Progressivism IS BLM, LGBTQ, Defund the Police. It's not just class politics.

No idea what you're on about. This is why Bernie failed to garner the nomination multiple times. The dude has zero support from the black community and was never killing it with the queer community either.

We’re talking about getting everyone on board, we’re not trying to get more votes from progressives lol.. it’s about the outreach to the centrists, independents, and even conservatives or libertarians.

No, I’m really sorry to tell you people don’t care that much about that stuff. Don’t get me wrong CBarca, I do for SURE, but the average American in the US cares about their wallet and putting food on the table. Not being unemployed. Etc

I didn't say that I'm a rabid Defund the Police supporter, nor that those are my policy positions. I also never said that I think those are the positions that the majority of America cares about. I live and grew up in the Midwest, I'm pretty well aware that most people around here, even the liberals, get on edge with respect to things like "defund the police".

My point is that you can't pick and choose.

It would be like saying "we need to diversify Republicanism. Let's stop being friends to the wealthy and focus purely on the working class. Let's stop the anti-immigration and become the party of immigrants. Let's tone down the ultra-capitalist talk and work on becoming the friends of the unions"

That's all well and good, but you're not a Republican anymore.

IMO, you're not a progressive if you're in favor of wealth redistributive measures but don't get behind BLM, the LGBTQ+ community, Defund the Police, and other social positions. I'm not really sure why you're arguing progressives should be doing that. The Democratic party right now is much closer to what you're arguing than the progressive wing.

You do realize that the New Deal was mostly a failure, right?

What it did do was give hope to people who had suffered from the Great Depression that the government was doing something to help them. Under this extreme scenario, it was a necessary evil. But in terms of actual policies and the success of those policies, it sucked for the most part (with some very few notable exceptions).

Here's a good read on what the New Deal actually did and didn't do: https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/WinklerTestimony33109TheNewDealSenateTestimony.pdf

Anyhow, we're not in a great depression and the whole concept of "how do we know since we've never tried" is just.... I'll leave it at that.

No, let's not leave it at that.

Tell me why you have such disdain for trying new ideas. I'm all ears.

I'm also interested. Especially when the "something new" is something that has been tried successfully in a number of other successful, culturally similar-enough countries.

sportsczy wrote:You do realize that the New Deal was mostly a failure, right?

What it did do was give hope to people who had suffered from the Great Depression that the government was doing something to help them. Under this extreme scenario, it was a necessary evil. But in terms of actual policies and the success of those policies, it sucked for the most part (with some very few notable exceptions).

Here's a good read on what the New Deal actually did and didn't do: https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/WinklerTestimony33109TheNewDealSenateTestimony.pdf

Anyhow, we're not in a great depression and the whole concept of "how do we know since we've never tried" is just.... I'll leave it at that.

Don't leave it at that, because you haven't made your point well. Did you actually read that PDF you linked? Because I did. It says the New Deal didn't fully succeed because it wasn't aggressive (from the modern POV: progressive) enough, and the economist that testified in that document fully bases his argument on the economics of Keynes, an economist no Conservative would ever listen to.
The Keynesian proposition of countercyclical spending is the basis of most progressive social-democratic economists.

You're making our argument for us, mate.

I recall he has an economic/business background. Folks in those spheres do tend to lean conservative and/or Republican. That's not all that surprising.

McLewis wrote:No, let's not leave it at that.

Tell me why you have such disdain for trying new ideas. I'm all ears.

I don't disdain new ideas...  but ideas are just ideas.  It's like the thousands of people that bring me business "ideas" to invest in that aren't actual businesses.  They're just clever thoughts.

A feasibility study and an action plan that can withstand scientific scrutiny need to happen BEFORE you even consider making an investment into a business concept, which is not an idea btw... it's several steps beyond that.

I object to half-baked ideas, which represent 99% of the progressive "agenda".  Most of the proposals are lazy and misinformed.  Make a proper case that withstands scrutiny and then come back to me. I'm not going to support something where the argument is "we won't know until we try". Nobody can predict the future. But you can certainly project an outcome based on historical data and accepted trends. Circumstances may change, but you want the executive(s) to make a bonafide viable case so that you can invest in their ability to properly digest and analyze data + make rational decisions going forward.

