not ever.

Not one, never.

And while I wasnt entirely sure when I started this thread whether or not this person is a republican, I am sure now.

You are the one who keeps promoting his agenda, referring to his information in a positive way, not me.

I will stop asking, knowing some of the folks around here I will be the one in trouble for asking, for once again UNCONDITIONALLY supporting the Democratic Party on fucking Democratic Undeground

He's delusional to think that stuff will work as a repug.

But thanks for sharing that much.

Am I surprised?

I am going to risk it, here goes.

We need to look at who this person is, was, where he was on the political spectrum, and the other person I linked to , is she also a former leader in that category I dont like to mention and is now running as a republican?

Are we LEARNING anything people? God I hope so.

(MODERATE conservative anyway), but even today many Trumpsters are selectively but strongly progressive on certainly issues but don't know it (they reject the term, vote against themselves, but nevertheless want many progressive programs).

How do you think we got the New Deal back in FDR's administration and the Fair Deal during Truman's? Those required strong support by a majority coalition against intense opposition from strong and extremist conservatives.

Also, the Democratic Party still has a conservative wing, so no one should be outraged that some are represented among the DNC's over 400 members. It's appropriate. Elizabeth Warren, btw, is an outstanding example of a progressive moderate conservative of at least centrist positions who is very valued in the Democratic Party for her ability to achieve progressive goals. In fact, she has been positioned for advance in our senate caucus leadership.

As for this guy, he sounds like a GOP nightmare on first look, and that's potentially fantastic. If second look confirms, I will be wishing them many similar attempts at takeovers. We will not be able to fix our broken nation until we are able to form a new, stable and enduring majority coalition with a sizable moderate conservative bloc in the opposing party.

Bunches of yammering left- and right-wing yahoos fighting for sole control and causing the ship of state to tilt wildly from one side to the other is a recipe for national destruction.

... people on both sides of the aisle who agree something is important enough to not bicker over and just get shit done.

Then each presents the reasons why their coalition ought to support the proposed legislation to their people.

It's apparently become a lost art.

a surprising degree, though mostly under the radar, not secret but not advertising.

Necessary because the yahoos left and right are so excited and easily manipulated these days that publicizing cooperation, issues often distorted beyond recognition of course, can turn them on those involved.

extreme right wing yahoos have taken over the repug party.

There will be no compromising with them until their grip on power is loosened by Democrats winning back at least one house of Congress.

I have no faith in whether this one repug who has seemed to copy Bernie Sanders' platform is sincere of just trying to pull the wool over some progressive eyes to get elected.

We have to keep fighting all repugs to control at least one house of Congress to bring them to the bargaining table.

She is another who seems to believe the Dem party is worse than the GOP party...

"Yet the Democratic Party, she says, has lost her, which has left her only one place to turn.

“I’m actually planning to run in the Republican primary because—especially in NJ—the Democrats and the way the Democratic Party establishment is run is not supportive of young people who don’t have deep, deep political experience or a lot of money to fund their own race,” the familiar voice on the other end of the phone tells me, betraying a slight hint of exasperation. “We shouldn’t all have to be millionaires or deeply politically connected to represent constituents.”

Now it will be interesting if Our Revolution...backs her. Sorry...an 'R' after her name disqualifies this twit because it doesn't help with a majority. She is too stupid to understand that none of the things she supports can happen with a GOP House...stupid is as stupid does.

of "of young people who don’t have deep, deep political experience or a lot of money to fund their own race"

She actually thinks the Republican Party establishment IS supportive of young people, etc.? I doubt even she is that stupid; she's just trying to make a "point" about how pure she is. Good luck with a run as a socialist Republican!

If you understand its meaning.

Neoliberalism is a primarily economic philosophy, not a left-right ideology. Neoconservatism deals primarily with foreign policy.

Although most neocon's are conservative, NeoLiberals can be found in both the Republican and Democratic parties. As it deals primarily with economic policy, a NeoLiberals could have varying positions on social issues such as abortion, marriage rights, etc.

Complex, perhaps. Misused, definitely. Difficult to pigeonhole, indeed. But not a meaningless term.

insult strips it of its actual meaning. But who knows, maybe I really am a neoliberal.

Last edited Thu Nov 23, 2017, 12:59 PM - Edit history (1)

But some so-called "progressives" like to suggest that anyone e who isn't a socialist somehow is a neo-liberal. It is a term heavily mis-used by the far left.

Including the banking and finance industries, rather than returning to FDR-era regs like Glass-Steagall, as well as opposing enforcement of anti-trust laws.

