Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SueEllenRules!" data-source="post: 47229" data-attributes="member: 87">So &#039;progressive&#039; is simply a more palatable term for &#039;socialist?&#039; I&#039;m not aware that socialists are being being elected in abundance in the U.S. <img src="http://yoursmiles.org/msmile/think/m1714.gif"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":confuse:" title="Confuse&nbsp; &nbsp; :confuse:" data-shortname=":confuse:" />If you&#039;re a socialist, probably so. For those of us who are moderately liberal, less so. The moderates are obviously in the majority and, therefore, determine the party&#039;s agenda. That&#039;s how it works in a democracy...the majority rules. That&#039;s not to say that progressives shouldn&#039;t have a voice. However, it&#039;s not the only voice.Meaning, in a two-party system, voting for a third-party progressive alternative often results in a Bush or Trump presidency, which I would assume is a far less acceptable outcome than a Democratic presidency (unless you have a vendetta against a particular candidate that you would rather cut your own throat over rather than let it go).You mean before Bill Clinton? When we lost 3 consecutive presidential elections?The establishment that resulted in 2 highly successful presidential administrations?If the Clinton and Obama administrations are examples of that compromise, count me among those resting on their laurels.Pray tell what&#039;s wrong with Corey Booker? <img src="http://yoursmiles.org/msmile/think/m1703.gif"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":think:" title="Think&nbsp; &nbsp; :think:" data-shortname=":think:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="SueEllenRules!, post: 47229, member: 87"] So 'progressive' is simply a more palatable term for 'socialist?' I'm not aware that socialists are being being elected in abundance in the U.S. :confuse: If you're a socialist, probably so. For those of us who are moderately liberal, less so. The moderates are obviously in the majority and, therefore, determine the party's agenda. That's how it works in a democracy...the majority rules. That's not to say that progressives shouldn't have a voice. However, it's not the [I]only[/I] voice. Meaning, in a two-party system, voting for a third-party progressive alternative often results in a Bush or Trump presidency, which I would assume is a far less acceptable outcome than a Democratic presidency (unless you have a vendetta against a particular candidate that you would rather cut your own throat over rather than let it go). You mean before Bill Clinton? When we lost 3 consecutive presidential elections? The establishment that resulted in 2 highly successful presidential administrations? If the Clinton and Obama administrations are examples of that compromise, count me among those resting on their laurels. Pray tell what's wrong with Corey Booker? :think: [/QUOTE]

Verification

Who played Sue Ellen in Dallas?