I hope I can at least convince you that I and others like me do not agree with violence and scare tactics. Few as you might think we are, there are good people in the pro-life movement.

"Why the so-called 'democratic socialists' feel the need to take pot shots against anti-imperialist countries is beyond me, and is really infuriating."
Maybe because they give a bad name to true progressives? Hugo Chávez may have been driven to paranoia by U. S. imperialist antics, but if you understood Spanish and listened to his speeches, you would question his intelligence. I'm sympathetic with most every socialist party of Latin America, plus parties that are further to the left left than mainstream socialists, but the PSUV isn't one of them..

Working against Western interests is inherently anti-progressive?

KC: What are the good points of the pro-life movement?

Putin33: I did not suggest that socialists or the Socialist International support abortion restrictions. Talk about nonsensical potshots.

Prior to the 1840's socialism was an arbitrary idea that didn't mean much. And now you and many other false socialists want to make socialism arbitrary again. This defeats its progress as a movement, and you're branding its members as necessarily not progressive?

KingCyrus: True, but the president certainly has the power to impose a moratorium on capital punishment and can commute all death sentences issued before or during his or her presidency.

No, only ones issued by federal courts in federal cases. The president has no power over death sentences issued by the states. I dare you to tell the governors who favor the death penalty that the president says they can't do it anymore.

KingCyrus: I was a volunteer escort at a women's clinic throughout my years at college. Putin33 is only exaggerating slightly. These are real concerns. We always brought along a broken old camcorder to dissuade abuse. And that was just for the regular protesters that show up every day which are very unlikely to be the individuals committing acts of physical violence.

"Bush won in 2000 because of votes for the Green party candidate."

This is false.

More Democrats voted for Bush in the state of Florida than did Greens vote in the entire state.

Gore ran a shitty campaign down the final stretch, and the Supreme Court affirmed he was an idiot to only ask for recounts in several counties rather than the entire state.

Hanging chads are a thing.

TrPrado: Don't twist my words. Opposing imperialism is progressive.

You're the one who is denying socialists their status as socialists. I am a socialist and a progressive. You sympathize with one strand of socialism. That is fine, but your strand has never been accepted as doctrine by more than a plurality.

Bush was a coke snorting idiot. What the fuck is wrong with this electorate to ever let Bush win 2 terms. Gore or John Kerry would never have allowed systemic breakdowns in national security and housing collapse. Katrina would have been dealt with properly rather than racially. We never should have been in Iraq, and never should have allowed Bush to be President.
VOTE HILLARY OR BERNIE.
(Democrats are the only party you can ever trust again)

"Show me one violent or abusive protester and I'll show you a hundred that were not."

Violent rhetoric does lead to violent actions. Maybe not by the same person, but that definitely, TRULY is part of the reason people speak such words.

Angry, shouting anti-choice mobs *create space* for those who want to act to go out and *do something* because they feel like their voices are not powerful. The deed must be done.

So yeah, people who are out there aggressively bullying women who go to Planned Parenthood, irrespective of the reasons they go there, are really part of the problem. Indirectly so, but yes, part of the problem.

Look at what is going on with the Trump rallies. His supporters can't stand to listen to the protesters, so they act violently against them. That's the power of rhetoric.

"Why the so-called 'democratic socialists' feel the need to take pot shots against anti-imperialist countries is beyond me, and is really infuriating."

Because they're socialist banana republic petro-dictators and don't give a shit about the "democratic" part of power?

"(Democrats are the only party you can ever trust again)"
You can never trust either party. They are loyal to the party, not you or the country.

"You can never trust either party. They are loyal to the party, not you or the country."

THIS.

Witness what the Republican Party is doing to Trump, and the Democrats to Sanders. The parties are showing their true colors as organizations seeking power. Ideology doesn't matter in this regard, but how they deal with perceived interlopers.

