'Progressives' only

[Antiwar]

How deep and wide are your supposedly progressive principles?

The more apparent progressives here seem more like slightly more principled Democrats than progressives. If your 'sphere of political influence' is limited by notions such as 'pragmatic politics' and 'realistic,' then you're probably not very progressive. Yeah, I know those last two terms leave me open to some conservative claptrap contributors; I don't GaS; I can deal with their buulll. That's probably half of the supposedly progressive problem: They're too worried about conservatives. If your progressive principles and rhetoric can't handle conservatives ...

'Sphere of political influence' means something like this. If you're a big Bernie fan and mostly care about domestic stuff, then that's your SoPI. If you actually truly care about foreign policy at a deeply progressive level, then your SoPI is worldwide (relative to humans). If you actually truly care about Earth's ecosystems (including every living and non-living entity) at a deeply progressive level, then your SoPI is universal.

I'll rephrase. In the current era, deeply progressive most means that you're solidly anti-militarism and solidly pro-environmentalism.

 

[Michael Cole]

Names, tags, symbols taken seriously. That's a problem. How you define progressive? No so much

 

[bongsaway]

How deep and wide are your supposedly progressive principles?

The more apparent progressives here seem more like slightly more principled Democrats than progressives. If your 'sphere of political influence' is limited by notions such as 'pragmatic politics' and 'realistic,' then you're probably not very progressive. Yeah, I know those last two terms leave me open to some conservative claptrap contributors; I don't GaS; I can deal with their buulll. That's probably half of the supposedly progressive problem: They're too worried about conservatives. If your progressive principles and rhetoric can't handle conservatives ...

'Sphere of political influence' means something like this. If you're a big Bernie fan and mostly care about domestic stuff, then that's your SoPI. If you actually truly care about foreign policy at a deeply progressive level, then your SoPI is worldwide (relative to humans). If you actually truly care about Earth's ecosystems (including every living and non-living entity) at a deeply progressive level, then your SoPI is universal.

I'll rephrase. In the current era, deeply progressive most means that you're solidly anti-militarism and solidly pro-environmentalism.

BS. I call myself a progressive because I want to see our planet saved so future generations can enjoy its beauty without all the pollution. We pollute this place enough, we're all doomed, plain and simple.
I'm progressive because I want to see our government work for us, not against us like it does in so many instances. Blocking a bill to build chips in the u.s. to compete with china and maybe prevent future supply issues.
I'm progressive because I want all people to be treated equally.
I'm progressive because I believe taxes are needed and it's time for the super wealthy and corporate america to start paying their fair share instead of building toys to go into space.

I could not care less what others think a progressive person is, I have my own thoughts about it.

Finally as a progressive, I would love to see our immigration issues fixed so that big corporations like the meat producers can use legal labor instead of the illegal labor they do use and pay them a living wage and stop with the slave wages.

 

[Eatomus]

How deep and wide are your supposedly progressive principles?

The more apparent progressives here seem more like slightly more principled Democrats than progressives. If your 'sphere of political influence' is limited by notions such as 'pragmatic politics' and 'realistic,' then you're probably not very progressive. Yeah, I know those last two terms leave me open to some conservative claptrap contributors; I don't GaS; I can deal with their buulll. That's probably half of the supposedly progressive problem: They're too worried about conservatives. If your progressive principles and rhetoric can't handle conservatives ...

'Sphere of political influence' means something like this. If you're a big Bernie fan and mostly care about domestic stuff, then that's your SoPI. If you actually truly care about foreign policy at a deeply progressive level, then your SoPI is worldwide (relative to humans). If you actually truly care about Earth's ecosystems (including every living and non-living entity) at a deeply progressive level, then your SoPI is universal.

I'll rephrase. In the current era, deeply progressive most means that you're solidly anti-militarism and solidly pro-environmentalism.

Not only dithering & Anti-military but pro-active in incompetently getting them killed:
From the same PROGRESSIVE loser team that was checking it's watch while American blood was being spilled at BENGAHZZI , we give you now :

Biden's botched Afghan exit is a disaster at home and abroad​

 

[Antiwar]

BS. I call myself a progressive because I want to see our planet saved so future generations can enjoy its beauty without all the pollution. We pollute this place enough, we're all doomed, plain and simple.
I'm progressive because I want to see our government work for us, not against us like it does in so many instances. Blocking a bill to build chips in the u.s. to compete with china and maybe prevent future supply issues.
I'm progressive because I want all people to be treated equally.
I'm progressive because I believe taxes are needed and it's time for the super wealthy and corporate america to start paying their fair share instead of building toys to go into space.

