HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Do we all recognize that ...

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:03 AM

 

Do we all recognize that the major parties in this country have shifted DRASTICALLY to the right

especially over the past few decades?

And that being the case, do we all recognize that the terms 'centrist' and 'moderate' as labels are, at best, misleading?

And due to these facts, anyone calling themselves a centrist or a moderate today is actually a republican?

And therefore, referring to Hillary or those who champion her policies (which includes a LOT of "real democrats" in congress) as not just 'republican lite' but actually 'republican' is factually (though not technically) correct?

Thoughts?

This sick twisted two-party system is using semantics to shift us ever rightward and it is sad to see people treating politics like a football game because it only aids in their agenda.

56 replies, 4700 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 56 replies Author Time Post
Reply Do we all recognize that the major parties in this country have shifted DRASTICALLY to the right (Original post)
vintx Mar 2016 OP
hobbit709 Mar 2016 #1
Baobab Mar 2016 #5
tk2kewl Mar 2016 #8
vintx Mar 2016 #9
onecaliberal Mar 2016 #26
Baobab Mar 2016 #54
GreenPartyVoter Mar 2016 #2
SoLeftIAmRight Mar 2016 #31
GreenPartyVoter Mar 2016 #33
Lizzie Poppet Mar 2016 #37
GreenPartyVoter Mar 2016 #40
marions ghost Mar 2016 #44
jwirr Mar 2016 #47
DanTex Mar 2016 #3
vintx Mar 2016 #6
DanTex Mar 2016 #7
Bread and Circus Mar 2016 #10
DanTex Mar 2016 #11
vintx Mar 2016 #15
DanTex Mar 2016 #16
RiverLover Mar 2016 #43
DanTex Mar 2016 #46
intheflow Mar 2016 #4
salinsky Mar 2016 #12
nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #13
vintx Mar 2016 #17
nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #19
vintx Mar 2016 #24
Lizzie Poppet Mar 2016 #55
jwirr Mar 2016 #48
Broward Mar 2016 #14
RiverLover Mar 2016 #18
Thirties Child Mar 2016 #20
ibegurpard Mar 2016 #21
Sheepshank Mar 2016 #22
vintx Mar 2016 #23
Sheepshank Mar 2016 #25
Broward Mar 2016 #28
Sheepshank Mar 2016 #35
Meteor Man Mar 2016 #36
RiverLover Mar 2016 #39
Sheepshank Mar 2016 #42
mmonk Mar 2016 #27
oldandhappy Mar 2016 #29
RiverLover Mar 2016 #30
Donald Ian Rankin Mar 2016 #32
Sheepshank Mar 2016 #41
TheDormouse Mar 2016 #49
Dawgs Mar 2016 #50
vintx Mar 2016 #52
LWolf Mar 2016 #34
Maedhros Mar 2016 #38
dana_b Mar 2016 #45
daleanime Mar 2016 #51
pat_k Mar 2016 #53
Lizzie Poppet Mar 2016 #56

Response to vintx (Original post)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:05 AM

1. the 2008 and 2012 Democratic Party platforms were well to the right of the 1956 Republican platform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hobbit709 (Reply #1)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:20 AM

5. Neoliberalism - Its happening all around the world

Not just here. Its a rolling back of the gains in the 20th century.

And a locking down of the future by means of trade agreements that short circuit democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #5)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:22 AM

8. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #5)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:22 AM

9. " trade agreements that short circuit democracy " <-ENDGAME FOR CORPORATE FASCISTS

 

And people here are just blindly "rah rah rah"ing in support of it.

Hearing that shit from the RWers I live and work around is not surprising at all.

