[Proposal] New progressive strategy for US politics

[Nova Andromeda]

So... if they wanted to, say, make slavery legal, that would be a reason for letting them do it? Because they want it? You're proposing the return of the broken doctrine of popular soverignty.

A. Letting people act stupidly because their resistance to better ideas is so costly is ENTIRELY differnent from letting people vote to enslave others and YOU FUCKING KNOW IT ASSHOLE!
B. Taking your idea to it's logical conclusion, we should attempt to force basic human rights on every other country. Afterall, the global version of "popular soverignty" is even worse and we can't tolerate that can we. Oh wait, that's not politically possible is it? Guess what genius, attempting to force the progressive agenda on the south at federal level has been an abismal failure as well.

2. Those populations have to choice to: A. support the Federal initiatives, B. move to a liberal state, or C. have their state join the progressive state plans.

I'd ask if you were really that naive, but you make it increasingly evident that you are. Do you really have any fucking idea how expensive an interstate move is for people? And what if there are no jobs where they want to move to? And if their state is controlled by conservatives, exactly how do they bring about their state "joining the other progressive state plans"?

People with nothing migrate from south america to the U.S. Virtually noone is so poor they can't manage to move to another state which is vastly easier.

The progressive agenda provides for those who can't find a job. If their skills aren't useful they will have to retrain or live a poor life.

If their state really is controlled by conservatives and protesting, etc. won't help then it's time to leave.

3. Employing a Federal plan only strategy means that all the progressives in the U.S. must live with things as they are until we win at the Federal level. We've been losing at this for DECADES. Our best chance was with Obama, but that has been a horrible disappointment. You might wish continue to suffer the privations of the conservative agenda for the foreseeable future, but why should the rest of us?

Progressives have been losing at this for decades BECAUSE they stopped trying to win nationally. They adopted your half-assed plan of waging little battles all over the place and kept getting their asses kicked.

I see you've conveniently left out the evidence for your hypothesis.

Have you considered the possibility that pushing for the progress agenda at the national level might be political suicide in the U.S.?? As evidence, no serious progressive has been nominated for president in ages, charges of socialism/communism are enough to turn large parts of the public against much of the progressive agenda, deregulation was widely popular and despite recent corporate "excesses" is still preferred by the public, etc.

4. Both a Federal strategy and the strategy I propose can be pursued at the same time.

I see the entire concept of "divided focus" is beyond your grasp.

You're argument would hold a lot more water if the federal level plan had a real chance.

Conservatives bring semi-automatic weapons to protest against the president while spouting lines about shedding the blood of tyrants. Their lies are utterly absurd and bear no resemblence to reality (see birthers, death panels, etc.) and are supported at the highest level of conservative. I fail to see any middle ground or how my proposal makes these things worse. On the other hand, indulging their delusions by treating them seriously only gives them national legitimacy.

Nice little Black/White fallacy you've got there.

I see someone doesn't think a bimodal distribution can result in only minor overlap of the two modes.

The conservative's success in gutting the progressive agenda at the Federal level has forced people like me to chose between helping them against their wishes and helping ourselves! That's entirely different than just letting them rot for no reason.

How, exactly? It still amounts to essentially abandoning millions of your fellow citizens to their fates —including the ones on the progressive side who won't have a national movement to back them up under the strategy you propose here.

How many times do I have to say: there will still be a national agenda! It just won't exist to the exclusion of my proposal.

The goal is to provide the maximum benefit to people overall. Your federal level plan has resulted in massive harm to ALL progressives in the U.S. in a vain attempt to force the progressive agenda on conservatives. My plan would drastically improve the lot of a huge part of the U.S. population which is far better than nothing. Not trying to force human rights on places like Africa, the Middle East, China, etc. means abandoning hundreds of millions of our fellow people to far worse that what is proposed here.

The success of the progressive agenda in other states would also create extremely powerful evidence of it's benefits. It's easy dismiss the success of the progressive agenda in other nations. It would be far harder when your sister, son, best friend, etc. moves there and experiences the benefits first hand.

