Are DU and DailyKos "far left" sites?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No and it's pretty hilarious anyone thinks they are. DU is a site where someone was permabanned for saying basically "I live in a safe state do I'm undecided between voting for Hillary and Stein" also see what happens if you sign up on either and try to discuss Marxist thought.

[Torie]

Don't know about DU, but Kos certainly isn't. I might add that when I went after a CD map of Ohio that somebody drew, characterizing it as a Dem gerrymander (it, inter alia, chopped Cleveland in half, and played some games with the Cincy CD), the discussion was very civil, and one of the mods welcomed me. I was quite impressed actually.

[KingSweden]

Kos is an odd bird because it's very mainstream Democratic in terms of the candidates it supports yet it has the anti-corporate anti-GOP anger of a more lefty site (my sadomasochism prevents me from stopping my bad habit of reading Kos articles AND the comments )

[Virginiá]

Kos doesn't seem so much "far-left" as "overwhelmingly pro-Democratic to the point of suffocation." There is a difference.

[muon2]

Kos doesn't seem so much "far-left" as "overwhelmingly pro-Democratic to the point of suffocation." There is a difference.

It seems to me that at one time Kos was progressive more than just pro-Dem. I'm thinking back to the W years. What caused the shift? And, what site fills the progressive niche that Kos did a decade ago?

[Pandaguineapig]

Kos doesn't seem so much "far-left" as "overwhelmingly pro-Democratic to the point of suffocation." There is a difference.

Yeah kos isn't as much pro left as it is hackishly pro dem, du is more of an angry far left site

[Simfan34]

How did I know this was a BRTD thread? Might it be because no one has cared about Democratic Underground or the Daily Kos for the better part of a decade, precluding the possibility of anyone having "thought" they were far-left websites anytime in the recent past?

Just as BRTD continues to harp on Gully Foyle for having once said in error that Hispanic was a race on the US Census, as if this proved him to be some kind of pompous ignoramus, despite this having been nearly a decade ago, the fact that Gully Foyle is Irish, and that he learnt this in a university lecture, this question is in response to no topical prompt, but is rather the latest manifestation of BRTD's obsessive approach to politics and things in general. If this claim was ever made, it was most likely long before most of us were members of this forum.

[SWE]

Being far-left would get you an autoban on both sites, so I'm guessing not.

[SATW]

No, both are just hackish as hell.

[Zioneer]

I'm a regular on Daily Kos Elections, the even more hackish sub-group of Daily Kos. DKE cares only about elections and winning. We don't care about policy except as it involves elections. And we have an obsession with gerrymandering. It's kind of nice if you don't want histronics and wailing and weeping and gnashing of teeth and all that. Very level-headed.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Kos doesn't seem so much "far-left" as "overwhelmingly pro-Democratic to the point of suffocation." There is a difference.

It seems to me that at one time Kos was progressive more than just pro-Dem. I'm thinking back to the W years. What caused the shift?

I think you answered your question in the sentence before it.

[Phony Moderate]

Communism is far-left, bland liberalism is not.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The thing about Gully thinking Hispanic was a separate race on the Census by the way, is that it was actually Lewis Trondheim (another non-American) who corrected him.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

The thing about Gully thinking Hispanic was a separate race on the Census by the way, is that it was actually Lewis Trondheim (another non-American) who corrected him.

So?

[Joe Republic]

Wow, these names are a blast from the past!  Are they still active these days?

[Boston Bread]

Wow, these names are a blast from the past!  Are they still active these days?

Daily Kos still has good election coverage content. I visit them for it sometimes. I guess Daily Kos would also be good for getting into mainstream activism. DU is just trash.

[Joe Republic]

Wow, these names are a blast from the past!  Are they still active these days?

Daily Kos still has good election coverage content. I visit them for it sometimes. I guess Daily Kos would also be good for getting into mainstream activism. DU is just trash.

True, I hear that people still use MySpace for discovering new music or something.  How funny!

[DS0816]

No and it's pretty hilarious anyone thinks they are. DU is a site where someone was permabanned for saying basically "I live in a safe state do I'm undecided between voting for Hillary and Stein" also see what happens if you sign up on either and try to discuss Marxist thought.

The answer to your thread’s topic question is “No!”

They are both discussion sites which are more concerned about Hillary Clinton getting elected than they are with her policies.

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.

So, it would really be a good thing for people to actually learn what “far left” policies are—which, in this day and age, are more in line with New Deal Democrats (whereas the post-1970s Democrats have become and still remain New Democrats; or, as Bill Maher labeled them, “The New Republicans”)—than just assume reputable sources qualify as being genuinely left wing.

[Virginiá]

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?

[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

[Wells]

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)

[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.

[Virginiá]

That is correct.

What if one believes in many liberal policies but were convinced Sanders would lose and harm the party with older voters long-term? That you didn't want to risk it despite the admiration for Bernie? You can call that person misguided or wrong is their assumptions but you're basing this on "rules" for being a liberal that don't actually exist. This is really purist-stuff that most people are never going to fit into. You'll likely find that under your criteria, the vast, vast majority of the country is not liberal or progressive.

At any rate, obviously I'm talking about myself there. I align significantly with Sanders on policy but unfortunately I'm convinced he would have hurt the party in numerous ways, from fundraising, to party building, to his democratic socialist label driving away even more older voters we need for midterms. Maybe I'm wrong, but I stick by that.

I guess I'm conservative then.

[Wells]

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.

[DS0816]

That is correct.

What if one believes in many liberal policies but were convinced Sanders would lose and harm the party with older voters long-term? That you didn't want to risk it despite the admiration for Bernie? You can call that person misguided or wrong is their assumptions but you're basing this on "rules" for being a liberal that don't actually exist. This is really purist-stuff that most people are never going to fit into. You'll likely find that under your criteria, the vast, vast majority of the country is not liberal or progressive.

At any rate, obviously I'm talking about myself there. I align significantly with Sanders on policy but unfortunately I'm convinced he would have hurt the party in numerous ways, from fundraising, to party building, to his democratic socialist label driving away even more older voters we need for midterms. Maybe I'm wrong, but I stick by that.

I guess I'm conservative then.

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. That specifics on party ideology and domestic and foreign policies—via a U.S. president from your preferred party—are unimportant. If you base your vote on that, what do you have? Well, you end your statement with the concluding remark, “I guess I’m a conservative then.” You reach that conclusion even though you wrote earlier, “I align significantly with [Bernie] Sanders….”