Americans are progressive on key issues

There has been some debate recently on BB about why the GOP won so heavily on Tuesday, and a certain Libertarian commenter insists it’s because the American people reject progressive ideas. So this post will be the first of many correcting this profound misunderstanding. Enjoy.


Related Articles

16 thoughts on “Americans are progressive on key issues

  1. For the sake of discussion, I am willing to accept the premise that Americans are “massively progressive.” Still, you have some splainin’ to do. Follow me.

    Progressive America just dealt the more progressive candidates a major blow at the polls. This suggests to me one of two possibilities. Progressive individuals throughout the land don’t know what the D and R stand for next to the candidates names. Or they know very well what the D and R stand for but they decided to vote for the R to punish the D’s for not being sufficiently progressive.

    To summarize, American progressives are either stupid or angry and stupid. Which is it Steve?

      1. John, your questions, while somewhat interesting, are not relevant to the central question, which is why progressive Americans throughout the US voted for the less progressive candidates. If you care to address that topic, I will be happy to engage. Thanks in advance.

    1. You’ve already claimed to have all the answers based on you invented “premise,” and yet you claim you are willing to discuss something. How does that work? Just people who agree with your idiotic rhetoric are supposed to chime in? Nobody owes you an explanation, you’ve just claimed you know it all and have the only possible answer, but typical of your illogic. Follow you? LOL

      That you can only come up with one of two possibilities for your invented, “premise” speaks veritable whole syllables to the extent of your imagination and comprehension. Repeat you invented premise at 10:41 am and then you can’t even stay away when you said you would, as nobody has engaged you on your idiotic assertions.

      To summarize, your psychological projection raises its ugly head again as you attempt to insult progressives once more, but just end up describing yourself. ‘Bout time you crawled back under your bridge.

      1. Er, non, I have not invented the premise. Did you read the title of the post? Apparently not. It reads “Americans are progressive on key issues.” I didn’t make it up non. Steve did. Furthermore, the guy in the video claimed that Americans are massively progressive. I merely accepted the premise for the sake of discussion. I am sorry that you are unable to keep up.

        1. Massively progressive doesn’t automatically equate to a massive majority of the entire population of voting Americans, i.e. the total number of all eligible voters. That is your crocked and invented assertion, of which you cannot even fathom for yourself. No progressive voters switched teams and are therefore stupid or trying to make a point. You don’t have that evidence simply from the word massive.

          That progressives, at least those who were also likely Democratic party members, voted for the candidates the party produced, many did and that fact makes them neither stupid nor angry, but the loyal party base, which did turn out in many areas. A huge majority of the left-leaning voting population could be “massively,” (strongly) progressive, but very few D candidates gave them an actual progressive platform to get excited about coming out to vote for, which makes them neither stupid or angry.

          Obvious, to any intelligent person, many D’s (progressive or not so much so) are/were likely disappointed with the Dinos installed as candidates and simply stayed home. Here comes the punch line, therefore total D turnout was not high enough to overcome the Republican turnout, OM_fucking_G, not enough left leaning people voted to win the races.

          Back under your bridge, the billy goat just kicked your sorry ass.

          1. It is ok to agree with me non, no need to be so bitter. You have it just about right. Not enough progressive voters, progressive ideas were rejected by the voters, therefore the Republicans won in a massive landslide. Pretty straightforward. Like I have been saying all along. You should be arguing with Steve, not me.

            1. Sorry that’s not what you were saying at the top. You asked Steve as specific question about were progressives being either stupid or angry or both. You’d determined that was the only explanation you could fathom. Read my prior comment below. That is all.

  2. Denis,

    You know as well as I do that the GOP has successfully convinced low information voters that Democrats/liberals want to take away their guns and then use them to recreationally kill babies. That’s the gist of it, somewhat caricaturized, obviously. When it comes to your comments here, Denis, you don’t have an intellectually honest bone in your body. This ruse describe above can’t be kept up indefinitely, and when it all comes crashing down I dearly hope you’re alive to see it. Those are my good wishes to you.

