Bernie was probably the most popular presidential candidate in Michigan during the 2016 and 2020 elections. They also have legal weed, despite the local republicans doing everything possible to stop it and sabotage it. Doesn't seem that bad to me.
Do you believe that this somehow contradicts my point? You show an election result with a very small margin, less than 1%. I said in my original comment that Wisconsin is a purple state, "deeply divided between left wing and right wing, as evidenced by Wisconsin's polar opposite Senators Tammy Baldwin and Ron Johnson."
Wisconsin is a hotbed of progressive politics. It's also a hotbed of regressive politics. Nowadays the urban/rural difference tends to be very stark.
What do you mean by "hotbed", then? Do you just mean, "there exists a party with that alignment?" What state is not a "hotbed of progressive politics" by this interpretation?
What do you mean by "hotbed", then? Do you just mean, "there exists a party with that alignment?"
No, I mean very active and influential, achieving real, significant political results. The submitted article is about how they've achieved results, not only fighting Flock but winning and getting rid of Flock.
My links about the history of Wisconsin progressivism show that they were winning elections.
The submitted article is about how they've achieved results
"They" meaning just Wisconsinites. The only political point I can find with a quick skim of the article is
“There are well-documented concerns about how this company operates and uses its technology to violate people’s Fourth Amendment rights [against unreasonable searches],”
which is not what I would call a progressive political stance. If anything, it's conservative in the literal sense, of maintaining existing political institutions in their present state. It'd be more progressive (again, in the literal sense) to want to embrace more unrestricted surveillance.
I think you're missing the point. A "stance" is passive. I'm talking about activism, grassroots organizing, protests, political action. That's why I called it a "hotbed". A stance must be pushed forcefully to overturn the status quo.
It'd be more progressive (again, in the literal sense) to want to embrace more unrestricted surveillance.
which is not what I would call a progressive political stance. If anything, it's conservative in the literal sense, of maintaining existing political institutions in their present state. It'd be more progressive (again, in the literal sense) to want to embrace more unrestricted surveillance.
1) The word "progressive" has multiple meanings. Your overly "literal" interpretation is not particularly useful in the political context.
2) The Flock cameras were already in place, so getting them removed is "progressive" even under your odd interpretation. But I don't even want to argue semantics. That seems like a silly argument to me.
Comments
Ah, yes, Wisconsin. Famously more progressive than the bordering states of Michigan, Minnesota and Illinois (I'll give you Iowa).
Attitudes on surveillance follow economics more than anything else.
Bernie was probably the most popular presidential candidate in Michigan during the 2016 and 2020 elections. They also have legal weed, despite the local republicans doing everything possible to stop it and sabotage it. Doesn't seem that bad to me.
Wisconsin actually is famously progressive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Progressive_Party
"Milwaukee is a city where socialists have found success to a greater extent than any other U.S. city" https://uwm.edu/lib-collections/mke-socialism/
https://www.politico.com/2024-election/results/wisconsin/
Do you believe that this somehow contradicts my point? You show an election result with a very small margin, less than 1%. I said in my original comment that Wisconsin is a purple state, "deeply divided between left wing and right wing, as evidenced by Wisconsin's polar opposite Senators Tammy Baldwin and Ron Johnson."
Wisconsin is a hotbed of progressive politics. It's also a hotbed of regressive politics. Nowadays the urban/rural difference tends to be very stark.
What do you mean by "hotbed", then? Do you just mean, "there exists a party with that alignment?" What state is not a "hotbed of progressive politics" by this interpretation?
No, I mean very active and influential, achieving real, significant political results. The submitted article is about how they've achieved results, not only fighting Flock but winning and getting rid of Flock.
My links about the history of Wisconsin progressivism show that they were winning elections.
"They" meaning just Wisconsinites. The only political point I can find with a quick skim of the article is
which is not what I would call a progressive political stance. If anything, it's conservative in the literal sense, of maintaining existing political institutions in their present state. It'd be more progressive (again, in the literal sense) to want to embrace more unrestricted surveillance.
I think you're missing the point. A "stance" is passive. I'm talking about activism, grassroots organizing, protests, political action. That's why I called it a "hotbed". A stance must be pushed forcefully to overturn the status quo.
1) The word "progressive" has multiple meanings. Your overly "literal" interpretation is not particularly useful in the political context.
2) The Flock cameras were already in place, so getting them removed is "progressive" even under your odd interpretation. But I don't even want to argue semantics. That seems like a silly argument to me.
Just because one side calls themselves Progressive, doesn't make the other side regressive.