Never have trusted any of them. Kucinch going to Fox, Cornell always attacking President Obama, greenwald and assaunge duh, and who cares what Susan Sarandon thinks her career is nowhere now. Fake liberals and dln't get me started on Jill Stein.

...when she blamed Democrats for the confirmation Betsy Devos even though every Democrat voted against confirmation.

makes sense.

all? Don't know, but some are GOP moles and Russian sock puppets.

I HATE Republican economics and social agendas in the Democratic Party as much as the next person.

But I'm also not idiotic enough to think Republicans they're putting up in the modern era AREN'T glaringly dangerous Christo-Fascists that threaten the nation's present and future.

"Hyuk, Hyuk, silly Demercrat, Trump's just a bumbler we weather until we get a better person to represent us. How bad can he be, really?"

He's already had more resignation-level scandals in three WEEKS than Obama had in eight YEARS (not that Pres. Obama HAD any . . . ) THAT'S HOW BAD.

They may have started out with good ideas, but their egos took over.

It happens on the right, too-- it's a human failing.

Gay Journalist Leaves The Left Behind And Embraces A 'Brand New Conservative'

In its typical Right-favoring dedication to balance, NPR makes sure to tell us when somebody gets over his Liberal delusions and embraces the true path, and we're told about the bitter backlash he suffered in response. Also, the born-again Rightie stresses that "the very overly racist, overtly anti-immigrant people who are a very, very tiny percentage" of the Republican party. I guess that the 30% or 40% who still support Trump are only a "tiny percentage."

The takeaway is that the Left is mean and intolerant, while the Right is a big, welcoming tent.

I see it this way: Progressives tend to be intolerant of things that stifle progress. Progressives see that old attitudes about family, gender, race, crime, economics, and other areas, tend to stifle the progression of people in to a more equitable society. Obviously there is a great deal of variance and priority given by individuals. It is not as simple as I stated it, but it is a starting point. Some people think that gay rights are the biggest challenge, other think that guns and gun violence is the biggest, others economic justice, etc... To some people when it comes to a core belief or something the they identify with at their essence, when it is threatened or dismissed, then they cannot tolerate it. They push back, then call people out, they end friendships and associations.

Conservatives have the same process, but they are intolerant of things that go against the established order. Now my bias comes out. To me, the established order is a big part of the problem. The country was built inherently favoring White people, particularly richer White heterosexual Christian Men of certain Protestant denominations. There are societal norms that people may not even consciously see, but we all adhere to in certain ways. Passed on from families, sanctioned by church and community, etc... These customs and institutions are dominant, even if quietly so. This is why studies show that Black children tended to see the White doll with blue eyes as the "pretty one" and the doll that looked like them as the "ugly one". That is why when the bad guy wears Black and the good White. Why Right is correct and what you are left with is ... Left. Words matter and are shaped by and shape our experiences.


When you have agitators fighting for the equality of women, of Black people, of Latinos, of LGBT people, of the poor, of any marginalized group, conservatives see their social order, their comfort level, their idea of what the world should be, as being attacked. They are intolerant of any change, of anything that challenges the dominance of their belief system. They do not tolerate people based on their being and on their assertion that they deserve equitable and dignified consideration of their experiences.

That to me is the MAJOR difference. There is intolerance on the Left. We discriminate. We see it right here on DU. When people come on the site and say things that go against the values and purpose of the site, they get warned, then banned, or just straight banned depending on the level of disruption. We do not tolerate certain things. I hold certain beliefs that are not highly tolerated on the site. I am sure that many members do. We either do not speak to those, or we pick our battles. Like I said however, those things are based not on people's being, but on their actions. What they say and what they do. I have family, friends, neighbors, etc... who are conservative. While I do not agree with them, I am still their family, friend, neighbor, etc... but I imagine that if they consistently supported ideas that threatened my existence or ability to be free, then I would have to at some point, choose whether or not to maintain the relationship with them. Could that be considered intolerant? Technically, yes it could. The point though is that it is a choice between being able to just live as who I am, or accept that I am evil or abnormal per the views of those people. We cannot be tolerant of intolerance.

