'We Have Just Written Half of the GOP Platform': Progressives Dismayed by Dem Party Platform

[midnight]

"The trend continued on the second-to-last day of platform negotiations in Orlando, Florida, when Clinton surrogates on Friday rejected an amendment supporting the creation of a postal banking system, modeled on the one in North Dakota, as well as measures that would end corporate welfare and lay penalties on companies for offshoring jobs, lift the $250,000 income cap on the social security tax, and expand cost of living increases for senior citizens' social security benefits."


http://commondreams.org/news/2016/07/09/we-have-just-written-half-gop-platform-progressives-dismayed-dem-party-platform

[Jitter65]

1. Getting stuck on a platform that carries no binding weight with elected officials is not

helpful at this time. No one is going to get EVERYTHING they want. Accept the good and move on toward the perfect. We have an election to win. Cornell West has no intention of being helpful to electing our nominee, neither Susan or even Nina and the several holdouts raising hell with the platform. We must move on with or without them.
We have an election to win and hopefully they will help us do it...if not, so be it.

[midnight]

2. I don't think this article begins to say that the Democratic Party give everyone what they want.

It just indicates how it wrote 1/2 the GOP needs…. Which I'm sure represenst the reason why TPP needed to move forward.

[Scootaloo]

3. I keep asking, and people keep not answering...

The platform is the statement of purpose and values for the Democratic party. if what it contains doesn't matter to someone, then why are they a Democrat?

[Demsrule86]

4. The platform is always vanilla

It is designed to be completely uncontroversial and to not be the reason why someone might choose to vote for another candidate. Can you remember what was in past platforms without google? I can't. I think this is the most liberal platform since the late 60's and early 70's.

[Scootaloo]

5. Doesn't answer my question

[Demsrule86]

9. Sure I did.

The powers that be will put nothing in the platform that might turn off potential voters. We are a big tent party with diverse views. It is a vanilla platform which focuses on those things which we agree on in general.

[midnight]

7. I remember the Lilly Ledbetter act came about because of the huge controversy over

descrimination in the way one gender is payed better than another gender…

Our party should not be a plateform of vanilla… Too many people are being left homeless, hungry, and without the saftey of moving around in their own country…

[Demsrule86]

10. It was passed by the House and Senate in 2009 because

President Obama was elected president...never would have passed otherwise. And there was agreement by all Democrats that this was a good idea.

[midnight]

12. Lilly Ledbetter had the courage and privilege of speaking at our Democratic convention to let

those know how bad things are for those who have to work for less.

[Demsrule86]

100. And it still happens

In large part, because voters did not support the Democratic Party in 2010, and we lost the House...platforms are pretty much meaningless ...don't even remember most years platforms...but winning elections is everything. I well remember the crew which includes many today...saying Gore and Bush...no difference ...well there was a big difference. United is a direct result of electing Bush. The Greens and Nader have much to answer for in terms of damage to our country which in their campaign against Gore, they helped perpetrate...I will never understand with so many deserving GOP types to bash, why Greens consistently attack Democrats. I will never forgive Greens and Nader.

[midnight]

120. The struggle goes on.

"We fight to erase the pay gap between women and men because poverty rates for America’s working women are the highest in 17 years. We work for laws at the state and national levels that will ensure workers have paid sick leave because nearly half of private-sector workers—and 79 percent of low-income workers, most of whom are women—cannot take even one day off work when they are sick without losing pay. We rally across the country for increases in the minimum wage, access to quality and affordable reproductive health care, for flexible work schedules because it is the right thing to do for all workers—and for our nation.

And we fight for all these things so Annie Bolgiano and the next generation of young people can pursue their dreams.