Bush got thousands of innocent Iraqi's killed and thousands of US soldiers under the false pretense Iraq had no WNDs.
(No hearings or testimony demanded)

Hillary got 4 soldiers killed who go caught in the midst of a bloody coup in Libya.
(relentless scrutiny, 11 hours of testimony, threats to indict.)

See a pattern here? these assfuck republican slime wanna catch some criminals? they can start by indictments on bush / cheney for war crimes.

(Iraq had WMDs)*

Bush and Cheney have received hella scrutiny, but their actions didn't violate protocols, nor does anyone think their actions violated protocols. Because they didn't violate protocols. Being a warhawk is imperialist, and imperialism is bad, but it's not illegal.
Clinton, however, is accused of mishandling information near an election to gain political support for her party by making her candidate look good, which is quite possibly corrupt and illegal. She's also accused of mishandling classified information, which she marked as classified when she sent it out personally over channels which most definitely violated protocol.

sorry but thats a bullshit answer.
Bush didnt care about New Orleans til he had too. Bush lied to America about 9/11, and Iraq. Bush got thousands of Americans killed by being a fuckboy idiot. He is every bit as much a liar and a morally defunct person. Hillary got 4 soldiers killed and its been over politicized by the Sean Hannity/ Bill Oreilly types who are shitting their pants at how obvious it is that Benghazi was just a communications breakdown (NOT A SCANDAL AT ALL)

"Maybe because they give a bad name to true progressives? Hugo Chávez may have been driven to paranoia by U. S. imperialist antics, but if you understood Spanish and listened to his speeches, you would question his intelligence. I'm sympathetic with most every socialist party of Latin America, plus parties that are further to the left left than mainstream socialists, but the PSUV isn't one of them.."

Again with the language snobby. I do in fact read Spanish just fine and own several books by the PSUV and interviews of Chavez.

And which "left-leaning" parties would those be? Would they be the DSA's friends in Mexico who are busy fleecing Pemex and firing Mexican electrical workers at gunpoint? The same party that gets military contracts with the US government to kidnap and murder Mexican students through the Merida initiative? Has there been any condemnation of them by those humanitarians in Socialist International and their bourgeois mouthpieces in the states? Any effort to expel the PRI to denounce it as not progressive enough?

You attack the most democratically elected leader of any government in Latin American history and we're expected to listen to these lectures about your version of socialism is "democratic". You denounce a man who was elected over and over again with elections that were universally deemed free and fair by international observers. You denounce a government that has done more for women's rights than any Latin American government in history, in a region where many countries make having a miscarriage a crime. You denounce a government that has done more for Afro-Venezuelans than any Venezuelan government in history, and you claim that this government gives "true" progressives a bad name?

http://www.theroot.com/articles/world/2013/03/hugo_chavez_and_black_venezuelans_why_they_loved_him.html

This is why the fake socialists from DSA and Socialist International can go to hell. They're nothing but imperialist stooges who want to implement neoliberalism under the cover of social democratic slogans.

Lying is also not a crime, otherwise there would be a lot of material to work with on Clinton as well.

" I am a socialist and a progressive. "

You're a "socialist and progressive" that spends a hell of a lot of time claiming other socialists and progressives aren't as pure as you who operate in conditions far more difficult than you, and then expect respect in return. You attack anti-imperialists and expect people to believe you're not in league with the enemy.

Uhh Prado... perjury is a crime. They did in fact try to impeach Bill Clinton for such things.. You maybe werent alive when that happened but perjury is lying...

Teehee, I've been trying to mull over the idea of what it means to be a party of "institutional revolution" or why the PRI still has revolution in its name. Maybe they're revolutionizing ways in which they can make their government wildly corrupt and in favor of the cartels for example by arresting one so they can pretend they don't like cartels?

Was Bush under oath, bb?

He would be if I ran the Justice Department. I'd have War Crimes Tribunals lined up for every member of his administration. Why was there never even an investigation is the question you should ask.

"Because they're socialist banana republic petro-dictators and don't give a shit about the "democratic" part of power?"

Which is why Chavez was elected five years over the course of 14 years, right?

*five times