Seeing it here, more than disappointing. I must have a different definition of 'underground'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vintx (Reply #9)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 12:01 PM

26. ^^THAT^^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vintx (Reply #9)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 08:27 PM

54. What do you take away from this- (PDF) Note that these deals are - after 20 years about to go live

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vintx (Original post)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:09 AM

2. Somewhat socially liberal as a cover to keep people voting, but highly

Neocon when it comes to policies of finance and war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenPartyVoter (Reply #2)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 12:15 PM

31. this is it

 

many thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoLeftIAmRight (Reply #31)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 12:23 PM

33. You are so welcome. Hell of a scam, no? Breadcrumbs for we the people.

The rest of the loaf for TPTB.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenPartyVoter (Reply #2)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 12:28 PM

37. Bingo: liberal on issues the oligarchs don't care about.

 

Conservative when the bottom line is at stake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #37)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 12:52 PM

40. My theory is that this is more than the standard robber baron greed. They know climate change is

going to unleash hell on the world. This is the 1% preparing for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenPartyVoter (Reply #40)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 02:18 PM

44. Reasonable theory

it looks like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenPartyVoter (Reply #40)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 02:32 PM

47. I agree with that totally. We have a few economic theories

that the rw (Chicago University and the Chicago Boys and one world policy - poppy bush) have used to allow them to accumulate a mass of money and break down national borders/rule until there is no other powers left in the world beyond the 1% and their corporations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vintx (Original post)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:12 AM

3. Obama has been a transformative progressive president, the best at least since LBJ,

and possibly since FDR. Hillary is running on a progressive platform.

My thoughts? Instead of spending so much time bashing Democrats, we should be joining forces to defeat Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #3)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:20 AM

6. There's that sports mentality. What you call "bashing democrats" I call trying to improve democrats

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vintx (Reply #6)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:21 AM

7. It's not a sports mentality. The future of the nation is at stake, and Trump needs to be defeated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #3)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:23 AM

10. Transformative? Other than the ACA, please list

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bread and Circus (Reply #10)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:29 AM

11. Why "other than ACA"? That's a big part of his legacy.

He also prevented a depression and saved the auto industry. Passed the strongest financial regulations since WW2. Got OBL. Completely restored our reputation in the world (thanks in part to Hillary). Major foreign policy progress in Iran and Cuba. And made significant progress on the environment, even without help from congress, through executive actions.

And if he had the same kind of congresses as LBJ or FDR, it would have been much more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #11)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:36 AM

15. Agreed about Obama being held back by Congress

 

but do you think he's representative of how most Dems in Congress govern? I would think most are to the right of him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vintx (Reply #15)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:38 AM

16. Most Dems in congress are on board with his agenda. Sure, there are a few

Mary Landrieus, but then again, you're not going to elect an Elizabeth Warren in Louisiana. That's the reality.

But, as this relates to Hillary, she's pretty similar ideologically to Obama, which is fine with me. I'm more liberal than she is, but she's nowhere near the right-winger that people here make her out to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #3)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 02:16 PM

43. Was Obama like FDR when he slashed food stamps by $8 billion?

Or the drone warfare without congressional authorization, and killing innocent civilians by the 1000s?

Or the massive, invasive NSA spying on every American?

Or lobbying for the Citibank cromnibus passage?

Or maybe it was approving radioactive fracking waste to be barged up the Ohio River?

Oooh, I know, it when he offered to sign off on chained CPI while cutting BILLIONS in government programs (I guess this is only republican if one calls oneself republican?)

President Obama released his budget blueprint on Wednesday, a proposal that cuts more than $1 trillion in spending on government programs and adds nearly $800 billion in new taxes. With the release comes greater attention to a very technical term: "chained CPI."

Chained CPI is shorthand for "Chained Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers." In short, it's a way to index spending and taxes -- including Social Security benefits -- to the rate of inflation, or the rise in prices over time. But it's not the only way.

What's important in the context of the debate over Obama's budget is that chained CPI would mean Social Security benefits would increase at a slower rate than they do using the current index.

What difference does it make?

As our friends over at Wonkblog pointed out last year, Social Security benefits are currently calculated using CPI-W, or the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. (Yes, that's a mouthful.) Over time, benefit levels tick up based on CPI-W, to keep up with the fact that a dollar twenty years ago is not worth what it is today.

Here's the bottom line: Using chained CPI instead of CPI-W means the rate at which those benefits tick up would be slower, because the former reflects substitutions consumers would make in response to rising prices of certain items.Therein lies the "chained" part of the name. The metric utilizes a basket of goods and services that are measured changes from month to month; much like a daisy chain. If the cost of a certain form of transportation goes up, for example, people might switch to another kind. This kind of "substitution" is part of what is factored into chained CPI.

Overall, the change would save the federal government about $130 billion over the next decade.

