You see sky. It’s very simple. You once said some good things about pete. Some people have now decided pete is a really bad guy. Therefore, by the scientific transitive properties of being bad you are now forever bad as well. It’s just some posters doing their civic duty to ensure every time you post they immediately follow with a post reminding all you have been thusly tarred and feathered.
It’s just science.
I just started and deleted several posts but I’ll keep it simple and say that anyone calling themselves progressive that isn’t screaming m4a from the rooftops is the F word that cuserounder doesn’t like
I’m not looking for a fight. In this instance, I’ll admit that it was a little weak of me to say that, given that skydiver mentioned single payer at the beginning of her RPG analogy. It’s obviously fair to argue that some/most Democrats don’t support the same end state wrt healthcare as say Bernie does.
Like this is a great post, I probably agree with a slightly less incendiary wording of it:
And this is like the 103rd Pete themed drive-by at skydiver that should eat a ban of some sort (allegedly):
Ok so skydiver volunteered for the guys campaign and put a considerable amount of time and effort into it, so I assume that she generally agrees with him on policy. It sounds like she does generally agree with him wrt healthcare. So it’s a perfect illustration of the exact thing being talked about: should we judge your “progressive” bona fides based on the things they do (I.e. publicly shit on m4a and push expanded ACA/public option in your platform) or the things we think they really believe (they’d like single payer but think these things are necessary stepping stones to get there).
Anyway I didn’t need to bring his name up, I’ll avoid doing so in the future.
Is talking a “thing they do”? Lots of politicians talk. Jimmy Carter appealed to George Wallace supporters and criticized his opponent for supporting MLK, then turned around once elected and had a racially progressive Southern governorship.
There’s an argument that the path to building a Congressional majority that can pass M4A is to downplay the idea, then pass it anyways. It’s not necessarily right, but I don’t think it’s crazy to believe it.
I’m assuming that the conclusion to the thread is that everyone’s definition of progressive is “me and everyone to the left of me”.
This conversation actually had an impact on my perception of how people are using the term progressive.
The polls in the OP show significant splits in who posters would apply the label to. I now beleive that there’s more people to the right of me that others consider to be progressive than I do.
I’ll now be less likely to self-identify as progressive or use the label in general, as it lacks the specificity and clarity I prefer when using terms in political conversations.
For example, the definitionary framework I was using was more of a metric of policy preferences. While @skydiver8 has it as more of a mindset, which I understand to mean like an ethos. I think both of our usages can be valid. I find that insightful, because I hadn’t considered defining it any other way.