    1. Hmmm. So the progressives became convinced that progressive candidates were going to take the guns away so as to kill babies for sport? So they voted Republican. Thank you Steve. You have answered my question rather emphatically if in a roundabout manner. Progressives must be really stupid. And your good wishes seem vaguely threatening. Do I need a restraining order?

      1. Denis,

        I have no idea what you need, but have you looked into mental health providers?

        Just give them a copy of this thread to demonstrate evidence of your

        I’m sorry, but not surprised that you don’t think my comment is “relevant to the central question.” In your case, I take that as confirmation that you don’t have an answer.

        Can we at least agree that progressives and capitalists are united that war is bad for business? Doesn’t that mean we can cap all incomes (let’s start at $1,000,000/year) in times of war? Don’t you agree that no American should profit from war?

        We can call this “conscripting the 1%.” It shouldn’t just be soldiers abroad who shoulder the costs of war.

    1. Steve, I am not heartless. Think of it as tough love. I can’t sit idly by and let people believe in harmful ideas, especially as those ideas have been and will continue to be foisted upon people who deserve better. In addiction lingo, that would make me an enabler. I get it that you are compassionate, and that is a good place to start. However, it is not sufficient and can be quite dangerous. In short, you need a brain to accompany your good heart.

      1. (Important but off topic of the post)

        You, “can’t sit idly by and let people…,” really? Then I needn’t think of it as anything other than what it is and it has nothing to do with love. Prepubescent bullying, puerile taunting, inflammatory provocation, deliberate abusive insult, stalking a particular set of people. From the domestic violence definition handbook, all ways of attempting to assert power and control over others, instead of engaging in any kind of informed discussion for exchange of ideas, learning or intellectual growth. Fit your pattern of beliefs or you will continue to hound and harass, you just said it.

        In addiction lingo, that makes you a perpetrator. Nobody is forcing you to come here, are they, to foist these ideas on you? Not kidding or being flippant here. In all seriousness, should I do a search for SE WI area domestic violence education groups for you?

        1. You sure like accusing me of criminal behavior non, evidence be damned. Unlike you, I am not hiding my identity. Arrests and criminal behavior I believe are matters of public record. Feel free to cut and paste the results here. And no doubt a person of your integrity and compassion will apologize when your results come up empty, as they surely will. My guess is that there are good reasons that you hide behind a fake name. Project much?

  3. Denis,

    Have you read Sam Pizzigati’s “The Rich Didn’t Always Win: the forgotten triumph over plutocracy that created the middle class?”

    For those of us who understand that capitalism runs on sales, that the real “job creators” are consumers with money to spend, it’s a must read. You can’t have mass production without mass consumption. That’s why we need things like a minimum wage and a federal job guarantee.

    “The government could serve as the “employer of last resort” under a job guarantee program modeled on the WPA (the Works Progress Administration, in existence from 1935 to 1943 after being renamed the Work Projects Administration in 1939) and the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps, 1933-1942). The program would offer a job to any American who was ready and willing to work at the federal minimum wage, plus legislated benefits. No time limits. No means testing. No minimum education or skill requirements.”

    If you don’t want a federal job guarantee, what about Milton Friedman’s idea of a negative income tax aka a universal basic income?

    “The political economy of a universal basic income.”

    What would it cost for the government to send every adult in the U.S. (citizen) a check for $1,000/month? This isn’t welfare. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates get that check, along with everyone else.

    If you want automation and robots, which increase productivity, you’re going to have to share the long term benefits of those productivity improvements equitably. The negative income tax/universal basic income guarantee is one way to do that. I’ve seen folks who want to combine want basic income with a job guarantee. The idea is that as low-skilled workers are displaced by technology, there’s a robust safety net for them to get retrained to join the labor force in some other area.

Comments are closed.