politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The ACA was literally a right wing health care plan proposed by the heritage foundation, a conservative think tank.
EDIT: Not to say it didn't help people, I've also benefited from it, but it's not exactly progressive
EDIT 2: This is not my opinion, Obama said it himself. Here is a source:
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2010/apr/01/barack-obama/obama-says-heritage-foundation-source-health-excha/
Hih
Obama has said it himself on multiple occasions
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2010/apr/01/barack-obama/obama-says-heritage-foundation-source-health-excha/
Was it terrible? No. But it was a half measure, already a compromise and the watered down more by Republicans. it was absolutely not progressive, it was liberal/centrist at best.
A progressive health care plan would be a single payer universal healthcare system
Just because it was watered down by the republicans doesn’t make it not “progressive”. It was “progressive” compared to the other option, which was literally not having any sort of health care coverage/insurance. Things are never that binary.
Remember Obama started with Universal Health care at some point and we ended up with ACA, which is still a win.
I'm talking about progressivism as a defined political ideology, not a vauge statement of making progress.
Obamas healthcare plan was inherently neoliberal, which is a centrist, or even center-right ideology. The market exchange is a capitalist solution to the problem that the health care companies can profit from
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
It's no secret the Democrats aren't exactly left leaning by global standards, in reality they are a center-right party that mainly still practices Neoliberalism
Huh
The conversation is centered around whether Obama was a progressive. He was not.
Progressivism isn't just confined to the US, so yes people are talking about progressivism with the full context of the global political spectrum in mind.
But even within the US, Obama is nowhere close to a real progressive like Bernie Sanders, who has been consistently fighting for leftist values for decades.
Hih
No. You just have absolutely no knowledge of political science or what ideologies like progressivism or neoliberalism are.
Also funny how you completely ignore my point about how even focusing just on America, Obama is still not progressive. You seem to not have any idea what we're even discussing
Are you even clicking on my sources? Or just picking the first tiny thing you can find a critique for and pulling a response out of your ass? The thing about "global standards" was a small aside that while true was not the point of the conversation.
Here's a bunch of more sources you probably won't read if you want to educate yourself on what political terms mean:
https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2019/6/11/18660240/democrats-neoliberalism
https://progressive.org/op-eds/barack-obama-not-my-hero-pitchford-201214/
https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=LitRC&u=googlescholar&id=GALE|A356354197&v=2.1&it=r&sid=LitRC&asid=6e89d156
Hih
I'm an American lmao. But sure man, whatever argument you can come up with am I right?
I realize what you’re doing, but I’m questioning why are you viewing events from the lens of classical ideologies? How is that relevant to viewing whether a policy was beneficial terms of actual progress or not? It’s actually hurting your opinion and outlook since you’re now attributing terms that have a different meaning in contemporary discussion and discourse as opposed to it’s classical definition.
Being a progressive does not have a different meaning in contemporary discussion. Progressivism doesn't mean something different in the US. The US has leftist progressives like Bernie Sanders.
You are all strawmanning me and trying to make it seem like I'm saying Obama made no progress, when I'm saying Obama wasn't a progressive.
We are talking about politics. Political ideologies are obviously going to be a part of the conversation. Quit acting like bringing them up is "viewing events from the lens of classical ideologies". You just aren't versed in political science.
Here is a page about progressivism specifically in the US if you want to learn more:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism_in_the_United_States
JFC dude. Read the room. I’m not arguing whether you’re right or wrong, but it seemed like you implied that Obama didn’t make progress because you called it “right-wing”. Like previously stated, terms have different meanings/connotations depending on context. Yes, even in contemporary discussions whether you agree with it or not. So people corrected you, rightfully so.
That said, I see where you were coming from and don’t disagree with the point you’re making.
And, no shit political ideologies are going to be part of a conversation when we’re talking about politics, but what I’m saying (again) is stop going off of wikipedia because you can’t get your point across effectively anymore and it’s diluting you’re messaging.
Can’t believe I have to spell all of this out for you.
Lastly, I see that you’ve just discovered “political science and ideologies”, but don’t assume others on the same plain as yourself. Some of us have been doing this longer than you’ve been alive.
Fucking hell, can you possibly be more patronizing? Maybe you should read a book. Because nothing I'm saying is false or misleading. Meanwhile you've flip flopped all over the place and have no real point and have contributed no sources to back up any of your claims.
I have not "just discovered political science and ideologies". I simply am versed in the actual meanings of words, instead of just loosely using words like "progressive" to mean whatever I want.
Wikipedia is simply a good way to introduce political concepts to people who obviously have no idea what the terms like liberalism, conservatism, progressivism actually mean. Like most of the people replying to me in this thread.
You say you understand where I'm coming from, yet don't even have a consistent point that you're working with here. You're just arguing for the sake of it so you can be patronizing.
You liberals are just pissed because I had the gall to criticize Obama from the left. I have backed up everything I've posted with sources (some directly from Obama himself) that confirm everything I've said.
Everyone responding to me, including you, are just finding some random nonsense to strawman me with so you can pretend to have an argument.
Oh my god. Talk about being ignorant and tone deaf. We’re done here.
Agreed. clearly there is no getting through that thick liberal skull of yours