The Difference Between Liberalism & Leftism

[myDeaconmyhand]

Because plenty of liberals don’t vote. They get pissy about one thing about liberal candidates and just don’t vote.

I’m still trying to figure out if your problem is 17 Dems who don’t vote how you want, how is replacing those 17 Dems with Republicans is better?

1. Back that argument up with data please, because I think you're full of shit

2. Claire McCaskill is not the last eligible Democrat in Missouri. Neither is Joe Manchin in West Virginia. But when they both receive all the institutional support over their primary opponent you aren't going to say a damn thing about it. No one is buying the dumb argument that it's somehow Gods Plan that these shit libs recieve a war chest and win their primaries. Don't piss on me and tell me its raining.

 

[RJKarl]

1. Back that argument up with data please, because I think you're full of shit

2. Claire McCaskill is not the last eligible Democrat in Missouri. Neither is Joe Manchin in West Virginia. But when they both receive all the institutional support over their primary opponent you aren't going to say a damn thing about it. No one is buying the dumb argument that it's somehow Gods Plan that these shit libs recieve a war chest and win their primaries. Don't piss on me and tell me its raining.

McCaskill and Manchin are the only Dems that can win statewide in those ruby red states.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

McCaskill and Manchin are the only Dems that can win statewide in those ruby red states.

lol no. Did they both win a contest or rub a magic lamp? Thank you though for exemplifying the exact level of fall in line braindead trust that allows the Democratic party to nominate whoever the fuck they want. With friends like you, who needs enemies?

 

[WakeForestRanger]

This seems to imply that nothing was broken with our criminal justice system, until "efforts to apply capitalism, created a monetary benefit to incarcerating people."

You sticking with that?

Well I wasn't particularly interested in making an exhaustive list. There's some systemic racism, training/operational tactics failures and corrupt law enforcement officials and personnel as well.

 

[MHBDemon]

Well I wasn't particularly interested in making an exhaustive list. There's some systemic racism, training/operational tactics failures and corrupt law enforcement officials and personnel as well.

I was more making the argument that capitalism was not "applied" to the criminal justice system, but rather the prison industrial complex is just a modern extension of slavery, and therefore always has its roots in protecting the interests of capital.

 

[MHBDemon]

McCaskill and Manchin are the only Dems that can win statewide in those ruby red states.

The only Dem that can win in Missouri is one of the 10 richest senators who shares a vacation home with a nursing home executive who donates to her campaign and is involved in business dealings with her husband. Oh and black leaders in KC and St. Louis refused a request to publicly support her.

 

[PhDeac]

LOL. Out of touch.

 

[Kory]

I seem to recall a lot of "woke" liberals on this board lamenting the death of Marielle Franco. It's great that you can whitewash her and co-opt her message for your neoliberalism, and then deny the existence or political positions of black leftists in your own country. See also, the whitewashing of Martin Luther King.

neoliberalism is my favorite terministic screen

 

[Shooshmoo]

It's the ozarks, man.

 

[RJKarl]

lol no. Did they both win a contest or rub a magic lamp? Thank you though for exemplifying the exact level of fall in line braindead trust that allows the Democratic party to nominate whoever the fuck they want. With friends like you, who needs enemies?

What's braindead is to think a far left candidate could win statewide in two of the reddest states in the country.

Friends like you gave us Donald Trump and Neil Gorsuch.

 

[aceeight]

The reality is in this country all Americans have two choice in politics -Dems or Reps. If you can't see how much more Dems have done and are doing for blacks in our nation, then you can't be taken seriously.

If you split Dems, you give free reign to the GOP to turn back civil rights dramatically.

But wasn't it the Republicans that forced the passing of the Civil Rights Act in the first place?
Wasn't it the southern Democrats that filibustered the Civil rights Act?

The Democrats have done a lot for black people. Where would they be without those free apartments in crime-ridden neighborhoods along with those low level poverty checks? Good job keeping your voting block in tact. Job based fixes are just a racist Republican talking point.

 

[PhDeac]

Those southern Democrats are Republicans now. You're probably old enough to have witnessed that switch in your lifetime.

