Originally Posted by pbrower2a

OK -- so I quit making gay jokes after I got gay-bashed. I wanted to do nothing to support a vile way of thought that sees homosexuals or even 'sissies' as fair game for assaults and insults. I recognized that any cause that promotes the dignity of homosexuals makes the world safer.

One can do all that without calling for open censorship of homophobes. Much like I can never support someone who is openly and overtly racist, yet I have no wish to censor their speech. When it comes to free speech I'm like Voltaire. The Neo-Progressives however have an agenda and that means the silencing of any who disagree with them. What they fail to realize is there may come a day when they are on the outside and it will be they who will be censored, they who will be no-platformed and etc.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

One can do all that without calling for open censorship of homophobes. Much like I can never support someone who is openly and overtly racist, yet I have no wish to censor their speech. When it comes to free speech I'm like Voltaire. The Neo-Progressives however have an agenda and that means the silencing of any who disagree with them. What they fail to realize is there may come a day when they are on the outside and it will be they who will be censored, they who will be no-platformed and etc.

The best thing to do with someone like Donald Trump is to let him speak and show what a fool he is.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The best thing to do with someone like Donald Trump is to let him speak and show what a fool he is.

about holocaust deniers, open racists, homophobes and so on. Yet the Neo-Progressives are the ones calling for censorship, no-platforming and disallowing people to say whatever retarded nonsense they want because someone somewhere somehow might be "offended".

I have long upheld the notion that one has the positive right to say what one wants, provided it isn't an incitement to violence or criminal behavior, but does not have the negative right to not be offended. And that is before I even start in on the whole "Offense can never be given it can only be taken" line of reasoning.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

about holocaust deniers, open racists, homophobes and so on. Yet the Neo-Progressives are the ones calling for censorship, no-platforming and disallowing people to say whatever retarded nonsense they want because someone somewhere somehow might be "offended".

That's exactly what happened on this forum with the much-hated holocaust denier Apollonian. Also what happened when someone called transsexuals "freaks" and the thread got shut down.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

The problem you have is that the Obama Coalition is not going to go for Hillary as the primaries in 2008 has proved already.

That's pretty silly.

Where is that coalition going to go exactly? At best, you can say some will stay home, but even that has to have some rational argument behind it.

It's obvious with your Marxist leanings you're not OF the Right wingnut sphere, but it is also obvious with your fact-free conjectures you've fallen into the Right wingnut echo chamber on Trump steroids, currently amplified by the entertaining news to sell news paper. Pssss, here's a pretty open secret - that's not the real world as it is today and certainly even farther away from what the real world will be in the Fall of 2016.

You are discounting just how toxic the GOP field has become to not only a greater depth but wider array of people than the 2008/2012 coalition. That is a version of one of the most prevalent mistakes in politics of forgetting an election is a binary choice.

Also, to let you in on a little secret of those in the know on the Dem side, it is rather amusing to us the degree that the two of the most skilled national campaign politicians in modern history, in the form of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, are currently discounted if not seen as negatives. It's going to be the "October Surprise" to people such as yourself when these guys wipe the floor with the GOP nominee who will be hamstrung with going up against a historic woman nominee in the general (as opposed to appealing to the currently insane GOP base) and being constantly on the defensive over the countless video clips showing his true intentions as expressed over a year of trying to appease that insane GOP base.

We're lickin our chops, buddy, and endlessly entertained by those, like yourself, that have obviously fallen for the current entertaining news of presenting the insane GOP echo chamber as something viable in the general election. Thanks!

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I find Hillary either remarkably naïve or excessively coy. Here's a woman who's been under a laser-focused spotlight for decades, yet she elects to use a personal email server for DOS business. There is no good answer for this. She's also been a straw in the wind: Goldwater Girl, Feminist Crusader, Bill's hatchet wielder, his policy wonk -- left, right and center. I can't get comfortable with her. She's smarmy.

So you look at her current policy positions; I look back.

The SoD Carter just apologized for his CURRENT use of a private server at DoD - it was a buried single paragraph not carried by most newspapers let alone on the evening news - do you consider him "smarmy" as well?

