Martin O’Malley Calls for Expanding Social Security.

http://time.com/4005849/martin-omalley-social-security/

that dude is cool also.

that we have a common enemy and not to attack each other, that's what conservatives are for. By all means talk about what Sanders, Clinton, Mallory are for, but don't do the repugs work for them. Should be first day stuff but a lot of people here don't get it.

And you don't get to decide who is and isn't a progressive.

Attacking a progressive candidate only serves the conservatives, or is this too hard for you to understand?

you most resoundingly did.

is the same as a progressive candidate in California? Does that make one false?

It does.

fairly specific values who holds a certain governing philosophy. Just because a politician is a democrat doesn't automatically mean that person is a progressive. The preponderance of your positions being progressive is what makes a progressive. Furthermore, not all issues carry equal weight as far as I'm concerned.

"The overwhelming majority of people who hunt know about guns and respect guns and are law-abiding people. That's the truth," he said. "We will not succeed on this terribly important issue if we continue the cultural warfare between urban America and rural America."
Now, before you say I am attacking Bernie Sanders, I am using a quote of his to prove my point that progressives are different in different regions, that's it. Now you can argue that when he says "The overwhelming majority of people" he is not including progressives, but that is a extremely weak argument and nowhere does any evidence lead to that.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2015/07/10/bernies-big-break-with-the-left-on-guns

that hunt and use guns. A lot of them are in rural areas and don't support making gun laws more strict. A progressive in Maine or Nevada may believe that gun laws should not be more strict vs a progressive in NY does.

I really can't figure out if there are some who have some kind of blog disorder. Your link and logic are clear. You point to Bernie's behavior, connect with the OP, and have a logical conclusion.

This OP is exactly correct, attacking other progressive Democrats is not a progressive value. It's simply doing the work of the RW, and it doesn't change anyone's minds.

There's no logic in repeating repub CT's, posting thread after thread of attack opinions without any new logic. It's mental masturbation at best, and prevents well-meaning Democrats from getting information or having useful discussions.

A good respond, even if it was in disagreement, would be informative or a new link.

I appreciate that. There is not a candidate out there that has an unblemished record, they are human. If you live in a glass house, don't throw rocks. I like Clinton for her work on trying to get medical care to America, I like Sanders for his work on wage disparity. Clinton's work on humanitarian relief is a great point, Sanders work on tax rates for the rich is awesome. See who easy that is? I chose two candidates, said what I liked about them and didn't have to attack anyone. I could also say that I don't like Clinton's vote on the Iraq war and I don't like Sanders record on guns. Did I attack them? no. I didn't say that either of them were not progressives, were not true democrats, were war mongers or enabled the gun lobby. Why would I fight my own team?

for some to understand. Or at least they pretend.

that means something. You also don't get to decide who is a progressive any more than I do, so what is your point?

shut people up.

talk all about the pro's of the candidate your support and I am trying to get people to shut up. I have lived in the north west, south west, north east and south east, a progressive is a different beast in every place, but you have a agenda to complete so what do I know. According to you I should just not think. Great. Rock on, but don't think, wouldn't want that.

"Don't think. Just pay attention"

I coined it because I have a tendency to let whirling thoughts disrupt my focus. Try another attack one. That one failed.

Don't think works pretty good.

Woo, you dont understand because of Woo. LOL.

that, while this Buddhist precept you've coined could be personally valuable to you as a reminder to keep your focus, it doesn't particularly apply to political philosophy. Or could you explain how it does? I could see the paying attention part, but what would the "don't think" part mean?

This is a serious question.

is. You're comparing moments to other moments, you're trying to see patterns, you're trying to slot the experience into some 'type' or 'category' of experience. You're not responding to it honestly, but telling yourself how to respond to it. Be in the moment, not outside of it, examining it.

That's how we know not to jump from a roof thinking this time maybe we can fly. Or not to cross the street in front of a moving car, thinking this time it might stop.

And recognizing patterns I would think is part of "paying attention." So, if my husband always beats me up when he's drunk, I'd be wasting my time thinking Oh, this time it might be different. Thinking is evaluating, and it's indispensable for survival.

I appreciate your response, but I still would like to hear how "don't think" applies to politics. Hopefully cali will respond with how she applies it.

It's generally considered courteous to build a little credibility before engaging in lecturing posters who have been here in some cases more than a decade and may have actually formed their own concept of what a progressive might be.

If you think things are bad now you should have been here for the 2008 primaries, what's really both interesting and a little difficult to believe at the same time is that some of today's most vociferous Hillarians were on the O-team last time and had nothing remotely good to say about HRC then. DU is a fascinating study in sociological dynamics and unless you have been lurking for a very long time there's a great deal of context here that you cannot but help being totally blind to.

I've come to the conclusion that the need of some people to be on what they see as a or maybe the "winning team" is so great that they will twist themselves into philosophical pretzels in order to be on that team.

I don't feel the need to post much, but lately its been tear each other apart and I wanted to say something to maybe stop that. Its a pipe dream, I know, but I'll smoke that pipe.

My personal opinion is that if you made speeches and voted to allow Dubya to invade Iraq then you are no progressive but I know there's no point to post an OP saying it.

anymore than I would defend Sanders being supported by the NRA. See how that goes, we are attacking our own candidates now, happy?

I post my opinion on a fact and you post a lie.

See how that goes?

And he's never taken a red bloody cent from them.

Bernie has a D- rating from the NRA. And it is not like Hillary voting for the IWR. That was an act by her. Bernie didn't seek out the nra. I was here. I remember that election.

That is the NRA supporting him over another candidate, no less and no more. Who is the liar now? Still think Sanders is great, just making a point, obviously one you guys cant or wont see.