I could not care less what others think a progressive person is, I have my own thoughts about it.

Finally as a progressive, I would love to see our immigration issues fixed so that big corporations like the meat producers can use legal labor instead of the illegal labor they do use and pay them a living wage and stop with the slave wages.

"BS" to what? I agree with almost all of what you said. The part where I sense we'll have some disagreement is: If one were deeply progressive they would significantly reduce animal exploitation in their personal life, especially food.

 

[Michael Cole]

Not only dithering & Anti-military but pro-active in incompetently getting them killed:
From the same PROGRESSIVE loser team that was checking it's watch while American blood was being spilled at BENGAHZZI , we give you now :

Biden's botched Afghan exit is a disaster at home and abroad​

View attachment 67386094

Trump killed 63 troops in Afghanistan.

 

[Schism]

BS. I call myself a progressive because I want to see our planet saved so future generations can enjoy its beauty without all the pollution. We pollute this place enough, we're all doomed, plain and simple.
I'm progressive because I want to see our government work for us, not against us like it does in so many instances. Blocking a bill to build chips in the u.s. to compete with china and maybe prevent future supply issues.
I'm progressive because I want all people to be treated equally.
I'm progressive because I believe taxes are needed and it's time for the super wealthy and corporate america to start paying their fair share instead of building toys to go into space.

I could not care less what others think a progressive person is, I have my own thoughts about it.

Finally as a progressive, I would love to see our immigration issues fixed so that big corporations like the meat producers can use legal labor instead of the illegal labor they do use and pay them a living wage and stop with the slave wages.

You'll actually find a large number of moderates, independents, and conservatives who agree with your list in principle.

The problem is in the policies and proposals attempting to address those issues and how to pay for them.

 

[Schism]

Trump killed 63 troops in Afghanistan.

Hyperbole ^^

 

[bluesmoke]

Progressivism: "Based on the idea of progress in which advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition."

Either a conservative or a liberal can be progressive or a progressive. The only reason lib pols are using the term now, instead of liberal, is because the Rep/cons turned "liberal" into a cudgel and beat the tar out of the Dems with it, who took it lying down.

 

[Antiwar]

Progressivism: "Based on the idea of progress in which advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition."

Either a conservative or a liberal can be progressive or a progressive. The only reason lib pols are using the term now, instead of liberal, is because the Rep/cons turned "liberal" into a cudgel and beat the tar out of the Dems with it, who took it lying down.

1 is an insufficient description; 2 is untrue; 3 is untrue.

 

[bongsaway]

"BS" to what? I agree with almost all of what you said. The part where I sense we'll have some disagreement is: If one were deeply progressive they would significantly reduce animal exploitation in their personal life, especially food.

To the labels stuck on progressive thinking folks.

 

[bongsaway]

You'll actually find a large number of moderates, independents, and conservatives who agree with your list in principle.

The problem is in the policies and proposals attempting to address those issues and how to pay for them.

And that is the snag, how to pay for them. In my mind I don't see why we can't cut back on the ninety billion a month we spend on our military? We have this severe case of macho when it comes to the military. It's not good enough to kill our 'enemies' ten times over, we need the ability to kill them a hundred times over. Talk about beating a dead horse.

 

[Antiwar]

To the labels stuck on progressive thinking folks.

Ohhhhh. Yeah, most of them seem to be mainstream Democrats that hold some conservative views and are liberal to progressive culture warriors (nothing wrong with that, but it's insufficient). The popular war sure put the spotlight on that. What's your position on that? Do you buy into the shallow dominant narrative and that the USG needs to be the WORLD POLICE, JUDGE, and EXECUTIONER?

 

[The Mark]

i'll rephrase. In the current era, deeply progressive most means that you're solidly anti-militarism and solidly pro-environmentalism.

Depending how you define that, I am.

I don't think the USA should be using their military force for any reason except to protect civilians unable to protect themselves. Barring someone actually attacking us of course.

And I think we should be willing to do damn near anything necessary to address the threat of Climate change, since it's a bigger threat to national security than any or all other nations on earth combined in my book.


Edit: There's a phrase I heard somewhere. More a suggestion/wish.

USA shouldn't be the world's police, it should be the world's EMTs

 

[bongsaway]

Ohhhhh. Yeah, most of them seem to be mainstream Democrats that hold some conservative views and are culture warriors (nothing wrong with that, but it's insufficient). The popular war sure put the spotlight on that. What's your position on that? Do you buy into the shallow dominant narrative and that the USG needs to be the WORLD POLICE, JUDGE, and EXECUTIONER?