And for all those that once leaned Right (or Left) in their youth and now roll in the other direction as middle-aged adults - are they "smarmy" as well?

And "Bill's hatchet wielder?" Exactly when, as first lady, did she ever go on an initial offensive against anyone?

And "policy wonk???" I thought that was only derogatory among the least educated of the t-baggers.

If these are your reasons to stay home and let Trump take Virginia in November, then you obviously do have both feet fully-planted in Clinton Derangement Syndrome. It's weird.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

about holocaust deniers, open racists, homophobes and so on. Yet the Neo-Progressives are the ones calling for censorship, no-platforming and disallowing people to say whatever retarded nonsense they want because someone somewhere somehow might be "offended".

Holocaust-deniers are typically apologists for Nazism. That's bad enough. What is even worse about Holocaust denial is their degradation of history and its lessons, one of which is that racism and religious bigotry are dangerous and unconscionable. What is next? Will people with similar minds top Nazis deny the Atlantic slave trade and slavery?

People who use homophobic and racist language usually have problems of impulse control.

I have long upheld the notion that one has the positive right to say what one wants, provided it isn't an incitement to violence or criminal behavior, but does not have the negative right to not be offended. And that is before I even start in on the whole "Offense can never be given it can only be taken" line of reasoning.

One also has no right to a receptive audience.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

That's exactly what happened on this forum with the much-hated holocaust denier Apollonian. Also what happened when someone called transsexuals "freaks" and the thread got shut down.

No, Apollonian was taking over the forum with his endless nonsense and personal attacks. There are limits and proper balance for all good things. There are limits by law to free speech. There should be even more limits to "gun rights."

If Kinser wants to call "neo-progressives" as those today who have excessive zeal for punishing people who say the wrong things, and censoring what is spoken and who can speak it at universities, and lump them together with all progressives today, that's his right; but it's nonsense, as usual from him. There are many important progressive causes embraced by progressives today. They are the same as yesterday.

And by and large, (we) don't agree with the over-the-top enforcement of PC and non-offensive speech. PC can be a good guide, but in general shouldn't be enforced. Free inquiry has to include topics that some people might find offensive. Nor does that mean that someone at a university who organizes a schedule of speakers at a venue, has to schedule everyone who wants to speak there. There's such a thing as quality, in certain contexts; that's something that relativist folks can't understand.

Originally Posted by playwrite

(to kinser)

It's obvious with your Marxist leanings you're not OF the Right wingnut sphere, but it is also obvious with your fact-free conjectures you've fallen into the Right wingnut echo chamber on Trump steroids, currently amplified by the entertaining news to sell news paper. Pssss, here's a pretty open secret - that's not the real world as it is today and certainly even farther away from what the real world will be in the Fall of 2016.

You are discounting just how toxic the GOP field has become to not only a greater depth but wider array of people than the 2008/2012 coalition. That is a version of one of the most prevalent mistakes in politics of forgetting an election is a binary choice.

He may want the Hard Right to win, make fools of itself in places in which it has yet done, and show its contempt for all things human so that Americans will support a Socialist insurrection. For him, the crony capitalist and the brutal boss are the forges of revolutionary sentiment. As I see it both are agents of nothing more than further dehumanization and breaking of people.

Brutal tyrannies of the Right can last very long times. Anyone who thinks that he can outlive those tyrannies while in the revolutionary underground fools himself. But think of how Franco's Spain worked in the context of world revolution -- from a bourgeois democracy in the 1930s through a plutocratic, religious-fundamentalist regime for nearly forty years, and then to another bourgeois democracy. That obviously does not fit any Marxist timetable.

Marxism-Leninism is dead as an appeal for forcing political change on a national scale. As I say, we are wiser to try to humanize capitalism than to overthrow it.

Also, to let you in on a little secret of those in the know on the Dem side, it is rather amusing to us the degree that the two of the most skilled national campaign politicians in modern history, in the form of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, are currently discounted if not seen as negatives. It's going to be the "October Surprise" to people such as yourself when these guys wipe the floor with the GOP nominee who will be hamstrung with going up against a historic woman nominee in the general (as opposed to appealing to the currently insane GOP base) and being constantly on the defensive over the countless video clips showing his true intentions as expressed over a year of trying to appease that insane GOP base.