Something you evidently can't or won't see.

It's rare for a descent into self-parody to go so quickly and completely.

I admitted to as much when I said so, did you miss that?

And I fell for it, took you at face value.

Mea culpa.

My entire op was an elaborate ploy to get you to go negative on Clinton. Ive been setting it up for a month now and was waiting for the exact moment to spring it on you. By the way, saying I would not defend Sanders for the NRA backing him over another candidate is not going negative. I did not accuse Sanders of anything, I stated a fact that Sanders was supported by the NRA. Did he have anything to do with it? No. Did he speak out against them supporting him over another progressive candidate? no. Should he have? I just barely think he should have. I assume that he did not so that he would not alienate lots of voters and I for one am glad he won. I believe that is a valid point, and I wont defend him for making that decision just as I wont defend Hillary over her Iraq war vote. I think both of them could have chose better in those instances, does that make them not progressive? No.

Time doesn't make an argument right, if so then the world would be flat. Maybe the person who has been here for a while should show some courtesy seeing as how they are a vet.

"You are not a progressive".

can be supported by the NRA but cant vote for war. You make no sense despite your thousands of posts.

I still get more chuckles per page read here than anywhere, we have some very funny DUers, both voluntary and involuntary.

When it doesn't follow your preconceived notions its a hidden agenda. Watch out for the black helicopters.

to point out the absurdity of these positions or we are a laughingstock in politics.

But I have been told I am suppressing speech and should be nice because someone else has been here longer than me, doesn't sound very progressive to me at all, nope, not at all.

You were the one trumpeting your opinion to the forum in an OP, not me.

At least I can tell fact from fiction and opinion from both.

and I have not presented a lie like you said and I would appreciate a apology. Sanders was supported by the NRA over another candidate. That being said he is very cool and I support him. I support all of them, Clinton, Sanders, Omalley. We can continue to fight among ourselves or present a unified front to the conservatives, your choice, and your choice will decide whether you are a progressive or just a tribalist.

Then what was your OP?

and a kind welcome to DU

I appreciate it.

but there is a lot of other choices that are great, HRC, O'mally,,,,,

and I haven't this time around, either. They get too vicious, and devolve into personal attacks, as witness this thread. But that's what DU is. It's not Lawyers, Guns & Money, for example, where posters maintain civility while they disagree.

Nice try, but DUers, or many of them anyway, love to get down. And some members like to sniff & tell others that they are lecturing, then turn around & deliver lectures themselves. And, of course, inevitably, there's the accusation of a low post count, as if that is a winning put-down. It's the nature of the beast here.

This is going to be a loooong campaign. I admire Bernie Sanders for keeping to the high road, and for constantly proving to the media that he won't rise to their bait. I admire Hillary Clinton for how she can take the shit she has taken through the years without reacting the way they want her to. They each have positions that I personally wish they didn't have, and neither one is going to be the savior that we need, because the system is stronger than either of them. But people here will argue passionately for one, or against the other, in no small measure because they enjoy arguing. May as well leave them to it. Cheers.

There are so many moralizing OPs around to tell people what all litmus tests they have to meet to be a progressive these days it's just not worth caring about.

If I wanted to be pompously lectured at, I'd take MineralMan off ignore.

The nature of competing groups is to define competitors as others who form disparaged out-groups. It's fundamental behavior to human social groups.

DU tolerates and tacitly accepts this behavior throughout the between election years. It's part of the non-stated rules which govern the environment of these chatrooms. 'Others' who don't share political views are treated as non-members to in-groups who share a loose constellation of beliefs.

The policing of embers of groups who don't fit capricious or non-existing rules as a form of shunning or to facilitate the shunning of others or others is actually part of the same behavior. It is what drives this form of the "there are no true scotsmen" argument.

Consequently, the 'no true scotsmen argumentation' itself is no better, it just shuffles group members by who agrees with a particular defining of 'others' in a manner that allows the targeted persons to be disparaged as an out-group.

This thread blew up really fast. I didn't expect that.

Welcome to DU!

There seems to be a notion that being a Democrat automatically makes one a progressive. When, in reality, today's mainstream Democrats are in many ways to the *right* of Eisenhower and even Nixon.

They have other motives.

will always be a fringe movement until we learn to build each other up. Sanders knows this, the President does, so does Clinton. Yes they all resorted to attacking each other or will, their base, us, has forced them to because we do. Our politicians are a reflection of what we do and at some point we give them no choice because we are so rigid on what a "progressive" is without taking into account the various factors that drive the decisions they have to make. The ACA isnt progressive!!!! Without taking into account medicaid for all might not pass while the ACA has a much better chance, You voted for War!!!! without taking into account the fear and desperation most of Americans felt at that time, You didnt denounce the NRA!!!! without realizing that he might have lost the election for a pointless stand that would have accomplished nothing. So hold to your rigid ideology, and when confronted with the fact that your politician might not be perfect call the person who points that out as a liar, an agent saboteur, not progressive, probably a republican, and stay a fringe movement. The far right keeps power because most of their base believes everything, the far left stays out of power because most of them cant believe anything but what they do and anything else is a betrayal. Thanks hrmjustin.

Financially backing, making more powerful and expanding the reach and influence of the very corporations trying to crush our feeble attempts at addressing reality.

The conservative politicians, think tanks & lobbyists they spawn are marked in treachery only by the lust for money of the shareholders.

For the shareholders, the idea of acceptable progressive change is whatever makes them more money. The only change they care about is yours not changing for the better.

Each dollar in the hands of Wall St only assures it that much more. What they sow each day, we all reap.

There are few true progressives these days. Generally just those who like to talk about being decent people while privately financing the very attacks against decency they publicly bemoan.