We need public policies and workplace practices that support today’s working families. We need the Paycheck Fairness Act and we need paid sick leave and family leave. We need employers to change with the times and adopt family-friendly policies that allow working women and men to meet their responsibilities at home as well as on the job. It’s time for them to recognize that the costs of doing the wrong thing really do outweigh the costs of doing the right thing. The cost of not providing paid sick leave is an unhealthy, unhappy workplace. The cost of inflexible schedules is high and expensive turnover. The cost of unequal paychecks for women hurts our families, our communities and, ultimately, our nation."

http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Political-Action-Legislation/Paycheck-Fairness-for-the-Next-Generation-for-Our-Nation

[Demsrule86]

123. I completely agree

Also, not providing sick days endangers our public health. The Chipotle illnesses were caused by sick employees contaminating food...they should have been home recuperating...but were forced to work by economic necessity or fear of losing their jobs. I worked at jobs where I would say I was sick..never any of the kids, because then I would get the...we worry about your kids interfering with your job bullshit. This happened in education, in business.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. I sure as shit remember fighting with Straight Democrats to get pro LGBT language

into that platform. If that document is meaningless those straights should not have fought like bigoted rabid dogs to keep us out of the platform, but they did.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

46. I suspect you'll just hear crickets. nt

[ret5hd]

19. Then simply don't have a platform. When somebody asks just say...

"It's whatever you want it to be, dearie."

[merrily]

54. The platform is supposed to be what the Party stands for. That is it nonbinding is all the more

reason for the platform to be as excellent as possible.

That said, I think the platform is better than it would have been if Bernie had not run.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

83. Honestly, people would be better served by working on changing Congress than by putting so much

energy into a non-binding platform that is not enforceable.

[randome]

6. NOT including some items is the same as what the GOP favors? I don't understand that.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[midnight]

8. This is what I don't understand.

"The trend continued on the second-to-last day of platform negotiations in Orlando, Florida, when Clinton surrogates on Friday rejected an amendment supporting the creation of a postal banking system, modeled on the one in North Dakota, as well as measures that would end corporate welfare and lay penalties on companies for offshoring jobs, lift the $250,000 income cap on the social security tax, and expand cost of living increases for senior citizens' social security benefits."

[randome]

13. All things that most of us would be in favor of, too.

I suppose not being specific in the platform holds off on giving the GOP ammunition to use against us. They will be attacking soon enough, anyways.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[apcalc]

11. I see good stuff in the platform, some of Sanders' stuff

$15 minimum wage
New health care plan covering 25 million more people.

Relax. You know nobody gets everything they want.
I'm sure the R platform will suck big time.

[midnight]

15. I think that is the whole point is the GOP platform is a big time suck….

[NCTraveler]

14. Platform is looking solid and to be very progressive from what I have read.

Build a coalition in congress for this one. That is how it is done if Sanders wants it.

[Snarkoleptic]

18. I firmly believe it's a mistake to waltz around the TPP issue in the platform.

TPP is an 800# gorilla and avoiding it could give Herr Drumpf room to run to the left, since he's vociferously spoken out against TPP. Add to that the fact that lots of congressional republiClowns are against it (albeit for the wrong reasons - I.E. Obama Derangement Syndrome), and we lose some of what contrasts us against them, in terms of economic issues and the middle class.

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/07/tpp-democratic-party-platform-whose-side

It is clearly time for Democrats to decide and declare whether they are on the side of working people and the American middle class, or on the side of Wall Street, giant multinational corporations, the Chamber of Commerce and other corporate lobbying interests. They have to decide if they are on the side of the 99 percent 1 percent. They have to decide if they are on the side of protecting the environment or protecting corporate profits.

[Hoyt]

32. Thing is, "being on the side of working people" LONG-TERM may well call for trade agreements.

Sorry, we live in a world much bigger than our borders and it's a world that is changing rapidly. Don't think the opposition I have seen to trade agreements takes any of that into account. I find the opposition myopic and a bit too Nationalistic and America Firstish.

[Snarkoleptic]

39. TPP might be an easier sell if all could be expected to play by the rules.

We seem to play by the rules, while others skirt labor standards (worse yet, human trafficking in Malaysia), implement protectionist workarounds like VAT taxes and currency manipulation.

[DemonGoddess]

47. ^^^This!!!

Thank you

[w4rma]

101. Don't try to con people to thinking the TPP is good for anyone but billionaires, long or short term.

It's not good for anyone except for the 'I don't have any real nation' international billionaires.