The fact: much of the contempt for Barack Obama is because he is black. But guess what else is true: although President Obama typically gets approval ratings in the high 40s (which is very good for the seventh and soon the eighth year of a two-term Presidency), approval for the Republican-dominated Congress is even lower. Much lower. I have yet to see a poll showing approval for an incumbent Democratic Senator below 45% (which is usually good enough for getting re-elected), many Republican Senators have approvals around 40% or lower. This holds true even in the South, now the alleged strength of the Republican Party.

It is too early for me to say that any Republican candidate for President offers the possibility of being shown as a dangerous radical even if such seems evident enough to me.

We're lickin our chops... and endlessly entertained by those... that have obviously fallen for the current entertaining news of presenting the insane GOP echo chamber as something viable in the general election.

Except that the Republicans have huge amounts of Koch-aine to fund some vicious campaigns and to flood the airwaves with Orwellian propaganda.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No, Apollonian was taking over the forum with his endless nonsense and personal attacks. There are limits and proper balance for all good things. There are limits by law to free speech. There should be even more limits to "gun rights."

What he said about me -- and because it is so vile I will not repeat it -- may have gotten him banned.

If Kinser wants to call "neo-progressives" as those today who have excessive zeal for punishing people who say the wrong things, and censoring what is spoken and who can speak it at universities, and lump them together with all progressives today, that's his right; but it's nonsense, as usual from him. There are many important progressive causes embraced by progressives today. They are the same as yesterday.

The people who use racial, religious, and sexual slurs in public typically have problems avoiding the use of garden-variety obscenities.

And by and large, (we) don't agree with the over-the-top enforcement of PC and non-offensive speech. PC can be a good guide, but in general shouldn't be enforced. Free inquiry has to include topics that some people might find offensive. Nor does that mean that someone at a university who organizes a schedule of speakers at a venue, has to schedule everyone who wants to speak there. There's such a thing as quality, in certain contexts; that's something that relativist folks like Taramarie can't understand. She defines "quality" as absolutely anything and everything, and says no-one has a right to an opinion about it; I disagree.

There will always be disgusting topics. We deal with those or they fester. Dislike The Bell Curve? We can't sweep it under the rug. Dislike such an insult as "Your mother is a whore!"? Such are fighting words that have little defense at law.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

He may want the Hard Right to win, make fools of itself in places in which it has yet done, and show its contempt for all things human so that Americans will support a Socialist insurrection. For him, the crony capitalist and the brutal boss are the forges of revolutionary sentiment. As I see it both are agents of nothing more than further dehumanization and breaking of people.

Brutal tyrannies of the Right can last very long times. Anyone who thinks that he can outlive those tyrannies while in the revolutionary underground fools himself. But think of how Franco's Spain worked in the context of world revolution -- from a bourgeois democracy in the 1930s through a plutocratic, religious-fundamentalist regime for nearly forty years, and then to another bourgeois democracy. That obviously does not fit any Marxist timetable.

Marxism-Leninism is dead as an appeal for forcing political change on a national scale. As I say, we are wiser to try to humanize capitalism than to overthrow it.



The fact: much of the contempt for Barack Obama is because he is black. But guess what else is true: although President Obama typically gets approval ratings in the high 40s (which is very good for the seventh and soon the eighty year of a two-term Presidency), approval for the Republican-dominated Congress is even lower. Much lower. I have yet to see a poll showing approval for an incumbent Democratic Senator below 45% (which is usually good enough for getting re-elected), many Republican Senators have approvals around 40% or lower. This holds true even in the South, now the alleged strength of the Republican Party.

It is too early for me to say that any Republican candidate for President offers the possibility of being shown as a dangerous radical even if such seems evident enough to me.



Except that the Republicans have huge amounts of Koch-aine to fund some vicious campaigns and to flood the airwaves with Orwellian propaganda.

Good insights.

On the campaign funding, the Dems will have more than enough. Also, something weird could happen on the GOP side if Trump or possible even Cruz is the nominee- funding could actual dwindal on their end. It's questionable how much Trump is willing to self fund particularly if his polling looks bad.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The SoD Carter just apologized for his CURRENT use of a private server at DoD - it was a buried single paragraph not carried by most newspapers let alone on the evening news - do you consider him "smarmy" as well?

