Are DU and DailyKos "far left" sites?

[DS0816]

This is a year in which a lot of “liberals,” “progressives”—whichever word you prefer—have been exposed as frauds. They are on board for the status quo of neoliberal economic policies and for a warmonger as the party’s presidential nominee. They were there before the primaries began.

I don't understand - are you saying that if you support Clinton, you aren't/can't be progressive or liberal?

That is correct.

In addition to that…if you voted the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton, when you had the option to vote the nomination to Bernie Sanders, you are not and cannot be a progressive or a liberal. This is most glaringly obvious for those who voted to nominate Hillary Clinton, rather than Bernie Sanders, while having plenty knowlege of her record.

http://youtu.be/59YBQawJcBc

Yeah, Clinton has terrible friends.



Anyway, most Clinton voters voted for her because of her record. (lol at the idea that Clinton isn't liberal)

Most Hillary Clinton presidential primaries voters were age 45 and older. How likely are they to be “liberal” more so than younger voters who voted the nomination to Bernie Sanders? (He nationally carried 17–29 primaries voters with at least 70 percent of their vote while she essentially did the opposite with 65+ voters.)

You cannot spin this, not even with your attempt to spin that video with your picture, no matter how hard you try, Left.

Sanders won younger voters, yes. He also won voters who described themselves as moderate, while Clinton won voters who labelled themselves as liberal. If liberal voters voted for Clinton does that make her liberal? Or are the liberal voters not actually liberal, but instead far right neoliberal $hills?

Clinton is liberal and her record shows that. A bunch of pictures of her with foreign leaders, or politicians and businessmen complimenting her is the best you can do because she hasn't done anything that comes anywhere close to what they have done.

In your first paragraph, the answer to your last question is yes.

In response to your second paragraph’s first sentence—and with connection to that previous video—it shows, as an example, who she is on foreign policy and wars. Hillary Clinton is not a “liberal.” She did mention, during the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries debates, that she really appreciated the advice of Henry Kissinger while she was U.S. Secretary of State. (That should have informed you.)


http://youtu.be/97qbBFNtOcQ


http://youtu.be/pIRfeVcG-eM

[Joe Republic]

^ Wow, this guy is like the Japanese soldier found deep inside the jungle, still fighting WWII.

[Virginiá]

It appears that your No. 1 priority is the Democratic Party. How you justify your thinking of this, your explanation of your approach to voting, comes across as a statement which says you are thinking not about yourself but what you are estimating is best for your preferred political party.

Because I view the Democratic party as the best vehicle for my ideology, and I try to measure individual candidates on how best they can advance the issues I care about, even if only incrementally, which is how I view Clinton. In fact, I already assumed that Republicans would likely retain control of the House and thus even an ambitious and newly elected Sanders would be obstructed even worse than Obama, so it was better to go with someone I assumed wouldn't cause as many problems, particularly in the midterms. I actually think they'll both cause problems, but in different ways, and Clinton probably less problems.

I try to measure based on several factors and not just ideology. You just seem to be basing everything on ideology. This is kind of why I hate these conversations. I can't even have the convo because immediately the person is acting like I don't care about the issues or what have you just because I have a different idea of how to get there. That's the worst way to approach these things - to delegitimize the person just because you disagree with their strategy, which is what you're doing when you say they are "fake."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

At this current point in time, FP is not that big of a deal to me, as long as we don't get into another war, which I don't believe Clinton will, regardless of what you think. I'm primarily focused on domestic policy, and Hillary has a number of policies that are OK by me. Paid family leave, voting rights advancements, campaign finance reform and criminal justice reforms are a number of the big ones. I have my reasons for why I think she'll be OK on those.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really? I mean you're saying I'm not a liberal based on the way I want to approach solving these issues. So what am I then? You can't seriously think compromising means you're not a liberal? Because that is what I am doing - I compromise on my choices in a way that I think will get things to where I want them to be. Maybe I make wrong choices, but my overall goal is still towards liberal policies.

--

Anyway look, I don't want to derail this thread any more than it is already. Respond if you like, I'll read it, but I'm not responding back (just fyi). I hope you change your mind on defining liberals and progressives, though.

[KingSweden]

This is a year in which a lot of “liberals,” “progressives”—whichever word you prefer—have been exposed as frauds. They are on board for the status quo of neoliberal economic policies and for a warmonger as the party’s presidential nominee. They were there before the primaries began.

I don't understand - are you saying that if you support Clinton, you aren't/can't be progressive or liberal?

That is correct.

In addition to that…if you voted the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton, when you had the option to vote the nomination to Bernie Sanders, you are not and cannot be a progressive or a liberal. This is most glaringly obvious for those who voted to nominate Hillary Clinton, rather than Bernie Sanders, while having plenty knowlege of her record.

http://youtu.be/59YBQawJcBc

To quote a one Hillary Rodham Clinton - you don't get to decide who is and isn't a progressive (not that I'm exactly Captain Progressive personally, but seriously, that's some "RINO!!11!" level line-of-thinking)

[DS0816]

…Respond if you like, I'll read it,…

I will leave you with these…


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fixcapitalism/nocompromise-why-we-the-p_b_9754406.html


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fixcapitalism/the-sad-legacy-of-comprom_b_9136872.html

[DS0816]

This is a year in which a lot of “liberals,” “progressives”—whichever word you prefer—have been exposed as frauds. They are on board for the status quo of neoliberal economic policies and for a warmonger as the party’s presidential nominee. They were there before the primaries began.

I don't understand - are you saying that if you support Clinton, you aren't/can't be progressive or liberal?

That is correct.

In addition to that…if you voted the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton, when you had the option to vote the nomination to Bernie Sanders, you are not and cannot be a progressive or a liberal. This is most glaringly obvious for those who voted to nominate Hillary Clinton, rather than Bernie Sanders, while having plenty knowlege of her record.

http://youtu.be/59YBQawJcBc

To quote a one Hillary Rodham Clinton - you don't get to decide who is and isn't a progressive (not that I'm exactly Captain Progressive personally, but seriously, that's some "RINO!!11!" level line-of-thinking)

Actually, I do.

I don't "decide" as if I am thinking that I am a god.

I look at facts and, from that, I also think.

So, what it means is this: Just because someone tells people he/she is something does not automatically mean it is true.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bDblYWhRQM


In other words, KingSweden I'm writing that a lot of these people who say they are progressives are full of *s*. This very much includes Hillary Clinton. And this also includes numerous people here and, bringing this thread back to its original topic, numerous so-called progressives over at the two websites cited in the opening post by forum member L'exquisite Douleur.

[Bojack Horseman]

I always enjoyed DU's weekly "Top Ten Conservative Idiots" column.

[smoltchanov]

As a person, who was repeatedly banned both on SSE and Daily Kos for  "too independent AND too moderate" views, i would say that site is hackish Democratic first (try to support ANY Republican, even sane, in ANY race there, and you will understand....), and left-leaning - second. Especially DKE: it's even less left-leaning, then DK as a whole, but, surely, absolutely rigorously blindly Democratic....

[OSR stands with Israel]

DU is literally a commie website

[DavidB.]

DU is far-left, Daily Kos isn't.

[Badger]

DU is literally a commie website

Someone is literally ignorant of the vast chasming difference between center-left liberalism and Marxist Communism. Literally ignorant. Literally.