And don't try to conflate the generic "trade agreements", which can include fair trade agreements, with the TPP.

[JoePhilly]

17. More CommonFantasies nonsense.

[Snarkoleptic]

20. Seems to me like shoring-up Social Security would be a plus.

Maybe lifting the cap and creating a donut-hole is the way to get that done.

Postal banking could be a great way for under-served demographics to keep more of their wages, rather than being charged for cashing payroll checks at the currency excange. This could also help to shore-up the USPO, which is the largest unionized workforce in America.

These don't sound like wild-eyed fantasies to me.

[JoePhilly]

27. After watching them bash Obama for eight years.

I take nothing they say seriously. The exist to bash and demoralize democrats.

[NurseJackie]

21. They're really "out there".

[RBInMaine]

22. Oh BULLSHIT! This is the progressive platform in many years. Enough of the purist horseshit.

[midnight]

119. Unfortunately the last 35 years has caused many more Americans to go without so that so few

could have more.

[geek tragedy]

23. Purist idiots never learn.

Saying this is 50% of the GOP platform makes them look like complete morons.

[arendt]

61. Any criticism of the extreme rightward drift is "purist". Got it.

Why bother to have any discussion at all, then?

Just shut up and greenlight whatever corporate America wants.

[geek tragedy]

63. no, not any criticism. I referred to fact-free, obviously false whining like

claiming the 2016 DNC platform is 50% Republican.

No rational, sane person believes that. Sanders campaign said they got 80% of what they wanted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512247607

This article is the usual worthless idiots at Common Dreams doing their leftwing Church Lady Moral Superiority Dance.

[arendt]

64. Then, you need to qualify your blanket insult

Because, voting against raising the cap on SS is not "purist".

SS and Medicare are all that is left of the New Deal and the Great Society - and the platform committee voted to let the slow strangulation of SS continue.

So indirect, so deniable, so Third Way. So wrong.

[geek tragedy]

66. Did you read the headline of this post?

Regarding social security:

The good feelings from that vote did not last. After midnight, during a session that began nearly two hours after it was scheduled, two amendments on Social Security policy got speedy rejections. One would have eliminated the cap on Social Security taxes; another would have created a new cost of living index for Social Security benefits to replace the cost of living adjustment, or COLA. The platform as it existed promised that Democrats would "expand" Social Security, but Sanders allies wanted details above and beyond what was passed at the drafting meeting in St. Louis.

[arendt]

69. Because "expand" is the kind of empty verbiage that has been used forever...

to dodge doing anything real.

The devil is in the details, and "expand" has no details. Which is why progressives wanted details, like lifting the cap. It is so hard to say three words. Right.

I've been around since John Mitchell, and I firmly believe "watch what we do, not what we say".

[geek tragedy]

70. Platforms aren't legislation, they generally talk about values and goals

not the mechanisms for getting there.

In any event, it's stupid to complain that a lack of any number of items on a given laundry list makes the platform Republican.

[arendt]

72. So, if they have no teeth, why object to something that is a core Democratic Party value - SocSec?

I agree you have a legitimate argument, not necessarily a winning argument, about the laundry list.

However, what happened to incrementalism?

Sanders people proposed ?dozens? of incremental changes to the platform. A great many of them, including the most important - TPP - got shot down. And, this is only a platform "beauty contest" vote, not real legislation.

Somehow this validates incrementalism?

[geek tragedy]

75. eliminating the cap isn't a core Democratic party value.

it's a specific nuts and bolts laundry list item.

and one that could transform Social Security from a retirement savings program to a straight up social welfare program. Which is not something there's widespread agreement on.

"expanding social security" is a core value item and it's in the platform

[Lord Magus]

77. So the issue is that you have no concept of what a platform IS? -nt-

[Demsrule86]

105. One of the goals of the platform committee is to give the GOP no ammunition

to use against us.

[bettyellen]

74. Clinton has details of the expansion she envisions on her website- one great thing is

Expanding benefits for caregivers. Which is awesome for women and also great considering the boomers are getting old and will need care.

