Yang and Booker have qualified for the Fall debates.

Not sure. They will probably have a system to make sure people can only vote once.

Uh.... What? You're in favor of a bill rooted in bigotry but you're part of the queer community and identify yourself as a feminist?

To me, as an intersectional feminist, that bill flies in the face of what feminism is about.

In regards to people's discussion about which labels fit them, I tend not to worry about it too much. As much as I cheerlead for Bernie and other progressives, I don't know that I'd choose that as my definitive label, more like just an adjective. Like Mnementh said above, progressive to me just means trying to change the system for the better. It's a belief that the status quo has flaws and that a transition is possible to a new system that is definitively better for everyone, and a commitment to making the necessary changes to bring that better system about. The specific ideology of certain people that describe themselves as having a progressive ideology doesn't necessarily match mine, so I don't choose progressive as an ideological label, but the word does more or less describe me.

Aside from maybe environmentalist, there really aren't a lot of labels I like. I even (especially) hate the traditional left-right division. The fact that different ideas can at different times and in different regions be considered left, right, or center, to me suggests that it's a pretty meaningless attempt to organize an absurd variety of political ideas into one ideology. As far as I can tell, the only thing meaningful there is to get out of the left-right divide is that, like its French Revolution etymological roots, one side wants the power to belong to the aristocracy, the other wants to remove power from the aristocracy or abolish the aristocracy altogether. Even with this statement, however, it doesn't really make sense in modern terms unless you know to substitute the term "aristocracy" with whatever the "aristocracy" is at the time and region. Hence why socialists are pretty decidedly on the left, and laissez-faire economics for the purpose of supporting big business is decidedly on the right in modern times. But it's mostly a dumb distinction that makes less and less sense the further we get from the French Revolution, though obviously it's useful for finding people that think like you. Only reason it's useful for that, though, is because organizing all of politics into two sides creates an us-them dynamic, a certain tribalism, that discourages independent thought, and encourages you to shape your thinking by what the other people in your "tribe" say. Add in a few decades of social and political sorting, and eventually you get a hyper-polarized America where everyone tows the party line all the time and challenging the narrative is blasphemous. So left-right thinking is worse than useless, it's destructive.

So fuck all the labels. What I know is that healthcare in this country sucks and wealth is concentrating into fewer and fewer hands even faster than its being created, and none of that shit is sustainable. Also the biosphere is dying, from multiple things, alarmingly fast, and that's not sustainable either. I also know that I don't trust a single Republican anywhere to give a flying fuck about any of it, they've shown no evidence they do, as long as I've been alive. Biden doesn't seem to give a fuck either, he just wants us to all get along, and don't get me wrong, I want that too, because I'm tired of everyone hating on everyone and anybody not in the majority just getting the short end of the stick, that's not what democracy is supposed to be, come on. But Biden doesn't have a plan to deal with that either, beyond just "hey, everybody likes me, right? So if I'm in charge we'll all get along and everything will get better right?" Wrong Biden, the more you cooperate with the Republicans the less they cooperate with you, so just give up on them and win the American people over with a vision to deal with their problems and then execute that vision. Bernie and Warren definitely DO give a fuck about these problems, and stand out as such more than anyone in the field as such. They give ALL the fucks. And they've both put a fuckton of thought into solving them, and can communicate their vision. Right now Warren is definitely doing an incredible job communicating some tangible specifics to that vision, so I can see why people are impressed. But I'm with Bernie because 1) he's always been with us, all of us, even when it wasn't popular to be, longer than anyone else on that stage, even those of comparable age, 2) when something really matters, Bernie doesn't compromise on it, he knows what matters to us and dreams as big as we do, and tries to include everybody in that dream, and 3) more than any other candidate, Bernie understands that a disengaged populace leads to a dead democracy, and will keep us all engaged throughout his entire presidency more so than any other politician in the field. What he chooses to call himself, what any of them choose to call themselves, generally means next to nothing to me.

And she's a radical feminist, specifically tran-exclusionary. This discussion has played out multiple times in this forum, and at least once in this thread. Long story short, the two words you bolded should be treated as one term for purposes of describing her ideology. She didn't say "a lesbian, a feminist," she said "a lesbian feminist" because that has specific meaning to her.

I agree with you though, that bill does not have the intentions she imagines it to, and is harmful to both the queer community and the feminist cause.

Ahh okay duly noted, thank you. I didn't realize we had a terf here.

Not surprising, they needed only one qualifying poll.

That is a typical example that these days everything has to be black and white. You can't even think about someone who has a collection of differing opinions, partly aligning with yours, partly not. That is the problem these days. There was never and never will be only two sides in politics. People are complex creatures and every single one of them has a set of opinions composed from different experiences and ideologies. The problem these days is that things are labeled in two sides. You either are a racist or welcome every migrant. You are either a sexist or you are in favor of reverse discrimination. And so on. I for my part can understand that an old-school feminist is not too keen if the bathrooms aren't clearly safe-spaces for biological women anymore alone. You may see it as bigotry or not, but that doesn't mean that her and your opinion can't align in other areas.

I know what you mean. You sound more independent - which is far from a bad thing. Left leaning for sure but maybe not a traditional Dem, or at least a by the books *modern* version of the Dems.

I don't want to make myself sound like "duude I'm such an edgy rebel hipster!" but I definitely am all over the place politically. I don't really fit in a box but I prefer it that way. People tend to get tribalistic & don't think critically when too far ingrained in their political ideology.

Mostly socially liberal, Libertarian mostly on a cultural level (the unrestricted, uncensored exchange of ideas), and a smattering of conservative views, at least when it comes to upholding the Constitution, & becoming a bit more conservative on (illegal) immigration. I'm not super patriotic or much of a Nationalist but also very very wary of Globalism/NATO/EU/Free Trade. I'm probably just slightly left of center at the end of the day, but very much on the "bottom," Libertarian side of the political map. To me the significant paradigm isn't left vs right, but more Authoritarian vs Libertarian. 

I'm basically against excesses of Authoritarianism and the nanny state - imposing on speech, liberties, etc whether it comes from the right OR the left. I was hardware opposed to Bush, Cheney, and the Neocons and their warmongering, Patriot Act, and "either with us or against us" BS. It's just that now it seems like this brand of right wing Authoritarianism has taken a backseat to the left wing version, with the hyper PC culture/censorship of Conservatives & Libertarians on social media. This is why I might seem more right-leaning on this site b/c I tend to go against whichever side I feel is acting more Authoritarian - 10-20 years ago it was the right, now it's the left.. But ultimately still more liberal than not in my views. 

I think that's why Yang and Tulsi by far appeal to me the most out of this current pool, they strike me almost separate from the modern Democratic party - moderate where it counts, but also quite liberal in the right ways with some libertarian sympathies.

I mostly agree with you. Didn't argue the fact that we're complex creatures and all that, I understand nuance and I'm not opposed to someone having differing opinions because we're all human and have differing experiences and such. But some things are just flat out wrong wether it's morally or whatever else, like nazism or slavery, those are flat out wrong and there shouldn't be any debate on whether to denounce those.

Regarding terfs, just because part of what they believe aligns with mine doesn't mean I shouldn't call it out for what it is, which is blatant bigotry. It's a problematic ideology and by definition it's really not feminism, it's misogynistic. That's why a majority of feminists, old-school or not, aren't terfs because they know it runs counter to feminist thought.