Ross Perot was a Progressive

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Prove me wrong. 

[David Dennison 19,120]

He favored regressive taxation.

[hpslugga 4,068]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Prove me wrong. 

Not how it works. You first need to illustrate your conception of progressivism and then prove your assertion.

[Continental Op 3,934]

Counterpoint: Shut your cockhole, you irritating cunt.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

1 minute ago, hpslugga said:

You first need to illustrate your conception of progressivism

Reformer, based around the values of creating a more egalitarian and just society/democracy. 

[hpslugga 4,068]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Reformer, based around the values of creating a more egalitarian and just society/democracy. 

And how does that fit Mr. Perot?

[David Dennison 19,120]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Reformer, based around the values of creating a more egalitarian and just society/democracy. 

His fiscal policy positions did not align with this take. He favored spending cuts and a balanced budget amendment, neither of which are progressive.

[RDCanecutter 26,552]

George Wallace was a time traveler from 1840. He had a rough start, but eventually managed to fit in better. Prove me wrong.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

His fiscal policy positions did not align with this take. He favored spending cuts and a balanced budget amendment, neither of which are progressive.

He was progressive when it came to healthcare, education, gay rights, women’s right, and campaign finance reform. 

Not progressive when it came to crime or drugs. 

I was looking over where he stood on the issues and overall he’s more progressive than the majority of today’s moderate democrats.

https://www.ontheissues.org/Ross_Perot.htm

[David Dennison 19,120]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

He was progressive when it came to healthcare, education, gay rights, women’s right, and campaign finance reform. 

Not progressive when it came to crime or drugs. 

I was looking over where he stood on the issues and overall he’s more progressive than the majority of today’s moderate democrats.

https://www.ontheissues.org/Ross_Perot.htm

He was not progressive when it came to fiscal policies that would ultimately affect his social policies.

[bad_teammate 13,302]

11 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

He was not progressive when it came to fiscal policies that would ultimately affect his social policies.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

15 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

He was not progressive when it came to fiscal policies that would ultimately affect his social policies.

My argument is if you were to pigeonhole Ross Perot into an ideological camp, progressive would be the best fit. 

He’s not really a conservative or liberal in the traditional or modern sense but he was a radical reformer.  While he doesn’t pass every purity test, he’s closer to being a progressive than a moderate or a hardline liberal/conservative. 

[bad_teammate 13,302]

Ross gave Bernie a dope sword

 

[hpslugga 4,068]

26 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

My argument is if you were to pigeonhole Ross Perot into an ideological camp, progressive would be the best fit. 

He’s not really a conservative or liberal in the traditional or modern sense but he was a radical reformer.  While he doesn’t pass every purity test, he’s closer to being a progressive than a moderate or a hardline liberal/conservative. 

1. That's not saying much, considering how well to the right the parties of the two candidates he ran against 27 years ago were (and even worse today).

2. Even if he was to the left of them, that in no way makes him a progressivist. Yeah he may have been closer to that than Clinton or Bush, but when you have one cup holding water at 115 degrees and another holding water at 90 degrees, that does not in any way mean the latter could be defined as "freezing cold." Similarly, the former isn't "boiling hot" either.

Edited October 7, 2019 by hpslugga

[David Dennison 19,120]

25 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

My argument is if you were to pigeonhole Ross Perot into an ideological camp, progressive would be the best fit. 

He’s not really a conservative or liberal in the traditional or modern sense but he was a radical reformer.  While he doesn’t pass every purity test, he’s closer to being a progressive than a moderate or a hardline liberal/conservative. 

I disagree. He's not progressive.

[hpslugga 4,068]

A more rehabilitated version of this argument would be to say Perot was a progressive under the classical formulation of "Progressivism" as defined by the Progressive era. That I could somewhat see, though I wouldn't totally buy into that. But under today's definition of progressive? No way.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

1 minute ago, hpslugga said:

A more rehabilitated version of this argument would be to say Perot was a progressive under the classical formulation of "Progressivism" as defined by the Progressive era. That I could somewhat see, though I wouldn't totally buy into that. But under today's definition of progressive? No way.

This was the exercise I was looking for with this thread.  

The way we view and conceptualize  progressivism has been co-opted in modern society.  I’m not sure how or why that happened but I’d speculate the people behind the curtain felt it was in their best interests to demonize progressives as some far left socialist ideology. 

[Continental Op 3,934]

Also, Ross Perot is dead and probably won't be running for office ever again so what is the point of this exercise?

[TwiceHorn 31,685]

If by progressive you mean in politics for self-aggrandizement, then absolutely yes.

 

[bad_teammate 13,302]

4 minutes ago, Continental Op said:

Also, Ross Perot is dead and probably won't be running for office ever again so what is the point of this exercise?

My guess: Reframing the concept of "progressive" to make a bigger space for a reformed Republican with no record or presence in social justice or civil rights causes whose focus is entirely fiscal-regulatory to become the singular champion of "progressive" causes.

Otherwise... yeah... I have no idea why anyone would bring in Ross Perot, a man who is dead and on whom is based no existing political or cultural movement.

[DDD Dad 14,374]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

If by progressive you mean in politics for self-aggrandizement, then absolutely yes.

 

csb Years ago I had an opportunity to represent Perot on a matter in which I spent a considerable amount of time with him in very unguarded circumstances.  My impressions of him as the candidate leading up to that encounter were negative, much like this take.  After seeing  him and speaking with him during those unguarded moments my views on him turned around completely.  He was tremendously naive, but the motivations for his political aspirations were truly patriotic and selfless IMO.