[Patrick Degan]

So... if they wanted to, say, make slavery legal, that would be a reason for letting them do it? Because they want it? You're proposing the return of the broken doctrine of popular sovereignty.

A. Letting people act stupidly because their resistance to better ideas is so costly is ENTIRELY differnent from letting people vote to enslave others and YOU FUCKING KNOW IT ASSHOLE!

How, asswipe? You are advocating popular sovereignty and YOU FUCKING WELL KNOW IT Your doctrine amounts to simply letting the states decide matters absent any notion of federal supremacy in regards to law and social policy.

B. Taking your idea to it's logical conclusion, we should attempt to force basic human rights on every other country. Afterall, the global version of "popular soverignty" is even worse and we can't tolerate that can we. Oh wait, that's not politically possible is it? Guess what genius, attempting to force the progressive agenda on the south at federal level has been an abismal failure as well.

Strawman fallacy and a red herring in one sentence. How efficient of you. BTW, what happened to all those Jim Crow laws? Oh, that's right, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TOLD THE SOUTH TO KNOCK THAT SHIT OFF.

Do you really have any fucking idea how expensive an interstate move is for people? And what if there are no jobs where they want to move to? And if their state is controlled by conservatives, exactly how do they bring about their state "joining the other progressive state plans"?

People with nothing migrate from south america to the U.S. Virtually noone is so poor they can't manage to move to another state which is vastly easier.

You really are this stupid. That you can even make a comparison with illegal immigrants and American middle-class families who are tied down with mortgages, time-payments and credit card debts which all have to be financed monthly, which means keeping whatever crap jobs they've got to keep making those payments, and therefore renders it difficult if not impossible to simply pick up stakes and move especially if there's no guaranteed job at the other end just boggles the imagination.

The progressive agenda provides for those who can't find a job. If their skills aren't useful they will have to retrain or live a poor life.

You really are this stupid. "Agendas" don't provide for people, asswipe —actual real assets and guaranteed employments do. Do you even have any remote conception of these realities?

If their state really is controlled by conservatives and protesting, etc. won't help then it's time to leave.

No doubt sustained along the move by wishful thinking. You really are this stupid.

Progressives have been losing at this for decades BECAUSE they stopped trying to win nationally. They adopted your half-assed plan of waging little battles all over the place and kept getting their asses kicked.

I see you've conveniently left out the evidence for your hypothesis.

The previous four election cycles before 2006 are my evidence. Reversed when Howard Dean brought the "50-state strategy" to Democratic campaign planning. It's this little thing called "the Real World" which you increasingly show a complete lack of touch with.

Have you considered the possibility that pushing for the progress agenda at the national level might be political suicide in the U.S.??

Have you told the NAACP about these "interesting" theories of yours?

As evidence, no serious progressive has been nominated for president in ages, charges of socialism/communism are enough to turn large parts of the public against much of the progressive agenda, deregulation was widely popular and despite recent corporate "excesses" is still preferred by the public, etc.

The fact that progressives haven't even tried to fight on a national level until recently may have something to do with that. You can't make your voice heard if you don't even bother to speak above a whisper.

Oh, and by the way, the Pew Centre says your full of shit about public attitudes:

Despite these more positive attitudes about government responsiveness and effectiveness, there has not been a commensurate shift in support for a broader government mandate. In fact, public support for a government safety net for the poor has receded from a recent high in 2007. The share that believes that it is the government’s responsibility to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves has dropped from 69% two years ago to 63% today, and there have been comparable declines across other items related to government assistance to the needy.

These short-term shifts in support for the social safety net mark a return to baseline levels of support from a peak in 2007 rather than a sea change in beliefs about the government’s responsibility to the poor. The current tenor of public sentiment about the safety net remains much more supportive than it was in 1994, when public backing of social welfare programs was at an all-time low.