Neoliberal is an accurate descriptor of Democrats who won't fight for strong net neutrality laws (not just FCC regs)

Neoliberal is an accurate descriptor for Democrats who accept money from, and staff their administration with 0.1%'ers from Goldman-Sachs and other banksters organizations.

Neoliberal is an accurate descriptor for Democrats who oppose card-check laws for unionizing workplaces.

Neoliberal is an accurate descriptor for Democrats who do not work to correct the income inequality in America.

Neoliberal is an accurate descriptor for Democrats who won't fight for a living wage.

Neoliberal is an accurate descriptor for Democrats who won't fight for laws ensuring workplace safety, so worker don't die of asphyxiating heat in Amazon ware houses (not to mention working off the clock while going through mandatory "security checks" that can add 30 minutes to your shift)

I could go on...

So, yes, Neoliberal does not describe all Democrats, but I'm sure you can think of some who fit the criteria above (I know I can).

Over policies that prioritize the rights and well being of workers.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/14/the-fatal-flaw-of-neoliberalism-its-bad-economics

It's not MY definition of neoliberalism, it is THE definition of neoliberalism.

Surely nobody believes he is doing this because he thinks he can change the GOP

Democrats dont join the GOP and run as republicans.

If that is what he is and is doing.

Are you supporting this republican?

he seems to have copied and pasted from Bernie Sanders' site onto his site will fly with repugs is not subversive but quite delusional.

No chance in hell that will work.

What's he angling for, a book or campaign documentary deal?

Not a well thought out strategy.

the Republicans maintain control of the House and the Senate.

Born Samuel Ronan
Education Associates in Applied Metrology Science
Employer Our Voice
Organization Our Voice
Known for Candidate for chairman of Democratic National Committee
Political party Republican (2017–present)[1]

advocating for a repthugliKKKan on this forum? If so, you are in the wrong. Go to some RW site or JPR...DI you will have better luck. You should leave if advocating for repthugliKKKans.

The Bragman tweet makes it clear that Ronan and Brown are anti-Democratic party Republican candidates.

Some people got played.

enraged given I know what is really going on, but then I thought maybe this will open some eyes.

I hope so.

Do you support this republican?

If so, I don't care about him or his platform.

a thread.

What it tells me is some of these folks, who I cant really put into a category without getting into trouble, were never Democrats or liberals, at all, EVER.

What they were and are is folks who want some financial stuff and dont care how badly minorities are treated as long as they get it.

Something like that.

THE BIG NEWS here is who these people were before they joined the GOP, they were LEADING folks in a certain category pretending to be democrats.

This cannot be ignored.

economic issues and dont care who they have to run over to get it.

For a long time I said when trump did something bad he just got more voters, i was wrong. But I was saying it hoping people would get PISSED off at the idea of it.

When in reality maybe he isnt getting more, sure he is solidifying his base but most people by god may be smart enough to know that taking 500 billion AWAY from Medicare, for example, is NOT not touching it like he promised.

Also right now per someone on Maher the other day we are seeing more of US showing up voting. Too bad so many of US were somehow disenchanted about Hillary, but if people dont show up now or next year, then there is no hope ever.

that showed Ds of all stripes working to get Democrats elected, we sure don't need the pretend Ds.

it COULD be true. If the kids had been reacting to it, it would have been actually believable.

what do WE do if he pardons himself and 35% of the country PROUDLY Lines up with his dictatorship?

Serious question, because I dont know.

I don't know either. I wish I had a useful answer, but I'm scared.

is the Republican Party's. By choice.

Obviously more $$ outweighed the benefits of keeping the "D" association.

It should have taught us that a person with the self applied title of progressive has no de facto connection to the Democratic Party.

They can, but often do not.

I am a liberal Democrat, and I am VERY liberal.

In that I would give back Medicare and SS if that was the only way to protect women from back alley deaths, or protect black people from public lynchings for the crime of being black.

Yeah, I am a liberal, the fact that I am a democrat is a default because that is the party that most accurately reflects my beliefs.

I am a social democrat and a proud liberal member of the Democratic Party.

I strongly rejected the label of progressive.

Mainly because the very spotty and often sordid history of the Progressive movement over the past 100 years.

In my mind progressives are too often kissing cousins with nationalists and nationalist movements always go bad as they end up looking for scapegoats. Sound familiar to things we see today?

To not get flamed I am aware there are good members of the Democratic Party here on DU who consider themselves progressives and I am not referring to them and the perhaps millions of other good liberals who call themselves progressives. If every member of DU were to read the history of the progressive movement I believe fewer would claim that title.

Have a nice evening.

We need to take back the honorable term, "liberal," which was stolen and redefined by the Republican Party.