We should not be the world's police, however when a country like russia pulls the kind of stunt they are, there should, in my opinion, have been some kind of plan to pull a coalition of troops together to respond, nato or no nato. What putin is doing is horrible, killing innocent people every day crosses every line of humanity. Is poland next if we do nothing as the human race?

 

[Antiwar]

Depending how you define that, I am.

I don't think the USA should be using their military force for any reason except to protect civilians unable to protect themselves. Barring someone actually attacking us of course.

And I think we should be willing to do damn near anything necessary to address the threat of Climate change, since it's a bigger threat to national security than any or all other nations on earth combined in my book.

USG militarism is also one of the biggest (environmental and nuclear) threats to Earth.

 

[Antiwar]

We should not be the world's police, however when a country like russia pulls the kind of stunt they are, there should, in my opinion, have been some kind of plan to pull a coalition of troops together to respond, nato or no nato. What putin is doing is horrible, killing innocent people every day crosses every line of humanity. Is poland next if we do nothing as the human race?

Humanity should've had an effective international justice system many decades ago. It doesn't, and the USG is a big part of why it doesn't. It's also a big part of why we're in the situation with the current popular war. It's also immensely hypocritical. It's also a mother****ing war machine.

 

[The Mark]

Humanity should've had an effective international justice system many decades ago. It doesn't, and the USG is a big part of why it doesn't. It's also a big part of why we're in the situation with the current popular war. It's also immensely hypocritical. It's also a mother****ing war machine.

When there's money in it and money buys political power, that'll happen.

 

[Antiwar]

When there's money in it and money buys political power, that'll happen.

That's what most of it's about. Keeping resources flowing, keeping the Global South down, keeping the sea lanes open, installing USG- and corporation-friendly regimes where they can, having military bases and troops all over the world, and keeping their nuclear weapons at the ready to destroy whoever doesn't like the deal they can't refuse, if needed. Money and power. And much of it is tied to fossil fuels, which has Nature set to kick our collective asses. The USG military is one of the biggest existential threats on Earth, if not the biggest.

 

[Schism]

And that is the snag, how to pay for them. In my mind I don't see why we can't cut back on the ninety billion a month we spend on our military? We have this severe case of macho when it comes to the military. It's not good enough to kill our 'enemies' ten times over, we need the ability to kill them a hundred times over. Talk about beating a dead horse.

We agree on this.

 

[The Mark]

That's what most of it's about. Keeping resources flowing, keeping the Global South down, keeping the sea lanes open, installing USG- and corporation-friendly regimes where they can, having military bases and troops all over the world, and keeping their nuclear weapons at the ready to destroy whoever doesn't like the deal they can't refuse, if needed. Money and power. And much of it is tied to fossil fuels, which has Nature set to kick our collective asses. The USG military is one of the biggest existential threats on Earth, if not the biggest.

It's my understanding that at least part of the various organizations involved think climate change is a national security threat though.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Wasted thread of uselessness, as if the "peace, love, and understanding" crowd can do anything with the world's tyrants.

 

[Antiwar]

It's my understanding that at least part of the various organizations involved think climate change is a national security threat though.

They know it is. They've made some efforts to make their mother****ing war machine green. But ultimately, they don't care.

 

[Michael Cole]

Wasted thread of uselessness, as if the "peace, love, and understanding" crowd can do anything with the world's tyrants.

Indeed. The OP should heed Obama's advice.

Barack Obama Slams Call-Out Culture, Says 'That's Not Activism'

Barack Obama doesn't want to hear about your Twitter outrage or wokeness.

www.tmz.com

Barack Obama doesn't want to hear about your outrage -- not if it's just on Twitter -- because he believes a society that's judgmental to the max is one that doesn't make it better.

The former President called out the current "woke" culture -- especially on social media -- while speaking Tuesday at the Obama Foundation Summit in Chicago. Obama's big point ... everything is not black and white in this world, and people make mistakes.

He told the audience ... "The world is messy. There are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws," and said the idea that everyone should be pure and perfect all the time needs to go away.

 

[The Mark]

They know it is. They've made some efforts to make their mother****ing war machine green. But ultimately, they don't care.

To be fair, the entire collection of interconnected systems they work within either doesn't think it's an issue or wants to pretend it isn't for as long as possible.

They aren't the only place blame falls here.