And for all those that once leaned Right (or Left) in their youth and now roll in the other direction as middle-aged adults - are they "smarmy" as well?

And "Bill's hatchet wielder?" Exactly when, as first lady, did she ever go on an initial offensive against anyone?

And "policy wonk???" I thought that was only derogatory among the least educated of the t-baggers.

If these are your reasons to stay home and let Trump take Virginia in November, then you obviously do have both feet fully-planted in Clinton Derangement Syndrome. It's weird.

I didn't say she is 100% a dick, but anyone who's been immersed in the glaring spotlight she and Bill have, yet still acts as though its trivial, has questionable political skills ... not a good thing for a politician. She still leans strongly on the 3T triangulation techniques that saw them though the past, but are now so very post-seasonal. How is this good?

I do agree that Trump will be disaster if allowed to be. On the other hand, he can be a wake-up call. There's a lot of value in knowing which. If the former, then we were headed for a disaster anyway. Who's disaster would you prefer it to be?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I didn't say she is 100% a dick, but anyone who's been immersed in the glaring spotlight she and Bill have, yet still acts as though its trivial, has questionable political skills ... not a good thing for a politician. She still leans strongly on the 3T triangulation techniques that saw them though the past, but are now so very post-seasonal. How is this good?

I do agree that Trump will be disaster if allowed to be. On the other hand, he can be a wake-up call. There's a lot of value in knowing which. If the former, then we were headed for a disaster anyway. Who's disaster would you prefer it to be?

I'm not sure what "3T triangulation techniques" means. I think she speaks fairly honestly and without anger about the past. We'll see how good a politician she is. A more charismatic and idealistic candidate with a passionate following beat her for the nomination in 2008, and this could happen in 2016 again. But she's a fighter and will likely be in it right up to the end again, win or lose. I think she's in for another long and difficult contest. Her experience is her best asset.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I didn't say she is 100% a dick, but anyone who's been immersed in the glaring spotlight she and Bill have, yet still acts as though its trivial, has questionable political skills ... not a good thing for a politician. She still leans strongly on the 3T triangulation techniques that saw them though the past, but are now so very post-seasonal. How is this good?

The Republicans have shown beyond any question that triangulation by Democrats does not work except to create gridlock. Hillary Clinton will have to do something that Barack Obama was incapable of doing -- convincing people to vote out GOP extremists. I cannot say what follows.

Republicans are going to double down on what they have been doing in recent years except on gay rights -- offering greater inequality, harsher management, and more economic insecurity as the means of creating 'growth', pushing superstition and bigotry, and taking cheap swipes at anyone not a True Believer in their cause. For them it is still My Way or the Highway. They will seek Presidential failure again.

I do agree that Trump will be disaster if allowed to be. On the other hand, he can be a wake-up call. There's a lot of value in knowing which. If the former, then we were headed for a disaster anyway. Who's disaster would you prefer it to be?

A Trump Administration will be a time of mass protests and riots... and quite possibly another economic meltdown as severe and protracted as the one that began the Great Depression.

Originally Posted by playwrite

That's pretty silly.

Where is that coalition going to go exactly? At best, you can say some will stay home, but even that has to have some rational argument behind it.

I would expect large components of the Obama Coalition to stay home. To be specific, racial/ethnic minorities, and Millies. The former does not trust Hillary, the latter is not excited by her in the least and most I've run into are actually turned off by her. (She probably reminds them of a not very pleasant version of their own mothers.)

It's obvious with your Marxist leanings you're not OF the Right wingnut sphere, but it is also obvious with your fact-free conjectures you've fallen into the Right wingnut echo chamber on Trump steroids, currently amplified by the entertaining news to sell news paper.

LOL. You are really out of touch Playdude. I've not read a newspaper (unless you count the free classified ads paper a "newspaper") in about five years, and I've not bought one in about 10. I get my news from a variety of sources in a variety of formats from articles to videos--all most all of this content provided without charge. So what is being sold exactly?