Similarly, views of government are more positive than they were in 1994. In the months prior to the 1994 Republican congressional victories, public cynicism about the role of government grew to record levels. By contrast, public sentiment about government today is among the most positive seen since 1987 (although it remains less positive than in the two years after September 11, 2001).
Partisan divisions about both the social safety net and the broader role of government are among the largest observed in the last two decades. Democrats remain supportive of the safety net and are highly optimistic about government, while Republican opposition to the safety net and cynicism about government now match levels last seen in 1994. As a result of these large partisan gaps, independents – a growing group – now find themselves further away from both parties on these issues than they have been throughout most of the past two decades.

As does a February 2009 Financial Times/Harris Poll indicating 65% net positive American support for increased banking regulation and 73% net positive American support for capping executive compensation for banks receiving public assistance. Similar results are reported in a January UK/Reuters poll on the subject. On health care, last week's CBS/Time poll shows 68% favour government-administered health insurance to compete with the private sector insurance —up from the levels of two weeks ago.

4. Both a Federal strategy and the strategy I propose can be pursued at the same time.

I see the entire concept of "divided focus" is beyond your grasp.

You're argument would hold a lot more water if the federal level plan had a real chance.

Which you demonstrate won't work based on... your say-so that it won't work? Or is it that you're defining success as "100% progressive agenda or nothing"?

Conservatives bring semi-automatic weapons to protest against the president while spouting lines about shedding the blood of tyrants. Their lies are utterly absurd and bear no resemblence to reality (see birthers, death panels, etc.) and are supported at the highest level of conservative. I fail to see any middle ground or how my proposal makes these things worse. On the other hand, indulging their delusions by treating them seriously only gives them national legitimacy.

Nice little Black/White fallacy you've got there.

I see someone doesn't think a bimodal distribution can result in only minor overlap of the two modes.

Because... you say it does? And who said anything about indulging anybody's delusions? The original point under contention was your assertion that the country was "already fucking divided" and despite the spectacle put up by a few noisy morons, there is still no evidence that the country is about to tear apart over it or anything else.

The conservative's success in gutting the progressive agenda at the Federal level has forced people like me to chose between helping them against their wishes and helping ourselves! That's entirely different than just letting them rot for no reason.

How, exactly? It still amounts to essentially abandoning millions of your fellow citizens to their fates —including the ones on the progressive side who won't have a national movement to back them up under the strategy you propose here.

How many times do I have to say: there will still be a national agenda! It just won't exist to the exclusion of my proposal.

Which in practical terms means exactly jack and shit.

The goal is to provide the maximum benefit to people overall. Your federal level plan has resulted in massive harm to ALL progressives in the U.S. in a vain attempt to force the progressive agenda on conservatives. My plan would drastically improve the lot of a huge part of the U.S. population which is far better than nothing. Not trying to force human rights on places like Africa, the Middle East, China, etc. means abandoning hundreds of millions of our fellow people to far worse that what is proposed here.

Again with your bullshit red herring about "not forcing human rights on Africa/Middle East/China" as if that has anything to do with health care in America. And no, your half-assed plan would provide a temporary sop at best, until more and more state governments got co-opted by corporate interests. You really do not see that the conservative side have gotten very good at "divide-and-conquer" strategies, do you? Further, individual state health care financing will be constrained by constitutional requirements in the states for balanced budgets —something else you do not take into account.

The success of the progressive agenda in other states would also create extremely powerful evidence of it's benefits. It's easy dismiss the success of the progressive agenda in other nations. It would be far harder when your sister, son, best friend, etc. moves there and experiences the benefits first hand.

Conservative states and their governors and legislators already ignore evidence of positive benefits to be found in other states' pro-environmental initiatives. What really makes you think anything would be different WRT to health care?

[Patrick Degan]

I would also add that your stunning ignorance overlooks how a federal programme makes an agenda a truly national concern, when it is universally applied. Social security, for example, is unkillable exactly because it applies to every citizen in every state in the union, as Georgie the Stupider learned when he tried to push for privatisation and got his little ass handed to him.