We can thank Liberals many things we take for granted today. A partial list:

Child Labor Laws
The 40-hour work week
Overtime pay
Workplace safety laws
Freedom of Information Act
Social Security
Medicare & Medicaid
The Peace Corps
The Civil Rights Act
Women's Right to Vote
Universal Public Education
Public Universities
National Weather Service
Rural Electrification
Bank Deposit Insurance
Public Broadcasting
Pell Grants
Americans with Disabilities Act

What, exactly, have progressives (as the term has been redefined lately by the purists) accomplished?

will never learn from it, republicans.

But it would be helpful if that other bunch would pay attention to this also.

As to what others have accomplished? Not much, given in our system you have to be

a. part of one of only two parties, as in every election you have ONLY two choices, ALWAYS

b. be willing to make compromises and find reasonable people on the other side to work with, there are none at this point, on the other side, the GOP I mean

It's not surprising that Paste magazine is full of glowing praise for these two Republicans.

Maybe these are the "progressive Republicans" that Nina was talking about in her Cosmo interview.

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a13107999/nina-turner-womens-convention/

thanks for confirming that

Of course politicians have switched party allegiance, sometimes due to their own political aspirations.

What's amusing in this case, is the confusion of a progressive who doesn't understand who his natural allies would be: The same progressive who likely accused the Democratic Party of being GOP Lite and yet here he is, thinking he should expend his energies running as a Republican. It's like a comedy skit.

And I wonder what would draw him to that conclusion if not serious intellectual confusion or a poor understanding of civics.

The twitter feed, is a hoot....is this, as the military calls it a dark OP to infiltrate behind enemy lines?

it's sad. SAD

Apparently others do not depend on themselves to look up a sentence like that. ? It is usually the first thing I do but the reflex to out anyone not seeming to agree 100% because of a clever reply they don't understand has to be done before any sense can be made.

Good damned grief. Did it not occur that this might be a lyric or part of something else?

Thanks for an ear worm that I do not mind at all having.

He's lucky if he gets as much as 2% of vote.

No one will take him seriously because he is not serious.

Some folks think this is some kind of successful infiltration of the Republican Party ( LMAO)

I'd wager he'll talk a lot about "Bread and butter politics" and issues faced by "everyday americans", the kind of rhetoric that avoids discussion of civil rights and views identity politics as a "distraction".

... an astute analysis.

And what exactly does he think will happen if the GOP continues in power? Or is that what he really supports?

K&R

WTF is right, Eliot.

This is not progressive.

And speaking of dogs, what's the opposite of a Blue Dog Democrat?

then the race would be between a democrat and a progressive "repub"

win/win right?

But I would be happy if it was even a close primary. If Chobot was relentlessly attacked with poison barbs by Ronan during the primary, just enough of them might stick, and he would roll into the general election a perceived weakened candidate.

And this asshat will have to vote with them. I knew many of this sort were not Democrats...fuck them.

Sometimes Dem is just a label

Sen. Sanders can run again without being a Democrat and that his message which is their message has appeal for the right...it doesn't...but brains are not their strong suit. I doubt Sen. Sanders will run again. But these folks hopefully will lost big and then maybe they will fgure out that they have little in common with the hard right.

You might be saying the opposite so that is why I am asking, these threads get confusing.

I for one will never vote for any with an 'R' next to their name. Oh and this is DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND. And Hillary Clinton is not nor ever was a snake. I wonder how those who didn't vote for her can live with themselves as sick kids begin dying because of the elimination of CHIP and parts of the ACA...I guess maybe they should be GOP as they are just as heartless...I hope everyone of this sort of candidate goes down in flames...any who think the GOP is better than Dems are not progressive and are stupid to boot.

are having a ball watching trump destroy America.


Calling Hillary or her people snakes, well I wish I could say " I have seen everything now" but I have seen this before and will again.

I would say I am speechless, but apparently I am anything but.

... that saying them (or typing them) out loud isn't very smart... for obvious reasons... which I also cannot go into, for obvious reasons.)

self delete


self delete

I can only add that even though I may not be the smartest voter, there are many people who underestimate my intelligence. I have a brain, I have a big mouth, and I have a keyboard.

I think it would be an interesting strategy to run for the nomination of both parties. Debate the Republican(s) running for their nomination early on. Would get you more coverage. You may not win the Repug nomination but I think it puts you in a stronger place, assuming you are up for it.

But running for just the (R) nom? No way.

Point obviously, which I know you know, is some of us knew this about some of these people, saw it coming, TALKED about it.

We are restricted now as to that talk, however, which is REAL bad for going forward.

Most of them have left for JPR. And they are completely bonkers.

I know of them other than just here, also, and the theme and behavour is very similar.