Pssss, here's a pretty open secret - that's not the real world as it is today and certainly even farther away from what the real world will be in the Fall of 2016.

A week is a long time in politics, 11 months is nearly an eternity. I foresee that if Hillary is nominated she will be put under a microscope, her record examined to death, and the GOP Noise Machine that has 20+ years experience making her look undesirable will surpess the votes of those who would normally vote for a Democrat. This means the GOP need only excite its base to win.

You are discounting just how toxic the GOP field has become to not only a greater depth but wider array of people than the 2008/2012 coalition. That is a version of one of the most prevalent mistakes in politics of forgetting an election is a binary choice.

Florida is a deeply purple state, I have heard Millies supporting Trump already down here. Millies that would normally vote for Democrats even. Sanders could beat Trump but Hillary can't. Given her weakness with the Democratic Coalition as it exists now, this means if she is run, and unless the GOP runs Rubio or Bush on the top of their ticket the White House is going to the GOP because FL's 29 electoral votes are important to both parties.

Considering you're a New Yorker you probably don't understand how hated Jeb and Marco are.

Also, to let you in on a little secret of those in the know on the Dem side, it is rather amusing to us the degree that the two of the most skilled national campaign politicians in modern history, in the form of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, are currently discounted if not seen as negatives.

It is generally considered bad form for the current lame duck president to campaign for the candidate of his Party. That being said...

It's going to be the "October Surprise" to people such as yourself when these guys wipe the floor with the GOP nominee who will be hamstrung with going up against a historic woman nominee in the general (as opposed to appealing to the currently insane GOP base) and being constantly on the defensive over the countless video clips showing his true intentions as expressed over a year of trying to appease that insane GOP base.

Hillary was historic in 2008 to being the first woman with an actual shot at being President. People didn't go for her then either. Hillary hasn't changed much in 8 years, neither has the country. People who want a Jeb Bush type would rather have Jeb Bush than Jeb Bush with a shrill voice and a vagina. The Truman Rule is still in effect.

Further, being a historic candidate doesn't really do much. Had John McCain not selected a crazy person for his VP candidate he very well could have been elected President in 2008. He would have been a one termer of course, but he would have been elected. People do not vote on the basis of a candidates race or their genitals. That you would assume that they would exposes your own sexism and racism. But then again, that's the contradiction inherent in identity politics.

We're lickin our chops, buddy, and endlessly entertained by those, like yourself, that have obviously fallen for the current entertaining news of presenting the insane GOP echo chamber as something viable in the general election. Thanks!

We shall see. But mark my words. If Hillary runs, and she isn't going up against a ticket with Bush or Rubio on it she will loose. A GOP ticket absent of those too almost guarantees FL going red this time round.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

He may want the Hard Right to win, make fools of itself in places in which it has yet done, and show its contempt for all things human so that Americans will support a Socialist insurrection. For him, the crony capitalist and the brutal boss are the forges of revolutionary sentiment. As I see it both are agents of nothing more than further dehumanization and breaking of people.

Brutal tyrannies of the Right can last very long times. Anyone who thinks that he can outlive those tyrannies while in the revolutionary underground fools himself. But think of how Franco's Spain worked in the context of world revolution -- from a bourgeois democracy in the 1930s through a plutocratic, religious-fundamentalist regime for nearly forty years, and then to another bourgeois democracy. That obviously does not fit any Marxist timetable.

Unlike Spain the US had its Bourgeois Revolution two centuries ago. Spain did not have bourgeois democratic tradition at the time, and still doesn't.

Marxism-Leninism is dead as an appeal for forcing political change on a national scale. As I say, we are wiser to try to humanize capitalism than to overthrow it.

Capitalism cannot be humanized. It is the New Deal that is dead, but Marxism-Leninism is still around even if substantially weaker than it was at the turn of the Last Century.

The fact: much of the contempt for Barack Obama is because he is black. But guess what else is true: although President Obama typically gets approval ratings in the high 40s (which is very good for the seventh and soon the eighty year of a two-term Presidency), approval for the Republican-dominated Congress is even lower.