(The Bureau of Labor Statistics has a good FAQ here, if you're looking for even more detail about the different mechanisms for taking inflation into account.)

Who likes chained CPI?

Republicans do.

....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/04/10/the-ins-and-outs-of-chained-cpi-explained/


Democrats need to be DEMOCRATS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #43)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 02:22 PM

46. The food stamps were part of an omnibus bill. FDR had a very heavily Democratic congress.

A lot of people don't seem to realize that. Governing with the GOP in control of both chambers is very different than having 60% or 70% majorities in both, like FDR did. When the other party controls congress, there have to be compromises.

As far as the drones, you do realize that Roosevelt was the one who not only presided over WW2, but also that it was under his direction that the US developed nuclear weapons. And it was another widely praised Democrat who authorized the only nuclear strikes in the history of mankind.

I'm not sure what the "Citibank cromnibus package" is, or some of the other things that you refer to, but you get the idea. You're comparing an FDR that effectively controlled the entire Federal Government versus an Obama who was blocked at every turn by the GOP. The fact that he still got so much done is a phenomenal achievement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vintx (Original post)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:13 AM

4. Since Nixon won over Mondale.

But amplified significantly after Ronnie Raygun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vintx (Original post)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:31 AM

12. Yes, the nation has shifted dangerously to the right, ...

... yes, all of these labels are nebulous at best.

That having been acknowledged, can we concentrate on defeating the fascists and theocrats.

Some things are as simple as black and white.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vintx (Original post)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:35 AM

13. Parties change. They realign

 

Many years ago I wrote in this site that Dems would take the place of the Rs. And we would need a new LW party. This happens in US politics every so often. This is the 6th time to be exact. So this is not shocking to me.

So this fight for "the soul" of the party was lost by the old coalition in 1992. I am fine...I became an independent voter in 2011 and intend to remain such for the rest of my life. This realignment, according to a few political scientists, because of social media, might weaken the role of parties in the US. I doubt it. But it will radically change how they work.

Oh and conservadems will deny they are, or this is happening, until they truly do not need the despised left to win elections. I give it two more cycles. What will disrupt this is climate change though. Magical thinking of the market will not change that process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #13)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:39 AM

17. Yes, to me, climate change makes all of this no longer business as usual.

 

We don't have two decades for people to figure out what is going on.

As mentioned upthread, these trade agreements are designed to circumvent any government policies. This is IMO the end game move for corporate fascists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vintx (Reply #17)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:43 AM

19. It is, but people around the world know this

 

In fact, they are way ahead of us. Those who prevent peaceful revolutions will wake up to real revolutions in my lifetime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #19)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:52 AM

24. "Those who prevent peaceful revolutions will wake up to real revolutions"

 

THIS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vintx (Reply #24)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 08:51 PM

55. Exactly.

 

And then the powers-that-be will sanctimoniously call the revolutionaries "terrorists."

Briefly...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vintx (Reply #17)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 02:38 PM

48. Climate change, wealth inequality and social media should

help to wake people up to the take changes that are needed. And IMO those changes can only come from the left because we are not afraid to make changes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vintx (Original post)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:35 AM

14. We must not accede to the Third Way and GOP framing

of what constitutes left and right. Hillary is a right winger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vintx (Original post)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:42 AM

18. We're being conned.

Excellent OP, vintx.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vintx (Original post)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:45 AM

20. I cast my first vote in 1956, have seen a lot of shifting.

The Republicans are where the John Birchers were in the 60s, the Democrats where the Republicans were. When the Democrats shifted right, they left a vacuum on the left. Progressives can fill it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vintx (Original post)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:46 AM

21. if we aren't purely partisan hacks we do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vintx (Original post)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:49 AM

22. Can you provide a specific example of a far left policy that was implement then and abandoned now?

 

I have heard your meme iterated before and decided it's time to get down to the nuts and bolts of it.

I would like to know in what tangible way has real life policy implemented by Dems been moved to the right by Dems?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #22)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:50 AM

23. Too many people on this site do not know what memes are.

 

That term is thrown around so often it's comical.

This is not a meme. This is history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vintx (Reply #23)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:57 AM

25. so I've heard....over and over

 

I've been around the block a whole lot, and the far left (purists) have been complaining about the lurch to the right, about income inequality and the wealthy directing the course of politics for 70+ years.