Edited October 7, 2019 by DDD Dad

[TwiceHorn 31,685]

7 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

csb Years ago I had an opportunity to represent Perot on a matter in which I spent a considerable amount of time with him in very unguarded circumstances.  My impressions of him as the candidate leading up to that encounter were negative, much like this take.  After seeing  him and speaking with him during those unguarded moments my views on him turned around completely.  He was tremendously naive, but the motivations for his political aspirations were truly patriotic and selfless IMO.

I'll buy that.  I have very mixed feelings about the guy, obviously.  HRP Jr seems like a bit of a crook, and that infects my view.

[DDD Dad 14,374]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'll buy that.  I have very mixed feelings about the guy, obviously.  HRP Jr seems like a bit of a crook, and that infects my view.

Yeah, I never got a good vibe from Jr.  I did get to know his son-in-law pretty well (Clay Mulford).  He seemed pretty decent.  Haven't interacted with him in years, though.

[Hank Kingsley 21,087]

Imagine having Ross Perot on your mind in this political hellfuck we live in right now. 

 

 

 

 

[Jiggy-Z 3,467]

Hell, Reagan would be considered a progressive by today's Republican standards.

[babysdaddy 2,730]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This was the exercise I was looking for with this thread.  

The way we view and conceptualize  progressivism has been co-opted in modern society.  I’m not sure how or why that happened but I’d speculate the people behind the curtain felt it was in their best interests to demonize progressives as some far left socialist ideology. 

Are you sure you weren't just trying to pad your post count?

[DDD Dad 14,374]

13 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

Are you sure you weren't just trying to pad your post count?

Remind me to tell you a good HRP story on Friday.

[RDCanecutter 26,552]

5 hours ago, Continental Op said:

Also, Ross Perot is dead and probably won't be running for office ever again so what is the point of this exercise?

Your pro-alive prejudices are understandable but regrettably quite regressive.

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

I'm pretty sure he didn't sell insurance he had his own company.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,276]

Ross Perot isn’t walking through that door.

Who cares if he was progressive or not.

[SaucyJack 3,504]

4 hours ago, Jiggy-Z said:

Hell, Reagan would be considered a progressive by today's Republican standards.

prove you wrong?

[RDCanecutter 26,552]

Charlemagne and his bravest warriors would have their hands full conquering even one Belgian police station these days, much less cobbling together an empire. Demonstrandum est ut wrongus ego essem something amo amas amat.

[bad_teammate 13,302]

1 hour ago, RDCanecutter said:

Your pro-alive prejudices are understandable but regrettably quite regressive.

As a fan of the soon-to-be-dead Bernie Sanders, I agree with this.

Ableism is ugly

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,980]

9 hours ago, hpslugga said:

1. That's not saying much, considering how well to the right the parties of the two candidates he ran against 27 years ago were (and even worse today).

2. Even if he was to the left of them, that in no way makes him a progressivist. Yeah he may have been closer to that than Clinton or Bush, but when you have one cup holding water at 115 degrees and another holding water at 90 degrees, that does not in any way mean the latter could be defined as "freezing cold." Similarly, the former isn't "boiling hot" either.

Hey, you inverted cunt nut, did you know that if one car is going only one mile per hour, yet the one next to it is at a stand still then the car that is actually moving is making progress compared to it's stationary compatriot. Go back to the third grade and learn some definitions. 

[Guest Lobo]

How come you have people who admit to being socially liberal, and fiscally conservative.  And you have socially liberal and fiscally liberal wearing that proudly.  And you of course have the socially conservative, and fiscally conservative.  But then you also have what most Americans actually are, but nobody wants to admit---socially conservative (not in the sense that they are regressive, they just want people to conform to their ideas and norms) and fiscally liberal (I want a whole bunch of shit for not just me, but other people---and I want everybody else but me to pay for it).  That's really where most Americans fall on the spectrum/spectra

Edited October 8, 2019 by Lobo

[bad_teammate 13,302]

The socially conservative/fiscally liberal voting base is dismissed out of hand by liberals and elites as unworthy of our attention. We lost 2016 partially because of the explicit strategy of ignoring blue collar workers in favor of more socially-palatable suburbanites and higher.

Elite Republicans have maintained power despite their unpopular beliefs specifically because they know they need voters and are willing to cater to people that they dislike personally. Ted Cruz doesn't like Cleetus and Lerlene, but he knows he needs them. Donald Trump would rather die than spend 5 minutes alone with basically any of his yokel hee-haws, but he knows he needs them. As soon as his photo-ops are over where he's hugging factory workers, you know he takes a bath in Purell.

Chuck Schumer wouldn't be caught dead touring a Kentucky factory or marching on a West Virginia picket line, but he doesn't even realize that that is a base that could deliver him perpetual majorities.

Joe is OK at reaching out to those types. Bernie is fantastic at it. Liz is a question mark; the union types I generally see her around are more professional and educated union types, which is up there in that more socially-acceptable range. Buttigieg is awkward (he straight up asked a guy ON CAMERA how long the strike budget would last, as if he was directly sent to bust up the strike by management, my god). Harris is a joke in basically every respect.

We need to center the working class. Not the stupid media image of a white guy in a hardhat, but the VAST working class which is increasingly non-white and increasingly female. The service industry is the #1 working class sector.