The definition of the word is quite plain.
Yet again and again, the Conservative Dem responders keep mechanically repeating,
"that word doesn't mean what you think it means", blah blah blah.
These are folks who probably HATE Chomsky, Chris Hedges, Ray McGovern, Matt Taibbi,
Brad Friedman, Greg Palast, Thomas Frank, etc----who have the gall to criticize the DEmocratic Party.
These are voices Democrats should be HEEDING,
because they describe so vividly what too
many Dems are falling-for lately: Neoliberalism and mindless loyalty to Party, instead of internalized humanistic values.
These are the same folks who have faith-based belief that the Russians hacked the election,
even though actual evidentiary proof is still lacking at this time.
Just like WMDs in the early 2000s with the GOPers.
Same damn obstinate attitude.
Yes--The SAME.
These people cannot see themselves objectively.
If they could, they'd throw-up.
But they can't.
They are becoming what they hate (neocons, corporate apologists and faith-based in foreign policy)
and they don't even know it.
We'll just have to take it issue-by-issue as we fight Trump.
But I wonder about these hyper-sensitive Conservative-leaning Hillary-Democrats.
If Trump wants to, say, oppose the AT&T merger with Time-Warner, or support paid maternity leave, are these Democrats
gonna' SUPPORT the merger, and OPPOSE paid maternity leave, in order to oppose Trump?
Issues like that will tell the tale on how far the virus of Neoliberalism has spread in our party.
Ofcourse, Trump may never come thru on any of the populist policies he got
so many cheers from during the campaign.
There's a good chance he lied about every one of them.
But we don't know for sure, yet.
But if he does actually come thru on a few of them, it will provide a real test for Democrats.
If that moment ever arrives, we are going to learn a lot about our fellow-Dems, for sure.
We will know who's-who.
Kinda' like this:
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read