Capitalism isn't limited to such spectrums Sports just talks like someone directly out of Wallstreet or serial entrapraneuers as I have met people as such and they make serious bank. He speaks just like them.


Not a criticism of course given venture capitalism and entrapraneurals is my field as it is.


Interesting debate above but do not know too much about the New Deal enough to participate.

sportsczy wrote:

McLewis wrote:No, let's not leave it at that.

Tell me why you have such disdain for trying new ideas. I'm all ears.

I don't disdain new ideas...  but ideas are just ideas.  It's like the thousands of people that bring me business "ideas" to invest in that aren't actual businesses.  They're just clever thoughts.

A feasibility study and an action plan that can withstand scientific scrutiny need to happen BEFORE you even consider making an investment into a business concept, which is not an idea btw... it's several steps beyond that.

I object to half-baked ideas, which represent 99% of the progressive "agenda".  Most of the proposals are lazy and misinformed.  Make a proper case that withstands scrutiny and then come back to me.  I'm not going to support something where the argument is "we won't know until we try".  Nobody can predict the future.  But you can certainly project an outcome based on historical data and accepted trends.  Circumstances may change, but you want the executive(s) to make a bonafide viable case so that you can invest in their ability to properly digest and analyze data + make rational decisions going forward.

I mean, you just sat there and dismissed the very concept of ideas themselves. That reads like disdain to me, but hey this is the internet and tone isn't really a thing I suppose. Others will not see it that way. Fine.

I think you need to take off the business/economist/analyst cap for a second and look at these ideas from a human perspective. When we rely too much on analytics, data, stats, numbers, metrics, trends, forecasting, etc....we lose the humanity of what's being tracked. This is not Shark Tank.

Progressive ideas are human ideas at their core. Are some of them pie-in-the-sky? Absolutely. Do some of them need to be fleshed out? Very much so. That's not enough to dismiss them out of hand though. Look at the Green New Deal for instance. I don't think it will ever pass, but it is not just a hodge-podge of ideas hashed together. It's a lot more than that. Just because you disagree with how that agenda is implemented does not mean it is less deserving of consideration.

This is true mclewis. There is a human aspect to these things we can’t ignore. Universal health care and cleaning our air and our planet are two things I stand with progressives on, despite being libertarian. Criminal justice reform is not far behind for me as well

Now, how we go about achieving something like that is another story, but at the very least there is some arguments to be made on these things that hard line conservatives should listen up on

You're Libertarian? I never would have guessed though your recent views had that shine more than ever.


I was mostly that in my more radical age of things but left it since I find their views rather impractical or more so most Libertarians set terrible examples for their views.


Cleaning the world and air etc should be supported by all sides of the political spectrum though anyway.

The problem is most libertarians are bat shit crazy and lean towards the ayn Rand school of thought, which is way too far imo

But yes arq I am, I’m all about letting people do what they want as long as they’re not hurting others

I agree with the Libertarian view my man that will never change as little is wrong with it and its more needed in a population booming beyond relief where any form of cohesion is lost.

But like many declining movements the movement itself is indeed just marred by some really bad followers as the general stereotype of a Libertarian just isn't flattering and adhering to Ayn Rand principles (who is quite overrated) doesn't help.

Happy to see as mentioned before you think this independently compared to your peers, of course.

FennecFox7 wrote:This is true mclewis. There is a human aspect to these things we can’t ignore. Universal health care and cleaning our air and our planet are two things I stand with progressives on, despite being libertarian. Criminal justice reform is not far behind for me as well

Now, how we go about achieving something like that is another story, but at the very least there is some arguments to be made on these things that hard line conservatives should listen up on

I make exceptions here:
-  Free education
-  Universal healthcare
-  The opportunity to make a liveable income if you want to work and stay out of trouble
-  Protecting the environment

These 4 to me are rights, not privileges.  I support these 150%.  The problem i have with progressives on the these is the "how".  I'll give you my takes on each:

-  eduction should be government subsidized end of the discussion
-  same with healthcare  
-  I don't believe in raising the minimum wage and putting the responsibility on private businesses to keep people employed.  Government should help private companies hire such people.  In Germany, the government pays companies to keep workers on their payrolls. The German name for this is Kurzarbeit, or “short-time work” and typically pays 60 percent of a worker’s wages (higher for parents). During the pandemic, the German government has allowed for these benefits to rise to as much as 80 percent.  I believe in this method 100%.
-  The US should lead environmental programs and not say "China doesn't do it".  It's the environment ffs.  Once we destroy it, we die.  It's not that complicated.