The news media has a notion that it needs to present the "argument". Both sides, in an equal way. To some extent, they do have to present the argument. The problem is that the conflict is what brings in eyes and revenue so they rarely get beyond the conflict into whether each side has validity. There are Neo Nazis who truly believe that White people (whatever that means) are being exterminated, that they have to fight for White Power and some ideal that they have accepted. So they have a side, an argument. Then there is the other that, All people should have equal power and equitable access to opportunity. It is the media's responsibility to dig into that discussion and find out which side is supported by the evidence and which is not. The problem, like with the Left v Right or Left v Left or Center Left, or whatever is that they only focus on the fight.

In case people do not understand, most people in America agree with
most positions of progressives/liberals.

Remember, the Dem Party is the part of inclusion - right?

I think basically a progressive is a person who believes that we as people, families, communities, and society are changing and that we need to work to improve, to progress beyond practices that may not serve our interests. I see progressives as people who move forward as new information becomes available. They tend not to get as thrown by changing traditions or stuck on certain methods of thinking. There is always a balance between human dignity and advancement, between honoring traditions and moving past prejudices and beliefs that oppress people.

Obviously that is a very positive spin on the term because I consider myself a progressive, but that is how I see it.

Here is a definition from Dictionary.com

adjective
1.
favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters:
a progressive mayor.
2.
making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.:
a progressive community.
3.
characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
4.
(initial capital letter) of or relating to any of the Progressive parties in politics.
5.
going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.
6.
noting or pertaining to a form of taxation in which the rate increases with certain increases in taxable income.
7.
of or relating to progressive education :
progressive schools.

noun
10.
a person who is progressive or who favors progress or reform, especially in political matters.
11.
(initial capital letter) a member of a Progressive party.
12.
Grammar.
the progressive aspect.
a verb form or construction in the progressive, as are thinking in They are thinking about it.

...for an election decided mainly by 100-million-plus Trump- and non-voters.

I can't get that excited over a few anonymous maybe-progressives who might as well have been working for Trump.

...and they get a lot of airtime on right wing outlets like Breitbart and Fox or Russia Today.

The question is whether they really are lefties who truly believe that Democrats are the root of all evil even though they are currently shut out of power or are they sock puppets?

A few talking heads on TV promoting Sanders, guilty of insufficient enthusiasm for or outright opposition to Clinton, or someone else?

Tens of millions who voted for Trump and tens of millions more who didn't or couldn't vote at all far outweigh the relatively few who turned up but voted third party. The MSM themselves should concern us, as their billions in free airtime were no doubt a big factor.

Rooting out heretics is fun, because we imagine that some of them are here listening to us vent, and it may even be productive if we consider them leftish and possible allies for next time...but the obsession with punishment probably won't be helpful. When we get serious about victory at the polls, we'll begin thinking in bigger numbers.

them. For goodness sake we are still on the same side....aren't we? Perhaps not then.

traitors and scum...

Keep your eyes open...

And your list should be much, much longer...

Don't expect peace and harmony from Democrats and Progressives.

Expect LOTS of controversy. Maybe out of it will come a way to win in 2018.

An attitude of "I didn't like what someone said or did back in 2016 so let's shun them" is not helpful.

"An attitude of "I didn't like what someone said or did back in 2016 so let's shun them" is not helpful..."

Nor is ignoring or forgetting what was said about John Lewis and Planned Parenthood helpful in any way...

Last edited Thu Feb 16, 2017, 01:45 PM - Edit history (2)

I'm just saying victory in 2018 will require a more inclusive, not a more exclusive, strategy.

Which is already happening, with a huge Anti-Trump coalition.

Incidentally, I'm not familiar with any progressive who attacked John Lewis or Planned Parenthood. Maybe there is, but I'd be surprised.

ON EDIT

Oh, I remember what you're talking about now. Lewis and PP made strong endorsements of HRC, and some Bernie supporters disputed those endorsements. Is questioning a primary endorsement really an "attack"? Did any progressive or Bernie supporter deny Lewis' civil rights record or question PP's role in providing women's health services? And should we still be re-fighting primary endorsement decisions and reactions?