeeded in implementing policies that are actively hostile to far left ideals.
Now if you want to show that I’m wrong, you have a few options. But all of them involve making an actual argument, not just insisting that I ignorecompromise what my eyes and ears tell me.
This isn’t just a few things I don’t see eye to eye with. This is a whole raft of policies actively pursued by the Democratic party with which I vehemently disagree. You don’t see the difference?
I don’t really agree with this line of reasoning. I don’t disagree with the Democrats on matters of identity politics (now that they’ve been dragged to the left end kicking and screaming with the gay marriage debate). I disagree with them on economics and foreign policy. I’m not going to accept the identity politics I agree with as a fig leaf for the stuff I don’t agree with.
So you’re equating “watching speeches at the DNC” with “someone speaking about her virtues”? Ooookay.
I was talking about folks like you. You know, the people telling me that I’m electing Trump if I don’t get on the Clinton-train and like it.
Political speeches at the DNC are ra-ra bullshit. They aren’t actual conversations or dialogues. They aren’t convincing skeptics of anything. They’re like when the CEO calls you in for a company meeting and then spends an hour telling you how cool the company is and how it is meant for great things. They’re a show, not reality of any sort.
They invited King to speak at the DNC?
JFK is only remembered because he was pretty and was murdered.
Who are you expecting to hammer her on those things? The media that doesn’t/isn’t allowed to ask her real questions? Or the Democrats who are belittled for daring to ask questions?
Well, given the funding source I’m limited to complaining that there needs to be controls to make sure that free money for the colleges goes first to the teachers, then the researchers, and lastly the administration. Wait, coaches last.
Having a very left wing VP pick would be more damaging to the ticket and a waste of a progressive politician. VPs don’t get their own agendas, they follow the President’s.
I though that the single payer thing and some serious college debt help were also part of the platform. Remember, the party platform is all the programs and points that all the Democratic politicians are supporting and running under, not just Hillary. This platform is planned negotiated with all the other democrats, well most I hope, Bernie was definitely involved. And just because something should have been in before does not reduce its importance being in there now.
No! Incrementalism! Just vote for the Democrat! This time is different! I know that incrementalism continues moving us so far to the right that we have already taken more steps back than forward, BUT THIS TIME IS DIFFERENT!
First, Obama was pressed on closing Guantanamo repeated by the press and public, and while he couldn’t do it, he was forced to explain why and did so. When Bush Sr broke the “read my lips” promise, it helped sink his reelection, which Hillary, being a part of, is well aware.
Clinton’s old, is certainly well aware that her legacy will be defined by her Presidency if elected, and might not be as reckless about exclusively rewarding cronies and ignoring her promises (which she has no real track record of) since the significance means more to her than just one last grift for the neoliberal buddies. There’s no compelling reason in her background that I can see that would suggest she’ll use the WH as Fortress of Neoliberal Doom, building job-destroying super-weapons to the exclusion of all else.