[Lord Magus]

76. Claiming that an "extreme rightward drift" exists among Dems certainly can be described as such.

Along with many other, less kind words.

[CrowCityDem]

24. For f***s sake, it's the most liberal platform in a generation. This purity garbage is ridiculous.

[hobbit709]

31. In that case it doesn't say much for the platforms of the last generation.

[NorthCarolina]

40. How progressive do you think it would be were Bernie not involved

and fighting for things like $15/hr minimum wage? Do you think team Hillary would have pushed for this same platform regardless?

[LoverOfLiberty]

50. The poster you responded to

said nothing about Sanders.

[Maru Kitteh]

113. What the fuck is with your "team Hillary" snark. Are you not a part of team Hillary?

I was under the impression, see, that there is no "Team Bernie" vs. "Team Hillary" any more. You seem to indicate here that you believe otherwise.

[HassleCat]

25. About what we could expect

It's the typical Third Way thing, allowing anyone and everyone to run as a Democrat. To defeat them, we have to be more like them. We're doing a good job, at least on the being like them part. The defeating them part, not so much.

[Zynx]

28. Except that it's not true. What in that platform will likely appear in the GOP platform?

Repealing the Hyde Amendment? Increasing the minimum wage to $15? Strong financial reform? Sensible immigration policy? More progressive taxation?

How the hell are we like the Republicans? On almost every major policy issue, there are very clear differences.

[HassleCat]

124. Nothing wrong with the platform.

There never is. It's always really progressive, or at least most of the time. Then our candidates run away from it as fast as they can. Watch and see how many of them speak against any increase in the minimum wage, call for tougher immigration enforcement, etc.

[CrowCityDem]

37. Really? The Third Way is about $15 minimum wage, the public option, etc? They're awesome!

[Zynx]

26. You won't find very much of anything in that platform in the GOP platform this time.

These people are miserable little liars.

[SaschaHM]

29. If you give a mouse of cookie...

[Eric J in MN]

34. I didn't realize comparing Sanders supporters to mice is allowed under DU general election rules. NT

NT

[SaschaHM]

35. It's a common proverbial phrase. If you want to feel personally victimized by it, be my guest.

[hobbit709]

36. Bernie supporters are pretty much fair game now.

[geek tragedy]

42. No, Bernie Sanders likes this platform.

It's the purity poseurs at troll sites like Common Dreams who pretend that anything that falls short of Das Kapital is Republican policy.

[hobbit709]

43. Try here.

[geek tragedy]

59. "We got 80% of what we wanted."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/09/politics/democrats-15-an-hour-minimum-wage-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton/

[Trajan]

108. *

.

[Arizona Roadrunner]

30. $15 per hour minimum wage may be meaningless if TPP with ISDS passes

As a person who has served on a local government’s Board of Directors, I am VERY concerned about the TPP ISDS court process with results being the surrendering of governmental sovereignty to corporate interests, foreign and domestic.
Basically due to secretive deliberations, this “judicial” process is designed to favor corporate over governmental concerns and interests. This agreement should not allow corporations to use this judicial process, but should demand they use our existing judicial process as it relates to governmental entities. How many state and local governments can afford to be involved in such a process? Just by the threat of suits through ISDS, a climate where governmental units cave in will be created. Look at what has happened under NAFTA and the WTO as it relates to our right to know where our food comes from. Look at how a Canadian corporation is using NAFTA to sue the U.S. on the Keystone project.
This will mean that political topics such as minimum wage increases and housing and zoning laws may be pre-empted by just the threat of a suit through the ISDS process. Look at what happened with Egypt when a corporation tried to use a process analogous to the ISDS to prevent Egypt from raising their minimum wage laws. (Veolia v. Egypt)
Therefore, I recommend, in the national interest, this agreement not be approved. When people find out how this can be used to prevent them from finding out things such as where products are made, etc., there will be charges of treason and the political process will never recover the trust of the American citizens.