The problem with those figures is that the approval rating for Congress is pretty low. What is the approval ratings for individual Representatives and Senators? That is what matters. Everyone likes to pretend it isn't their Senator or Rep that's the asshat, its all the others they have to deal with.

Except that the Republicans have huge amounts of Koch-aine to fund some vicious campaigns and to flood the airwaves with Orwellian propaganda.

Indeed. The Democrats can set themselves up for a perfect trifecta of fail by nominating Hillary. 1. A candidate who is not herself popular and has clear negatives. 2. A candidate that does not excite the Dem Base. 3. GOP negative ads to further suppress the Dem Base from voting.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ical-ads-work/

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

A Trump Administration will be a time of mass protests and riots... and quite possibly another economic meltdown as severe and protracted as the one that began the Great Depression.

Exactly. And this is what makes him perfect to make the cold-civil war turn hot.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Exactly. And this is what makes him (Trump) perfect to make the cold-civil war turn hot.

Is this an endorsement?

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Which term are you suggesting that I use exactly?

I was suggesting that neo-progressive is problematic because the word has multiple meanings that can be radically different. So what you mean was unclear. When I asked for a definition you sent a description of what is commonalty called a SJW. So why not use that?

I would argue that just about anyone who can at some level say that their political advocacy is in favor of some class could call themselves a social justice warrior.

OK, but when did you use the definition you did then? I mean there is picture of someone with rainbow colored hair, from crying out loud. If that's not an SJW what the hell is?

Mike, I would argue that the New Deal itself was conservative (with a small c). It saught to conserve capitalism even if that meant regulations, and state control over some aspects of the economy such as minimum prices for labor.

Yes of course, but it was less conservative than the Progressive movement. There is a spectrum.

I see a difference in the economic philosophy that the two approaches took. The progressives held to a basic conservative approach to economic management: gold standard, balanced budgets & low peacetime taxes. They were focused trying to soften the adverse effects of capitalism, not interfere with its working. This is a conservative approach towards economics. In social policy they were more progressive in the modern sense: pro women's suffrage, prohibition, consumer protection, pro-welfare.

The New Deals moved to the left on economics. They embraced the populists pro-inflation/anti-banker stance by taking the country off the gold standard and regulating Wall Street. ( In comparison the progressives put in the Federal Reserve which put government economic management in the hands of elite bankers). FDR reigned in the Fed by putting a New Dealer in charge, and during the 1940's the Fed printed money as needed to maintain low interest rates. This is a recipe for inflation so he simply made it illegal to raise prices/wages without permission. For wages the system was gamed. Companies were free to raise wages to about $11/hr in today's money. (This they did because with wartime stimulus workers were hard to find). If you were in the middle-tier of income you had to get permission from the local office, who would be somewhat responsive to local issues. These folks saw their wages keep pace with inflation. For wages in the upper tier you had to get permission from the Washington office who just said no. The results were a compression in the spread of incomes, force economic inequality amongst income-earners. For the rich they had a 91% tax rate on dividends, interest, salaries and bonus income (where most of their income came from). Relative to the rest, the rich became poorer, a trend that had started during the Depression, was intensified during WW II (by the policy above) and continued at a slower rate for a couple of decades afterward. The New Dealers also made labor actions full legal and favored labor over management in disputes.

Yes, their goal was the save capitalism from itself, but the medicine was harsh and bitterly resented as shown by the Conservative movement that began in the 1950's, blossomed in the 1970's and triumphed in the 1980's and since.

Yes they were conservative (small c) but they were conservatives of the left in that they took some of the beliefs with informed their policy thinking from the economic left. They were not radicals of the left (like you), who seek to change the economic roots (or fundamentals) of society (radical means root).

Originally Posted by B Butler

Is this an endorsement?

Not exactly. More like a dream. Like PBR has deduced (not that I ever really hid it) I believe that someone like Trump, Cruz or Rubio would make things so bad that a revolutionary moment would become inevitable. These last few years expectations have been rising, as such they would put the breaks on what little progress has been made and thus create--perhaps inadvertently a revolutionary situation.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I was suggesting that neo-progressive is problematic because the word has multiple meanings that can be radically different.