 

[RJKarl]

But wasn't it the Republicans that forced the passing of the Civil Rights Act in the first place?
Wasn't it the southern Democrats that filibustered the Civil rights Act?

The Democrats have done a lot for black people. Where would they be without those free apartments in crime-ridden neighborhoods along with those low level poverty checks? Good job keeping your voting block in tact. Job based fixes are just a racist Republican talking point.

Southern Dems became Southern Republicans for the past 50 years...but don't pay attention to history...or know anything about it...

 

[Highland Deac]

Reading this thread is like looking at a bizarro version of the bkf theory of why Trump won in 2016 (far-left Hillary forces rural rubes to vote for Trump), or the jhmd theory of how to end poverty (two-parent families solve everything). This thread: if only Dems ran far-left (or even socialist) candidates in red states and backed them fully with money and ads, instead of selling out to corporate-owned centrists, no doubt they'd win and our problems would be solved. As for the idea that liberals don't frequently shoot themselves in the foot by either not voting or throwing their vote to third-party candidates if the Dem candidate doesn't meet their standards of perfection, look no further than the 2000 election. Ralph Nader drew nearly 3 million votes, and there's little doubt that had he not been on the ballot, Gore would have won the election. Hence, no Dubya, no Cheney, no Rumsfeld, no Iraq War, better response to Katrina in New Orleans, more pro-environment policies, etc.

 

[MHBDemon]

But wasn't it the Republicans that forced the passing of the Civil Rights Act in the first place?
Wasn't it the southern Democrats that filibustered the Civil rights Act?

The Democrats have done a lot for black people. Where would they be without those free apartments in crime-ridden neighborhoods along with those low level poverty checks? Good job keeping your voting block in tact. Job based fixes are just a racist Republican talking point.

This is a dumb take because the modern Conservative party doesn’t seem to support key parts of civil rights legislation. A better example would have been democrats selling out the congressional Black caucus in crime bills. And your second paragraph is just bkf regurgitated bullshit.

 

[RJKarl]

Reading this thread is like looking at a bizarro version of the bkf theory of why Trump won in 2016 (far-left Hillary forces rural rubes to vote for Trump), or the jhmd theory of how to end poverty (two-parent families solve everything). This thread: if only Dems ran far-left (or even socialist) candidates in red states and backed them fully with money and ads, instead of selling out to corporate-owned centrists, no doubt they'd win and our problems would be solved. As for the idea that liberals don't frequently shoot themselves in the foot by either not voting or throwing their vote to third-party candidates if the Dem candidate doesn't meet their standards of perfection, look no further than the 2000 election. Ralph Nader drew nearly 3 million votes, and there's little doubt that had he not been on the ballot, Gore would have won the election. Hence, no Dubya, no Cheney, no Rumsfeld, no Iraq War, better response to Katrina in New Orleans, more pro-environment policies, etc.

BINGO!!

 

[ChrisL68]

lol no. Did they both win a contest or rub a magic lamp? Thank you though for exemplifying the exact level of fall in line braindead trust that allows the Democratic party to nominate whoever the fuck they want. With friends like you, who needs enemies?

Absolutely not. However, the progressive champion is a 31 year old unemployed political novice with an associate degree from St Louis Community College. Her work experience is 2 years as a verification specialist for an insurance company.


You know how many people have endorsed her skills on linkedin? One! Way to show networking and communication skills.

Not exactly the resume that you would think would land you in the US Senate.

Maybe try to run for city counsel first? ​

 

[sailordeac]

Bon appétit!

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Absolutely not. However, the progressive champion is a 31 year old unemployed political novice with an associate degree from St Louis Community College. Her work experience is 2 years as a verification specialist for an insurance company.


You know how many people have endorsed her skills on linkedin? One! Way to show networking and communication skills.

Not exactly the resume that you would think would land you in the US Senate.

Maybe try to run for city counsel first? ​

Yeah i'm not the one that nominated Claire McCaskill in the first place, nor did I give her a war chest of 17 million dollars. Any "electability" advantage she has, she earned with her corrupt middle of the road worthlessness. I'm not going to buy into that viscious cycle of terribleness.

 

[Shooshmoo]

You're a key contributor to the terribleness and you can't seem to get it through your thick skull.