By not voting against the TPP outright, the Democrats have given Trump a great opportunity to tie the Democrats to the "establishment" and "corporate America". He can also use this position to raise questions about the Democrats "really caring about you and your job". This is a loser position for the Democrats for the "down ticket" candidates too. By the way, the US Chamber of Commerce is not worried about Clinton being "currently" against TPP. They figure after she gets into office, she will find a way for her to be "currently" in favor of it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/chamber-of-commerce-lobby_b_9104096.html

[randome]

45. No one is 'surrendering' anything.

How do you think trade disputes are resolved today? Usually by some federal agency levying a fine or through arbitration. No juries are involved. In other words, through our usual judicial process.

Arbitration has been the norm for 50 years.

As for Veolia v Egypt: http://arc.trade/en/article/frihandelsbloggen-demystifies-isds-case

It sounds extremely remarkable. A multinational company starts a lawsuit against a country because it raises the minimum wage. In fact, it seems quite improbable that a company would sue a country for raising its minimum wages. Which, of course, is not what has happened.

The facts are as follows:

Veolia, supported by the World Bank (UN),starts a project in Egypt to reduce the climate impact of waste management in the city of Alexandria. Both sides enter into a contractual agreement, which stipulates Veolia’s commitments to ensuring a successful conclusion of the agreement. At the same time, Egypt gives an assurance in the contract that the minimum wage should be at a certain level and promises monetary compensation should they decide to raise minimum wages by any means. What then happens is that, Egypt raises the minimum wage substantially, but does not compensate Veolia. That is the reason why Veolia then brings legal charges against the Egyptian government at the World Bank’s ICSID.

In other words, Egypt broke an existing contract.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[Hoyt]

49. The ISDS has been in worldwide trade agreements since 1959, none of that has happened. If it had,

If it had, all these countries -- including Canada, European, Scandinavian, etc. -- wouldn't be signing these agreements as fast as they can.

Countries want foreign investment and the jobs and tax revenue they bring. They know that investment will flow elsewhere if there is not some protection that a foreign investor/business won't be treated worse than a domestic business. That's what the ISDS does, and it doesn't say a country cannot change their laws.

[arendt]

73. France says they won't sign TTIP. We just had Brexit. But "Europe..signing as fast as they can". LOL

[Hoyt]

82. Who said that? Plus, I don't think it's finished, probably several years away.

Posturing at this point is just that.

[AntiBank]

95. TTIP will never pass here in the EU

book it

[Doctor_J]

51. Yes the TPP will render all of the labor laws unenforceable.

That's probably why the DINOS put the$15 minimum wage in the platform, since the trade agreements will negate them anyway.

[arendt]

62. Yes. The TPP vote is the real stinker. The rest is chump change, as AR notes. n/t

[TheFarseer]

97. +1

Bernie got a few things but not the only thing I really wanted - an anti-TPP stance.

[hobbit709]

33. Which party at one time had this in its platform?

Our Government was created by the people for all the people, and it must serve no less a purpose.

We shall ever build anew, that our children and their children, without distinction because of race, creed or color, may know the blessings of our free land.

We believe that basic to governmental integrity are unimpeachable ethical standards and irreproachable personal conduct by all people in government. We shall continue our insistence on honesty as an indispensable requirement of public service. We shall continue to root out corruption whenever and wherever it appears.

We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs—expansion of social security—broadened coverage in unemployment insurance —improved housing—and better health protection for all our people. We are determined that our government remain warmly responsive to the urgent social and economic problems of our people.

[Eric J in MN]

41. The Republican Party in 1956, when Richard Nixon was the VP. (NT)

NT

[midnight]

122. Beautifully said.

[Eric J in MN]

38. The author conflates postal banking with state banks.

The Democratic Platform draft supports postal banking, which would be federal.

It doesn't support state banks, which North Dakota has.

[Scuba]

44. "If the Democratic Party would fight as hard for the Working Class ...

"If the Democratic Party would fight as hard for the Working Class as the Republican Party fights for the Ruling Class, the Republicans would be a powerless minority party within a few election cycles.

The Democratic Party knows this, the Republican Party knows this, the Ruling Class knows this- and they've been astonishingly successful at making sure the Working Class never learns this." ~ Anonymous

[rjsquirrel]

48. Awww

We have to compromise with a diverse coalition of interests no fair.