Not really. Herritage Foundation made what they mean by it very clear. In any event calling someone a social justice warrior is more problematic than calling them a neo-progressive. Neo-progressive describes their idology rather than what they claim they are doing.

Even racists and Nazi types can claim to be fighting for social justice (IE being a social justice warrior) as no one truly thinks that their own ideology is evil. Even if that ideology (like Nazism) is in fact evil.

So what you mean was unclear. When I asked for a definition you sent a description of what is commonalty called a SJW. So why not use that?

Did you not watch the video? Sargon clearly describe Neo-Progressivism and Neo-Progressive Activists. That they can call themselves SJWs is irrelevant.

OK, but when did you use the definition you did then? I mean there is picture of someone with rainbow colored hair, from crying out loud. If that's not an SJW what the hell is?

Mike, I thought you were intelligent. I mean I would expect someone who is a chemist to be intelligent. Are you really hung up about that particular female's hair? As I've said several times in my previous post to you, and in this post now, social justice warrior is the problematic term because anyone who advocates for a class can call themselves that. It matters not if they are an ultra-feminist female with purple hair, or an ultra-right-wing nationalist with a shaved head.

Neo-Progressives are the left wing version of fascism.

http://www.libertywhip.com/liberty-b...er-in-the-left

Yes of course, but it was less conservative than the Progressive movement. There is a spectrum.

I made no denial that it was less conservative than the Progressive movement, nor have I denied that there is a spectrum. The problem we are encountering here is that you are probably some sort of centrist where I'm far left, and just about anyone to the right of Mao is at least a conservative to me.

When discussing the Democratic candidates with my mother I actually said the following: "Bernie is okay for a conservative." Yes, I consider Bernie Sanders to be a conservative, and from a Marxist-Leninist perspective how could he not be anything but?

I see a difference in the economic philosophy that the two approaches took. The progressives held to a basic conservative approach to economic management: gold standard, balanced budgets & low peacetime taxes. They were focused trying to soften the adverse effects of capitalism, not interfere with its working. This is a conservative approach towards economics. In social policy they were more progressive in the modern sense: pro women's suffrage, prohibition, consumer protection, pro-welfare.

The New Deals moved to the left on economics. They embraced the populists pro-inflation/anti-banker stance by taking the country off the gold standard and regulating Wall Street. ( In comparison the progressives put in the Federal Reserve which put government economic management in the hands of elite bankers). FDR reigned in the Fed by putting a New Dealer in charge, and during the 1940's the Fed printed money as needed to maintain low interest rates. This is a recipe for inflation so he simply made it illegal to raise prices/wages without permission. For wages the system was gamed. Companies were free to raise wages to about $11/hr in today's money. (This they did because with wartime stimulus workers were hard to find). If you were in the middle-tier of income you had to get permission from the local office, who would be somewhat responsive to local issues. These folks saw their wages keep pace with inflation. For wages in the upper tier you had to get permission from the Washington office who just said no. The results were a compression in the spread of incomes, force economic inequality amongst income-earners. For the rich they had a 91% tax rate on dividends, interest, salaries and bonus income (where most of their income came from). Relative to the rest, the rich became poorer, a trend that had started during the Depression, was intensified during WW II (by the policy above) and continued at a slower rate for a couple of decades afterward. The New Dealers also made labor actions full legal and favored labor over management in disputes.

Yes, their goal was the save capitalism from itself, but the medicine was harsh and bitterly resented as shown by the Conservative movement that began in the 1950's, blossomed in the 1970's and triumphed in the 1980's and since.

Yes they were conservative (small c) but they were conservatives of the left in that they took some of the beliefs with informed their policy thinking from the economic left. They were not radicals of the left (like you), who seek to change the economic roots (or fundamentals) of society (radical means root).

In any event the problem is that any tools and ideologies arising out of either the New Deal or the Progressive movement will not address the issues we face. These problems were actually created by them, and the reaction to them. Other than possibly that I don't really see where we differ.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

It is the New Deal that is dead, but Marxism-Leninism is still around even if substantially weaker than it was at the turn of the Last Century.

A web search will reveal evidence of all sort of minor political movements on the left, some of which, having been around a while, can be judged on their track record. They have all been completely ineffective.