But what Germany does is something that would very much be considered "progressive" in the US, so I don't really get your earlier blanket disdain for progressive ideas, when your latest post seems to really approve of them.

sportsczy wrote:

FennecFox7 wrote:This is true mclewis. There is a human aspect to these things we can’t ignore. Universal health care and cleaning our air and our planet are two things I stand with progressives on, despite being libertarian. Criminal justice reform is not far behind for me as well

Now, how we go about achieving something like that is another story, but at the very least there is some arguments to be made on these things that hard line conservatives should listen up on

I make exceptions here:
-  Free education
-  Universal healthcare
-  The opportunity to make a liveable income if you want to work and stay out of trouble
-  Protecting the environment

These 4 to me are rights, not privileges.  I support these 150%.  The problem i have with progressives on the these is the "how".  I'll give you my takes on each:

-  eduction should be government subsidized end of the discussion
-  same with healthcare  
-  I don't believe in raising the minimum wage and putting the responsibility on private businesses to keep people employed.  Government should help private companies hire such people.  In Germany, the government pays companies to keep workers on their payrolls. The German name for this is Kurzarbeit, or “short-time work” and typically pays 60 percent of a worker’s wages (higher for parents). During the pandemic, the German government has allowed for these benefits to rise to as much as 80 percent.  I believe in this method 100%.
-  The US should lead environmental programs and not say "China doesn't do it".  It's the environment ffs.  Once we destroy it, we die.  It's not that complicated.

I agree with all with an addition:
It's possible to make China abbide by the environmental rules. Just put environmental tax on any product made and exported from China to compensate for the competition in US, Europe or elsewhere. The tax has to be higher than the damage caused by China to the environment to move them towards more envirnonmental friendly concepts. The idea is to unite as many trading unions as possible. That's what I call leading by example, the US could do it. The EU can't force the issue on their own.
And yeah, if we don't change our approach we die, simple as that. You can't eat the money afterwards, it won't be worth the paper is was printed on.

There is no country in the world who damages the world's environment indirectly and directly as much as China and it is not even close. It isn't even needed to be mentioned their wildlife treatment.

Highly doubt such taxes and tariffs will be put upon them but one can hope.

VivaStPauli wrote:But what Germany does is something that would very  much be considered "progressive" in the US, so I don't really get your earlier blanket disdain for progressive ideas, when your latest post seems to really approve of them.

I'm not for or against anything.  I take good ideas where they come from.  As I mentioned, I have nothing against the intent of the progressive ideas... I mean, how could you be.  I just don't think they're feasible in terms of how they want them executed or if it's even possible when you consider human nature and the nature of government.

That's why I say that I think 99% of what progressives in the US currently propose is nonsense... not because the goal isn't noble and worth trying to achieve; but because it can't be executed in the US in the manner that they propose.  The assumptions are completely off base.... which brought on the discussion around the argument "you don't know if you don't try".

Just so you know, I don't care what idealogy or political party a good idea comes from.  It really doesn't matter to me.  I'm completely non-partisan.  in fact, I think this whole "you're either 100% for me or against me" or "you're either republican or democrat" is COMPLETELY idiotic. I don't identify myself with any political party. Do I lean conservative? Probably. I'm older. That's what happens. As you go through life, the wide-eyed optimism fades away as you experience reality.

Good take on the GOP's reaction to the election

https://thetriad.thebulwark.com/p/the-republican-party-as-totalitarian

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Good take on the GOP's reaction to the election

https://thetriad.thebulwark.com/p/the-republican-party-as-totalitarian

Good article. Thanks for sharing

Yeah that's good stuff from The Bulwark. I don't read them nearly as much as I should.