[Proud Public Servant]

53. And appantly our "diverse coalition"

Includes payday loan sharks and offshore corporations. With friends like these...

[ForgoTheConsequence]

56. Exactly!

Why don't the poor and disabled realize this! Loan sharks need a voice too!

[geek tragedy]

65. "We got 80% of what we wanted in this platform."--Sanders campaign

Is Bernie going to be branded a Neoliberal heretic now too?

[ForgoTheConsequence]

79. Bernie is one person.

I help poor people get the medical treatment for a living, I know the realities of what needs to be done. Excuse me if I dismiss the snotty attitudes of middle class internet dwelling "liberals"

[geek tragedy]

81. And all you need to do is convince majorities of voters in 218+ Congressional

districts and 60+ states that "I know the realities of what needs to be done."

Sneering at everyone who has the temerity to disagree with you on any issue at all is not a good way of going about that. "I have absolute moral authority" is generally not a winning argument.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

84. I vote.

I've done my part. Convincing people to vote for someone who doesn't give a shit about them is nearly impossible. When the Democratic party becomes serious about bringing these people into the fold, I'll listen. When they start showing up to help drive people to the doctor and help them fill out paperwork, I'll listen. Until then, it's all hot air.

[geek tragedy]

85. you make an awful lot of assumptions about the motives of people who disagree with you

on a minority of the issues

[ForgoTheConsequence]

87. You seem to take offense to statements that haven't been directed toward you directly.

Feeling a little guilty, Sunshine?

[geek tragedy]

94. Lulz. nt

[midnight]

121. Thank you for doing this- it's heartbreaking what passes as affordable healthcare...

[merrily]

52. What would the Democratic platform have been if Bernie had not run? nt

[Demsrule86]

106. It would be unimportant just as it is now.

Personally, I can not remember past platforms, and I am very involved with elections. All this angst and energy over something that really does not matter much. I agree with much that is found in the current platform. I don't like the TPP...if it happens ...it will be a lame duck session. It is increasingly unpopular as it should be. But honestly, the only shot we have at any progressive reforms is to take Congress...to win the November election by blowout numbers thus destroying the gerrymander.

[merrily]

110. "Taking Congress" by 60 LIBERAL Senators is not going to happen, ever.

I was not overwhelmed by what Congress accomplished between January 2007 and January 2011.

The platform is supposed to be what the party stands for. I would rather have a good platform than one that is not good.

[Demsrule86]

114. We did not have sixty liberal Senators ...not with Lieberman and Kennedy desperately ill

And of course, we got Scott Brown later after Kennedy died. I see no reason to divide a party over something that has no chance to become law. Also, not every Democrat agrees on what is 'good'.

[merrily]

116. Yes, I know. See the subject line of my prior post.

As far as the platform, you've already expressed your opinion that it's unimportant and I've already replied that a good platform is better than a bad one. I'm not sure why we need to repeat ourselves.

[Demsrule86]

117. Fair enough.

[Doctor_J]

55. The party leadership is primarily Reagan republicans.

Trump' s Hindenburg candidacy has given them the opportunity to win the white house without considering liberals at all. We won't make much progress as a nation or as a party over the next four years.

[MohRokTah]

57. WAAAAAAAH!!!!!!

Platforms are not meaningful in any appreciable way.

Get over it.

[ismnotwasm]

58. No they didn't. nt

[geek tragedy]

60. "We got 80% of what we wanted in this platform"--Sanders campaign

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512247607

[Hekate]

93. Which means they didn't get 100%, so they can continue to bellyache. Bernie is not only going to be

...thrown under the bus on Tuesday, these so-called Progressives are going to run it back and forth over him several times.

[George Eliot]

67. So, a Republican platform?Clintonites explain pls.

The items listed above aren't even progressive, they're just liberal. Pro-postal, increasing cap on SS, penalties for off-shoring jobs? These have been simple liberal democratic policies. I would like to hear one pro-Clinton poster explain this.