On the other hand, politicians holding views consistent with those of 1940's New Dealers, enacted Medicare and Medicaid in my own lifetime--programs that are still around and have beneficially impacted people in my family. In my own lifetime they were a real force, which leftists never were. And even today they is a modern politician (Sanders) espousing New Deal themes running for president. He has zero chance of winning largely because the minorities Kinser claims are repelled by Clinton have given him little support.

So many of Sanders supporters are white (like me). Democrats cannot win by appealing to non-liberal white people, anymore than Republicans can win by appealing to minorities. Republicans know this, and the successful ones are campaigning on white identity politics, mostly using dog whistles (except Trump who comes right out and says it).

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Did you not watch the video? Sargon clearly describe Neo-Progressivism and Neo-Progressive Activists. That they can call themselves SJWs is irrelevant.

Yes, his take is neo-progressivism = Social Justice ideology. A simple way to explain it as the belief system behind SJWs. The term SJW is in common use now so people know what it is about.

The term neo-progressivism makes more sense as the combination of a entrepreneurial approach to making the world a better place. Substitute "market-based" for entrepreneurial and you have neo-liberal. Bascially, neoliberal became a dirty word so now its neoprogressive. The emphasis of N-P is even more on the social side than N-L, reflecting the continued studious avoidance of economics amongst progressives.

It's the sort of thing that would appeal to folks who spend a lot of time with the internet, either as users or workers. SJWism can be thought of a branch of NP is this larger sense, but it is nihilistic, self-defeating and fundamentally unimportant movement. I suspect it will disappear as a new generation who have grown up with social media comes of age.

As I've said several times in my previous post to you, and in this post now, social justice warrior is the problematic term because anyone who advocates for a class can call themselves that.

SJW's don't called themselves SJWs. Other people do; the term is perjorative. It is like Shakers, Lollards, or queer.

Neo-Progressives are the left wing version of fascism.

In what sense are they on the left? I know a conservative will call them such as a way to slur the left. You are on the left. Do you see them as fellow travelers?

The problem we are encountering here is that you are probably some sort of centrist where I'm far left

You didn't know that? I have said that I am a New Dealer today (I used to be neoliberal about 20 years ago). I like Sanders the best of the presidential candidates, but Clinton will serve as far as I am concerned. You are a Marxist and so would naturally support a Republican--any Republican, which you do.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Exactly. And this is what makes him perfect to make the cold-civil war turn hot.

...and what if the Franco-like reactionaries win the suddenly-heated war? Do you think that you could outlast them?

The American Right has the heritage of

(1) slave-owning, and later, sharecropper-exploiting planters
(2) profiteers characteristic of the Gilded Age
(3) superstition-mongering religious hucksters
(4) an executive elite devoid of conscience but that has waxed fat by treating others badly

That coalition is rock-solid and utterly ruthless. If it wins it gets everything.

Revolution brings reaction, and that coalition would kill tens of millions to protect its billions. Don't play with the political equivalent of a forest fire.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I didn't say she is 100% a dick, but anyone who's been immersed in the glaring spotlight she and Bill have, yet still acts as though its trivial, has questionable political skills ... not a good thing for a politician. She still leans strongly on the 3T triangulation techniques that saw them though the past, but are now so very post-seasonal. How is this good?

I do agree that Trump will be disaster if allowed to be. On the other hand, he can be a wake-up call. There's a lot of value in knowing which. If the former, then we were headed for a disaster anyway. Who's disaster would you prefer it to be?

For nearly 15 years, there has been a growing long line of people I've talked to that said more or less the same thing in 2000, who now have loved ones that are dead or mutilated as a result of the Iraq Invasion and nearly all are struggling as a result of the Laissez Faire bank oversight that brought us the greatest economic contraction since the Great Depression.

It is totally baffling to me how some of them have fallen back into the practiced meme of false equivalency or into some sort of comfort zone that 4 years of some asshole in the White House will just be a bump in the road.

Next to turnout (or more accurately, the lack of in mid-terms), forgetfulness on just how bad it can be is the most serious self-inflicted wound on the Left, over and over again. It's why we get what we deserve in our elections.