805
this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2025
805 points (97.1% liked)
Progressive Politics
3128 readers
1290 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The Democratic Party is a honey pot trap used to attract and neutralize progressive and leftist politicians and policies and ensure that the “Overton Window” of American politics never moves left. They will let you “talk” about universal healthcare, for example, but they will never, EVER allow it to move forward as a serious legislative agenda.
Never forget that Obama had two whole years of a significant Democratic majority in both Congress AND Senate, and still somehow couldn't muster the cojones to pass anything even close to the socialised healthcare he'd campaigned on and had a huge popular mandate for.
Someone please explain why it is that when Republicans are the minority they have the ability to block absolutely everything the ruling party attempts, and yet when the Democrats are in opposition suddenly somehow it's impossible for them to do anything?
They simply don't want to.
Once it can happen, when it's a pattern happening their entire history it should be obvious.
The game is R: 5 steps right, D: 1 step left. But apparently americans can't see it.
Totally their own fault.
it's a running joke, especially now.
The game format inevitably results in a far-right stage eventually.
And yet they cry crocodile tears and are confused how they ended up there.
Obama actually ran on the heritage foundation Romney care plan. It was Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primary that actually ran on a public option.
Liar. Obama ran on a public option and no individual mandate. Clinton ran on no public option and an individual mandate.
Centrists are allergic to telling the truth.
I looked it up and you are right, it was on his website he just didn’t openly push it as much. I remembered a speech he specifically said he did not run on the public option. 17 years ago, I went from memory, my bad. I was actually supporting Obama over Hillary back then. Not sure why that immediately made me a centrist liar. You seem kind of intense.
Yeah, that was gaslighting after it became clear that the public option was always a bill of goods designed to be jettisoned as quickly as possible.
Yeah, 17 years of lies from Clinton supporters and being blamed every time centrism either fails to win or succeeds in blocking their own campaign promises will do that. I didn't see someone who was mistaken; I saw someone who was trying to pretend that Clinton was even slightly progressive by attributing policy to her that her wing of the party killed.
I only brought it up because too many people remember Obama as better than the heritage foundation capitulating fake lefty he was. I thought I was making a point he was more to the right than Hillary who gets more readily pegged as a center right hawk. Oh well.
If her performance in 2016 is any indication, if she had beaten Obama, she would have considered her job done.
Yeah, I supported Obama back then because I assumed Hillary was lying. Clinton was always a corporatist and she was right with him. NAFTA fucked the working class hard. Plus she pushed the super predator narrative.
You settled nothing. Why should anyone take anyone's word on here for it?
I am under no obligation to prove that the sky is blue to someone who will hear all my patient explanations of Rayleigh scattering and just be like "nope. red."
They had debates. They're still out there. Just pick one. Maybe the ABC one where it was clear that George Stephanopolous was still the Clintons' press secretary.
No one has to care about lazy words lacking substance of corroboration.
Again, you settled nothing besides showing lack of will to settle anything.
Like your idiotic and ridiculous lie that Clinton supported the public option and Obama didn't. You never even attempted to back that up. Yet somehow I have to entertain your deliberate attempts to waste my time by demanding news articles from 16 years ago that you already intend to dismiss without reading.
Who do you think you're replying to? Do you observe commenter names?
I'm just calling out lazy unwillingness around here to link to corroborating sources (easy & common sense for settling an argument) to instead sling words like petty, incompetent bitches. I don't think I'm alone in not recalling the exact nuances of healthcare proposals candidates had in 2008.
Oh, sorry. I thought you were the initial liar, not a toady for the initial liar. You want sources from me but not them. Convenient.
He didn't pass that either, though, only a massively watered-down version of it packed with every compromise the Republicans demanded, to make sure that the healthcare companies still got to keep over 15% of households in medical debt.
Socialized healthcare was filibustered by every single republican, and in the 72 days they had supermajority WITH INDEPENDENTS one of which opposed public option, they passed the medicaid expansion which gave healthcare and in some cases dental to tens of millions of people. The time period you're talking about was also the most productive congress on record since the mid 20th century.
Can always count on finitebanjo to bring the excuses.
So damn impress how they're always so confident in being wrong
Actively impressive how they are so smug and cocksure but constantly wrong on everythig they believe, the neoliberal way.
You guys are really trash at recalling or just looking up recent history. Many of us were there when it happened. We remember how it went down.
Too many conservative, pro-life Democrats were against anything better, and they had barely enough Democrats to squeeze through procedural obstacles (filibusters) in the Senate. A number of them voted against the bill that passed.
quotations
Then at reconciliation of House & Senate bills for passage
Because Democrats & leftists are better at infighting than setting aside differences to win.
There's no infighting as Democrats aren't on the left, they're center right.
You're confirming the point just made.
Please prove the Democrats are on the left, and I'll recined my point.
Leftism is the pursuit of social equality and egalitarianism.
Democrats are social liberals.
Refer to social market reforms & social programs from the New Deal (social security, security & exchange commission, labor relations, wealth redistribution, consumer protections, fair employment practices, public housing, minimum wage), their continuation & expansion of civil rights from Great Society (civil rights acts, voting rights act, war on poverty antipoverty programs, medicare, medicaid, welfare, social security expansion, education programs), more recent market regulations, health care expansions, consumer protections (eg, Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Affordable Care Act). This is a clear record of reforms to address social & economic inequality, improve education & healthcare, promote civil rights, regulate markets.
In terms of political spectrum
The Democratic party is made up of factions with the center-left & left caucuses dominating: it tends left.
Claiming Democrats aren't left (if impure) requires a level of delusion that outright denies basic definitions of left & political classifications, historical record, and usual knowledge of political scientists & analysts.
All the left wanted in the last election is for Harris to say the zionists were conducting a genocide. Thats it. Its a trivial ask. And then she would have won. But "centrist" dems couldnt even give the left that tiny speck of a fig leaf. But sure blame both the left and the centrists equally if that makes you feel righteous.
Asking to not spend money on genocide is just too hard of an ask, apparently.
Clearly it's not working because despite progressive stances being a wide majority we haven't elected more than 48 DNC since 2013.
Citizens United essentially put the electoral system up for corporate sale. By 2013 it was fully in effect.
See I think that kind of defeatist logic is the trap - they flood the internet with pessimism and "there's no point in trying" and "there's no point in voting" to make sure YOU don't try. To make sure all you do is sit on your ass at home and complain on the internet.
The only way to change America is to remove billionaires from existing. As long as they hold all the power, nothing will get better significantly.
Alright so what are YOU going to do to help make that happen?
I never said any of that shit. The point is that, tactically speaking, we should be dealing with them as they are, and not giving them the benefit of the doubt, assuming they are on our side and operating in good faith, like the tired meme of Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown.
The threat is existential, and there should be qualifying and disqualifying criteria, and that criteria should be set by US, not some party dignitaries, not some fucking “consultants” who are getting money from billionaire funded PAC’s and think tanks.
That's not defeatist.
Defeatism is deciding now, over 3 years before the next election and 15 months before midterms, that there's no way you get someone elected who actually represents you, so you should just suck it up and vote for Kodos.
Lol. "I'm not a Nazi! I blame all our problems on a secret mass conspiracy and infiltration of our society by a completely different race!"
Yeah yeah, tell us more about how the Judeo-Bolshivik's are harvesting adrenochrome under Comet Pizzaria. Sure love Nazi conspiracy theories in my "progressive" com