[geek tragedy]

68. Explanation: "We got 80% of what we wanted in this platform"--Sanders campaign

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512247607

It's not a Republican platform--the purist pony prancing idiots from Common Dreams who are claiming it is a Republican platform are full of shit.

[George Eliot]

86. Ok. Not republican. But we're Democrats.

So why are we not including them? We are not compromising with republicans - there are no republicans at the table. Do you think these are not Democratic Party values?

[LuvLoogie]

78. "Progressive", "New Wave", "Alternative" It's all just Pop.

There are more "Clintonites" achieving progress, than there are "Revolutionaries" whining about it.

[George Eliot]

88. Talking platform. Not Bernie.

What's argument against them? Esp. given they are dem values? I'm asking for your opinion on why they should not be included? Nothing to do with Bernie.

[LuvLoogie]

91. My point is that you differentiate between Liberal and Progressive, while aligning "progressive"

with planks that Bernie's supporters want. The Democratic Party is a collective. Bernie joined that party, sort of--for now.

The GOP made Liberal a dirty word. Cowed Liberals began using Progressive as an alternative, but really they're just Liberals relabeled. And it's Progressives that are making "Progressive" an increasingly maudlin term. In my opinion.

So when you say that their are no Progressive planks, just traditionally Liberal ones, you are associating certain planks with Berniedom.

The Democratic Party is a collective and the Platform is a non-binding consensus document for 2016. It's like a logo. That some want to shed blood on the battlefield of the 2016 DNC Platform is myopic.

[George Eliot]

98. Still dividing dems.I think those are issued we

all agree on as democrats. Those have always been dem issues. Esp. Social sec. I don't see how any Democrat could say no to that one. I admit to being a pure progressive. But Social sec? That one does not make sense to me. Every lib democrat says they are for it


After to disagree I guess.

[w4rma]

104. I don't use the word "liberal", because internationally it means "neoliberal". (nt)

[Zynx]

80. The platform as currently written would be burned at a Republican convention.

It's almost wall-to-wall stuff that they hate.

[George Eliot]

89. Good. So why not go for it?

Those items I listed are meaningful to Democrats. I'm trying to understand the pushback. Do you think those items are important? Looking for discussion. Not division.

[George Eliot]

99. That's good. Go for more. Supposed to be that way.

Don't you agree?

[MisterP]

71. now, now, the progressive stuff that DID pass is destined to be ignored come 11-9-16

[George Eliot]

90. That's funny and probably true. I hope not.

I'm an idealist.

[AntiBank]

96. this ^^^^^^^^^^

[iandhr]

92. Who are these "progressives?"

Because Sanders himself has said this.


https://berniesanders.com/democrats-adopt-progressive-platform-party-history/

But I know facts to matter to the folks here at punch a dem underground.

[giftedgirl77]

102. Common Dreams is the Brietbart of the left.

[bluedye33139]

103. Strategically, why fight on this?

The platform is a group of ideas that a party put together to help define itself. Democrats are a rowdy coalition of centrists, liberals, and progressives. As a centrist, I see no point in fighting about a platform. By all means the non-Democrats that Sanders has put on the committee should be reminded they are not Democrats, but people should be polite to them. If their ideas carry a majority on the committee, by all means let that be the platform!

[Demsrule86]

107. works for me. nt

[heaven05]

109. haven't had COLA

in such a long time, I've forgotten what it looks like.....I don't expect to gain much in financial security this election cycle. I guess beating trump and his chumps will be the only victory I can count on. No political party in America really gives a damn about us seniors who has had inflation eat our retirement to the point a lot of us must hustle to try to keep food in our refrigerators. Fuck it, can't count on anyone in any position of social responsibility to do a goddamn thing for us seniors.

[Orsino]

111. Well, we progressives are dismayed by most modern American politics...

...but yes, that so many progressive items on our to-do lists couldn't even get non-binding billing on the platform is disappointing.

Some good stuff going in, though. Stuff worth fighting for.

[Lil Missy]

112. You can't please the Purists, no matter what. n/t

[baldguy]

115. Oh, good god!

[joshcryer]

118. Did I accidently wind up on JPR?