I'm not saying some of the concerns don't exist. I am saying this meme has been around for several decades. I don't actually see any changes in the "chatter" from the far left now than what was said 50+ years ago. Are we really less progressive today than 50 years ago? So why is it I'm supposed to "see" this more recent move to the Right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #25)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 12:06 PM

28. You can start with support for job-destroying free trade agreements.

Wall St. deregulation is another one. Yes, Dodd Frank was an effort to restore some order but did not go far enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Broward (Reply #28)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 12:27 PM

35. A poor agreement to be sure, but not hard evidence that the Entirety of Dems is lurching Right

 

Poor agreements, poor laws, have unintended consequences. I honestly don't believe this is proof of lurching Right as much as unintended consequences. There is still no evidence that your example have bearing on the social issues that brands the Left, as having moved to the right in any way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #25)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 12:27 PM

36. NAFTA for starters

Bill Clinton's Crime Bill, Joe Biden's bankruptcy reform, massive military spending increases . . . and let us never forget Joe Biden going behind Harry Reid's back to negotiate a budget settlement.
Obama on TPP and a trillion dollar nuclear modification.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meteor Man (Reply #36)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 12:32 PM

39. In addition, Bill Clinton making China a NTR country & ushering them into the WTO

When the USA began to go downhill. But its' "globalization" can't be stopped. Drilled over & over & over into our collective consciousness. It could actually happen while not transferring jobs to those who work as virtual slaves to enrich the already wealthy.

Free trade has become socially accepted slavery. Spread through out the globe, and leaving a vast number of Americans with service sector jobs that don't pay a living wage.

It didn't have to be this way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #22)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 12:56 PM

42. In many, many ways, the Dems have moved left...it's easier to ignore those situations apparently

 

see post 32 and 41 below.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vintx (Original post)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 12:01 PM

27. There are many Americans unaware because they get "news"

from the broadcast news that continues a pretend left v right framework.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vintx (Original post)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 12:07 PM

29. There have been times I could feel

the earth sliding to the right under me! I went from being a moderate Dem to a lefty Dem to a Progressive as the country was dragged further and further right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vintx (Original post)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 12:14 PM

30. "Hillary Clinton's Ghosts: A Legacy of Pushing the Democratic Party to the Right"

New Democrats were never really about popular support; they were about bringing together big business and the Democrats.

......enormous snip.....didn't want to....

......More importantly, Clinton adopted the DLC strategy in the way she governed. She tried to portray herself as a crusader for family values when she introduced legislation to ban violent video games and flag burning in 2005. She also adopted the DLC's hawkish military stance. The DLC was feverishly in favor of Bush's "war on terror" and his invasion of Iraq. Will Marshall, one of the group's founders, was a signatory of many of the now infamous documents from the Project for the New American Century, which urged the United States to radically increase its use of force in Iraq and beyond.

The DLC led efforts to take down Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign, citing his opposition to the war in Iraq as an example of his weakness. Two years later, the organization played a similar role against Ned Lamont's antiwar challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman, which the DLC decried as "The Return of Liberal Fundamentalism."

However, the DLC's influence eventually waned. A formal affiliation with the organization became something of a deal breaker for some progressive voters. When Barack Obama first ran for the Senate in 2004, he had no affiliation with the DLC. So, when they wrongly included him in their directory of New Democrats, he asked the DLC to remove his name. In explaining this, he also publicly shunned the organization in an interview with Black Commentator. "You are undoubtedly correct that these positions make me an unlikely candidate for membership in the DLC," he wrote when pressed by the magazine. "That is why I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC."

The DLC's decline continued: A growing sense of discontent among progressives, Clinton's loss in 2008 and the economic crisis that followed turned the DLC into something of a political liability. And in 2011, the Democratic Leadership Council shuttered its doors.

When the DLC closed, it records were acquired by the Clinton Foundation, which DLC founder Al From called an "appropriate and fitting repository." To this day, the Clinton Foundation continues to promote the work of the DLC's founding members.
In September 2015, the foundation hosted an event to promote From's book The New Democrats and the Return to Power. Amazingly, O'Malley provided a favorable blurb for the book, praising it as a "reminder of the core principles that still drive Democratic success today."

The 2016 Election and New Democrats

The DLC's demise was seen as a victory by many progressives, and the populist tone of the 2016 primary is being celebrated as a sign of rising progressivism as well. But it is probably too soon to declare that the "battle for the soul of the Democratic Party is coming to an end," as Adam Green, cofounder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, recently told the Guardian.

Consider the way Marshall spun the closing of the DLC. "With President Obama consciously reconstructing a winning coalition by reconnecting with the progressive center, the pragmatic ideas of PPI and other organizations are more vital than ever," he said in an interview with Politico.

His reference to "PPI and other organizations" refers to the still-existing Progressive Policy Institute and Third Way. These institutions have the same Wall Street support and continue to push the same agenda that their predecessor did.

Many of these "centrist" ideas lack popular support these days. But New Democrats were never really about popular support; they were about bringing together big business and the Democrats. The group's board of trustees is almost entirely made up of Wall Street executives. Further, in the aftermath of the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision, these same moneyed interests have more influence over the political process than ever before.

"These organizations now are basically just corporate lobbyists today," Schmitt said.



So while the DLC may be a dirty word among many progressives, this didn't stop Obama from appointing New Democrats to key posts in his White House.

The same Bill Daley who works for a hedge fund and is on the board of trustees for Third Way was also President Obama's White House chief of staff. And, as was noted above, he is now actively trying to influence the Democratic Party's direction in the 2016 election.


...........snip.......

PLEASE read in full. We as a Party need to WAKE UP~
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33869-hillary-clinton-s-ghosts-a-legacy-of-pushing-the-democratic-party-to-the-right




....& FYI, anonymous corporate donors give the Third Way think tank $9 billion A YEAR to work their republican magic on the Democratic Party.

Please see~
The Democratic think tank Third Way relies on money from corporate interests, lobbyists and Republican donors.
http://www.thenation.com/article/gop-donors-and-k-street-fuel-third-ways-advice-democratic-party/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vintx (Original post)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 12:19 PM

32. No. The Republicans have moved a long way right, while the Democrats have moved left a little.

Liberal Republicans are almost extinct, and conservative Democrats are a heavily endangered species - the fact that many DUers idea of a conservative Democrat nowadays is Hillary Clinton speaks volumes about how much that goalpost has moved.

Things like gay marriage and Obamacare would never have happened 20 years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Reply #32)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 12:54 PM

41. exactly, Dems took care of segregation, delineated and faught harder than ever for voter rights,

 

continues the fight for abortion rights, equal pay for women, there are a myriad of social issues on which we as Dems are far more liberal today than just a few short years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #41)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 02:46 PM

49. *some* Dems took care of segregation & voter rights; others stonewalled & became

Republicans

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Reply #32)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 04:24 PM

50. Noooooo! Obamacare is right wing gift to the insurance companies.

 

Please stop acting like it's anything that is considered "left".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dawgs (Reply #50)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 05:00 PM

52. This is how they do it.

 

The left has a goal, the 'centrists' propose something thars a gift to the 1%, the Republicans do their off the deep end routine, and voilą, gift to corporations is now rebranded as an accomplishment for the left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vintx (Original post)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 12:26 PM

34. I recognize all of that.

I also recognize that the Clintons, both of them, were a significant part of making that shit/shift happen.

Personally, I think that Democrats who have been helping, are helping, that process by voting in neo-liberals, if they don't fucking STOP and change voting course, ARE the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vintx (Original post)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 12:30 PM

38. I think we all realize it, but Hillary supporters apparently celebrate it.[n/t]

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vintx (Original post)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 02:20 PM

45. yep!!

Neither of the two big parties represent me or my family. We have NOT changed our views since the mid eighties when I began to vote. The party has become more and more conservative. I'm through with them unless they make a shift back to where MOST working class and poor people are at.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vintx (Original post)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 04:26 PM

51. K&R.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vintx (Original post)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 06:05 PM

53. Nixon would be a liberal today.

In many respects Nixon was the last liberal president.
-Noam Chomsky

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pat_k (Reply #53)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 08:51 PM

56. And Eisenhower a socialist.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread