I'm not a right winger. What is the Democratic Party presently?

[mmonk]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by tammywammy (a host of the 2016 Postmortem forum).

Looks rightwing looking at the posts here.

[CrowCityDem]

1. It's solidly to the left, except to the fringe.

[Armstead]

40. from the standpoint of a Republican conservative it looks that way

Here's a radio host you may enjoy,,,

[valerief]

58. Ha! Bravo!

[Dragonfli]

125. Exactly, mustn't we reevaluate our party since it is is going through a right wing realignment?

And has successfully been doing so since the founding of the DLC?

The entire goal of the neoliberal, "new" Democrat movement, under Al From and the Clintons (and all the other "new Democrats" AKA "Third Way" Democrats) has been since at least the 80's, to court and bring into the fold moderate Republicans, replacing the working class voters with them.

They refer to the RW takeover of the party as an "intellectual leveraged buyout" And history shows they DID take over the party.

My suggested most current reading on the subject would be Thomas Frank's new book, Listen, Liberal – or – What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?


[center][font size="3"; color="Darkgreen"]If Sanders does not bring the party back, one must realize they will complete the realignment[/font][/center]

It may well likely be too late to reclaim the party from within if he fails, so we must consider all viable options in order to keep a party of the people, not an easy task, which is why Bernie Sanders calls such a task a political revolution. That is not hyperbole but honesty.

If true liberal ideals, a moral economy, and an equal society that grows beyond bigotry in all it's forms is to ever be achievable again, let alone in time to stop the demise of many species including our own. It will be nearly impossible by the method we had hoped for, that is, by saving the party from it's complete makeover and thus reclaiming it because in a few years such will no longer be a viable option. Let me explain if I might.

Those that vote for hawkish Neo-Liberals such as Clinton are not in denial, they are simply not at all like the Democrats of the pre "intellectual leveraged buyout of the Party" by the Koch funded DLC, beginning before, but put actively into legislative practice by William J. Clinton and his DLC allies with the assist of Newt Gingrich beginning in 1992 (Welfare destruction, deregulation and tough on mostly minority crime bills) were passed with a purpose, one that continues unto our present day.

They are indeed not in denial or uneducated politically as some may assume, but rather they are like the candidates they support, neo-liberals. Some are also even neocons as well, much like Hillary Clinton.

Many of us call these sort of voters limousine liberals, or latte' liberals but they are something else (more accurate and less derogatory).

I have understood this a long time, most are comfortable financially (not necessarily rich yet many are) but able to always pay their bills, save for retirement, usually live in the 'burbs and own at least two cars (plus a starter car for their teenage child old enough to drive).

They like to consider themselves politically correct, believe in equality just enough to support it verbally and feel "evolved" (while thinking they deserve a badge for doing so) but would never put themselves in harms way for the rights and equality that sound as good to them coming out of their mouths as their own flatulence smells to them coming out of their own asses (they detect a whiff of roses when they breath it in). It becomes hard to ignore that such declarations, formed of methane as they are, are meaningless slogans, with little action to support such claims of "equal rights".

They ARE moderate Republicans (like the ones that no longer exist outside the Democratic party), I remember back when most Republicans were sane and many (certainly not the Goldwater or John Birch types though) believed in civil rights, choice and other equality issues, they were different in that they believed in Republican fiscal values, the old bootstrap philosophy made popular by Ayn Rand (even if the Democratic version would never admit it).

The party is going through a realignment, as parties do over the course of decades, (just as the Republican Party once was the anti-slavery party but have been quite the opposite for a long time now) - The Democratic party is changing into the moderate Republican party of my childhood (except they are far more hawkish than the old Rs used to be). There is no more room for the new Deal, The Great Society, or the working class in this newly realigning party.

The Republicans have also been going through a realignment during the same 35 year period as ours has. One of the reasons one no longer finds Moderate Republicans in the Republican Party, but only in ours, under their new (D) banner. Their realignment has already turned them into the modern equivalent of the John Birch Society wackos of old, but they are not finished yet, just as we are not finished yet.

Once the Realignments of the parties are complete, ours will be fully Republican, with no vestige of economic morality left, even in the "fringe" that was once the heart of the party. The Republicans in their completion will be the Fascist US party (they of course like the brand name they already have, Republican sounds so much like a "Republic" (a form of representative democracy this country was first created to be, and if one believes the bullshit group psychosis still is), so they will never call themselves Fascists.

I suppose the question to the average Citizen is, do you want to be-
A Republican (under a new brand name)?
A Fascist (under a new brand name)?

Or hope the worst of the newly realigned parties self destructs, leaving room in our two party system for some form of labor party like the Democratic party once was (perhaps the Democratic party itself), with a deep belief as well in full equality for all of us and a livable, for our type of mammal, biosphere. (personalty I hope the one turning fascist is the one that self destructs, but that is just me). If/when such, which now appears inevitable, happens, perhaps it will leave the Neoliberal/ Neocon coalition as the party occupying the newly opened space in our two party system to grow in greed and corporate acquiescence, while attempting to promote coups and wars worldwide.

If not, it will leave an open space for those that are not global corporatists and war seeking profiteers to reclaim a newly formed labor party, Those of us so much like the pre 80's Democratic party of Social Democracy made popular for and by the working class and which would again welcome a New Deal, Great Society, Civil Liberty, war on Poverty, and green initiative style of governance that used to hold the spot now held by these "New" Democrats, these "Moderate" Republicans that have taken to wearing those itchy Democratic suits ever since they took over the party of the people and turned it into the party of Corporations, Banks, And war that relies on poverty as the fuel for it's new gilded age dripping with the blood of innocents.

Ours has to be more than a labor party, but it must be that and more, it must also include equality and unity for moral reasons of course, but also for a very pragmatic reason. We need to repair a biosphere so terribly damaged that it will take (all hands on deck in unity) if it is to matter enough, and in time, so that it may continue supporting our form of life rather than succumbing to yet another series of ELEs That will leave our earth very, different and without our species - to have yet another go at continuing it's varying evolution experiments among the remaining species to suit the new environment.

I only ask that you give this perspective some thought, and come to your own conclusions

[leveymg]

162. You said this for the rest us old democratic Democrats. I no longer

want to be with the neoFascist party. Either we take the Democratic Party back or we go somewhere else and watch the thing destroy itself. Too bad it will suck everything that floats nearby down with it. ROW QUICKLY AND KEEP ROWING.

[TransitJohn]

95. Lulz

[CrowCityDem]

114. I can draw a chart putting Bernie on Pluto. Your point?

[TransitJohn]

121. I didn't draw it.

It's an actual political analysis of stated and, in some cases, voted-upon policy positions. I don't make shit up to support what I'm saying, but feel free to if that's your bag.

This chart extends to all areas of political thought — not just to the confines of the US campaign. Accordingly, the placement of the candidates is in the context of universal political landscape. The chart will be adjusted if and when there are significant policy shifts. We are receiving many requests for the inclusion of the leaders of smaller parties. These will be added to a new presidential election chart after the major party candidates have been determined. Meanwhile you may be interested in our 2012 presidential chart.

http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2016

[CrowCityDem]

130. It clearly isn't based on US politics.

The whole appeal of Bernie is that he is as far left as you can be. Positioning him that close to the center skews the entire thing.

[Dragonfli]

134. True, they use their methodology worldwide, their methodology is both well respected and sound

For comparative purposes look at how they rate

The UK parties (their latest model below is from 2015)



Canada's 2015 Election



The US Primary Candidates 2016



Skewing it to appeal to the warped view of a Right winger (or neoliberal), or even a Left Winger (such as myself, I rate two squares to the left of the Center left Sanders) Would not only defeat the purpose of an untainted picture based on the actual definitions and meanings of political thought, but it would make the entire process unworthy, biased, and very, very Fox News like.

So no, it should not be skewed by your personal skewed beliefs of political ideologies. Ideologies have actual meanings and definitions that remain constant in their true definitions, and such true definitions must remain true in order to lend credibility and honesty into any unbiased evaluation.

[Dragonfli]

160. Communism is as far left as can be, last I knew, unless a further left Ideology has newly formed

By the way, Far right as you can be, would be some form of Fascism, what form would depend upon its authoritative ratings on the chart. The upper right candidates are the ones that should scare the living crap out of you, they are in very real Fascist territory as their votes and rhetoric now stand!

Sanders, most closely resembles FDR on such a chart. Not so scary, very good for the people. Hillary is firmly on the right, not so scary as could be, but a bit so (because of the upward bit), and not very good for the people.

[nadinbrzezinski]

163. Actually the Dems are by any analysis

a Right Wing party. That includes the more narrower US Analysis, What is more is that just like Lincoln, or even Reagan or Ike would never win a Republican nomination today, nor would FDR, or JFK, or for that matter Carter, win a nomination today in the democratic party. Yes, that is how far right you have gone. For the record, the Republcians are in George Wallace territory.

[CrowCityDem]

166. Only if you ignore that times change. Otherwise, Demand are still the party of racists.

[nadinbrzezinski]

185. Alas political theory does not change

even if you believe it to be that malleable

You know who else does that shit? My friends in extreme republican land, who called Hitler a socialist, ergo a lefty, becuase well the tittle of the party was National Socialism. It is the depth of ignorance when you try that shit. I could recommend some books on really basic political theory. Hell, the wiki entry is not that bad (not that good either) as a basic introduction it works, and at the bottom they have some links to the subject matter.

I suspect though, that you are not going to be interested in that much pointy head theory though. Even though you should... if you want to understand what is actually happening in the US. I mean, if basic terms such as Liberalism and conservatism, both sourced in the Enlightenment, are so damn confusing, let's not get started with advanced matter like inverted authoritarianism, or dictablanda. Or for that matter neo conservatism and neo liberalism.

[Bobbie Jo]

140. I like the this one, myself...

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

to JohnnyRingo

[yawnmaster]

129. One must scale that chart to the context under discussion. As it is shown, one might put Sanders...

at the fringe, since there are not many that are to the left and below Sanders on the diagonal. A political center, in the context of the US would probably be on the diagonal between Rubio and Clinton.
The center of the graph in no way represents the political center of the US.

[Dragonfli]

148. This has nothing to do with the Overton window, but relies instead on the actual Definitions.

Overton window

The Overton window, also known as the window of discourse, is the range of ideas the public will accept. It is used by media pundits.

Quite frankly, even then, according to polls of United States citizens Sanders still rates just left of Center and still falls well within that window of discussion and hillary firmly to the right.

You are trying to change not only the Definitions (well known and meaningful) with a skewed Fox like re-interpretation of the meaning of words that favor your (rather incorrect gut).

No one will ever accuse you of intelligent conversation if you continue to use an ever changing brand of "Truthiness" to contort words into shapes they are not, nor have ever been.

Nice try however, an uninformed voter or a person without so much as a elementary school education, can and will fall for such a transparent obfuscation of reality quite often.

PT Barnum would have been proud!

[hollysmom]

161. but that would require making right wing center as some people seem to have a won't todo.

supporting pay day lenders vs protecting people from pay day lenders = right wing, left wing.
Deregulating wall street vs monitoring powerful institutions to make sure they obey the law,like regular citizens.
right wing vs left wing.

[Trust Buster]

2. The level of Sanders' socialism was too much for Democrats to accept. That's all.

[BlindTiresias]

8. If a moderate social democrat was "too much"

Then the party is right wing.

[Trust Buster]

12. No impartial observer would define Sanders and his policies as "moderate".

[JonLeibowitz]

16. My Norwegian friends consider him a moderate.

I consider them rather impartial, in the sense that they have no stake in the election.

[Trust Buster]

19. Comparing Norway to a behemoth like the U.S. is, well, I'll leave at that.

[Human101948]

32. That's ridiculous...the only reason that we can't have national health care and other...

social programs is the bitter resistance of the right wing. And Hillary supporters are acting like right wingers in fighting against social programs that the majority of Americans want.

Kaiser Poll: 58% of Americans support Medicare for all

http://pnhp.org/blog/2015/12/17/kaiser-poll-58-of-americans-support-medicare-for-all/

[JonLeibowitz]

78. Did I compare them? I simply provided a counterexample to your ludicrous claim

that "No impartial observer would define Sanders and his policies as "moderate"."

A single counterexample disproves any absolutist claim.

[Cali_Democrat]

90. Ya...but some guy in Norway says....

[JonLeibowitz]

100. Well, not some guy, but a woman.

That too, a woman working in the intersection of healthcare and social policy.

However, I grant that she is not a leading figure or anyone of importance.

I value her judgement.

[BlindTiresias]

17. This really betrays a deep ignorance on your part.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

The fact he is arguing for socialistic changes within a capitalist framework categorically makes him a social democrat and in terms of overall policy positions a direct descendant of the FDR progressive consensus. Social democracy itself is a moderate position, there is virtually nothing radical about that particular ideology.

[Trust Buster]

21. The significant majority of those registered as Democrats disagree with you.

[BlindTiresias]

22. Informal Fallacy

Argumentum ad Populum.

Please try again.

[Trust Buster]

25. No it isn't. There's a reason Sanders and his supporters dislike closed primaries. Because Sanders

has been roundly rejected by registered Democrats who do not see him as being "moderate". You can't argue out of both sides of your mouths.

[BlindTiresias]

35. Yes, it was

You are saying that because a narrow majority did not vote for sanders that this means his political positions are radical, which in addition to being an argumentum ad popularim fallacy is also a red herring (people voting in primaries have nothing to do with an academic understanding of ideology). In addition, it is fallacious reasoning because simple majority does not guarantee that the belief is correct. If one person can be wrong, it stands to reason that many people can be wrong.

Furthermore, your argument is a non sequitur because you have leaped from the premise "a narrow majority supports Hillary" to the conclusion "Sanders' political positions are extreme", which does not follow.

If we actually look at a real understanding of ideology and political philosophy, Sanders would be considered a moderate center-left politician, which is social democracy.

[yallerdawg]

81. You're not counting all the people...

who voted in the Republican primaries - in overwhelming numbers?

And all the people who weren't compelled to vote at all?

That is an awful lot of Americans not jumping on the Bernie bandwagon.

[BlindTiresias]

85. That does not make his argument logically consistent or charitable.

[Trust Buster]

88. Sanders performs badly amongst registered Democrats or you'd have no problem with closed

primaries. Democrats do not view him as a moderate Socialist at all.

[BlindTiresias]

92. Are you actually doubling down?

Please address my previous argument because you are just repeating the same fallacious argument as well as now uncharitably shifting terms.

"You are saying that because a narrow majority did not vote for sanders that this means his political positions are radical, which in addition to being an argumentum ad popularim fallacy is also a red herring (people voting in primaries have nothing to do with an academic understanding of ideology). In addition, it is fallacious reasoning because simple majority does not guarantee that the belief is correct. If one person can be wrong, it stands to reason that many people can be wrong.

Furthermore, your argument is a non sequitur because you have leaped from the premise "a narrow majority supports Hillary" to the conclusion "Sanders' political positions are extreme", which does not follow.

If we actually look at a real understanding of ideology and political philosophy, Sanders would be considered a moderate center-left politician, which is social democracy."

[TransitJohn]

102. That doesn't make what she said wrong.....

[Trust Buster]

105. Her opinion does not reflect the opinion of the majority of registered Democrats.

[TransitJohn]

110. That still doesn't make what she said wrong....

[Trust Buster]

113. Sure, but any supporter of a failed campaign can say the same.

[TransitJohn]

117. And that still wouldn't bear on the veracity

of the poster's comments.

[TransitJohn]

97. yes they would

[nadinbrzezinski]

143. His policies are very moderate

the Democratic party is right wing, the Republcians are far right wing.

[Trust Buster]

145. He is not a moderate. He's a radical IMO.

[nadinbrzezinski]

147. Your lack of understanding of political science is not my issue

He is a moderate center left politician. The democratic party is a center right party, and the Republicans are currently a far right party. Enjoy the party realignment, but at least try to learn the basics of political theory. For the record, since we have now two dominant right wing parties, sooner or later one will go away, and we will have the rise of a center left party.

[Trust Buster]

150. And your lack of votes is not my issue. Game, set, match - me.....LOL

[nadinbrzezinski]

151. And the fact that you relish *your ignorance is your issue*

and very, very, very AMERICAN.

[Trust Buster]

153. I just place that post in the sour grapes category. You insult because your candidate has lost.

[nadinbrzezinski]

155. Well since I have had no candiate in this race

and who I vote is my fucking business. But I do not relish pure ignorance. You do.

So in the effort to educate you, here really, really, baby food level, starting point

http://www.sparknotes.com/us-government-and-politics/political-science/political-ideologies-and-styles/section4.rhtml

[Trust Buster]

165. Your profanity is a clue that I'm done with this conversation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

167. Or the fact that you were shown how ignorant you are

of real political theory. I do take your surrender, and I ask that you take at least one semester of basic political theory in college.

[Trust Buster]

168. True ignorance is dependent on profanity out of a lack of anything intelligent to say IMO.

[nadinbrzezinski]

175. Actually this gets the price for most ironic post in months

[Dragonfli]

169. Stop Digging, you are incredibly clueless and attempting to argue with one that is knowledgeable on

the subject which you appear to wish to dig through a molten core to china by facing that knowledge without the slightest bit of knowledge regarding the subject on your part.

Just stop digging, I am just an observer and even I am embarrassed by your now 50 ft. hole while still descending.

[Trust Buster]

170. I'm in good company. The majority of Democrats voted for Hillary because they believe the same.

[nadinbrzezinski]

174. You mean most democrats are ignorant of really basic political theory?

I agree. I would not be too proud of that fact.

Here



Careful of not reaching the core on your way to China though.

[Trust Buster]

176. You definitely seem full of yourself. You've cornered the market on intelligence. Sad.

[nadinbrzezinski]

179. Nope, but I could point to you some really good reads on basic political theory

But I suspect you do not want it. So that pride in ignorance is actually a problem with partisans on both sides. It comes from the same place actually,

So here, once again, use this but do not get close to the mantle.

[nadinbrzezinski]

173. I am going to be nice

and loan him this...



Once he gets to the molten core though... not even the caterpillar will survive.

[Trust Buster]

178. I actually find Sanders supporters to be nasty and condescending. Nice is not their nature.

[nadinbrzezinski]

180. I find partisans concescending and not nice, wehther they are democrats or republcians

it is actually part of why we are where we are. Nor will it be shocking or surprising to me that sooner or later both party partisans will start shooting at each other, like for real

[CrowCityDem]

84. Everyone thinks they're moderate. Few can see extremities close to home.

[BlindTiresias]

87. My opinion

Is based off of an actual understanding of political philosophy and ideology, not my own ideology which actually -is- radical.

Research social democracy and compare those policy positions to sanders, it is nearly 1:1 aside from foreign policy which Sanders is admittedly fairly orthodox in American terms, which is right wing. Arguably the biggest weakness of his policies.

[nadinbrzezinski]

149. Political party ideology is not that hard

He is a classic center left moderate social democrat

[TransitJohn]

96. That's why the Democratic Party isn't 'solidly to the left' as stated

[YouDig]

3. The posts here attacking Hillary are becoming indistinguishable from FOX News.

Fortunately, this is very far from representative of the Democratic Party.

[Actor]

5. This is true.

[Broward]

24. Fox News is calling the current incarnation of the Dem Party right-wing?

[YouDig]

26. The only thing the Bernie supporters here seem to care about is the email server.

It's a weird obsession, and yeah it is right out of FOX.

[Broward]

29. Well, on this very thread some Bernie supporters are expressing concern that the Dem Party

has moved too far to the right. So, your assertion is false.

[nadinbrzezinski]

152. Anybody with half an understanding of political science

and party ideology understands this is the case.

[nadinbrzezinski]

157. And the Democratic party has still moved RIGHT

I understand a lot too.

It is a reality, one that conforms to the theory of political realignments.

[nadinbrzezinski]

177. And yet the party still have moved right

and now is courting moderate republcians. again, matching that theory

here a good read on this

http://inhomelandsecurity.com/commentary-the-sixth-political-party-realignment-and-the-end-of-the-gop/

And for the record, something will have to replace the DNC as the party of labor and the people... because the DNC has become a right wing party. Yes, you saw things with LGBT... both sides learn to throw bones to the base, especially in the midst of a serious realignment.

As to the ACA, it could have been stronger, it was a plan from Heritage. I left the party when there was a refusal to fight for single payer.

[Demsrule86]

132. their definition of moving right

is not electing St. Bernie. Who is not a Democrat but a Democratic socialist...I am a liberal but I know free college for all and single payer is not happening.

[nadinbrzezinski]

154. Ironically the former

was a reality in CA not too long ago. Perhaps within your lifetime, And hat is just an example of how willfully ignorant Americans are. Nor is that actually radical. The TPP on the other hand, is radical. Surrendering to the Heartland Foundation and SHELL is radical. And not healthy to boot.

[Armstead]

44. That's patent bullshit...if you'd read people's posts

[YouDig]

66. OK, "only" was an exaggeration. The other big topic that Bernie supporters

talk about a lot is sitting out the general election and thus helping Trump win.

Like the email obsession, I'm also glad that isn't representative of real life Democrats either.

[Armstead]

69. Wrong again...If you look through the primary many issues and topics have been raised

[YouDig]

73. Explain to me how anyone who cares about any issue could possibly even contemplate

not voting for the Democrat in November.

[Armstead]

76. I'm in the category of "She gets my vote to stop Trump" but nothing else

I know nothing about how old you are, how long you've been following the much larger underlying differences behind the Bernie V Clinton contest, how many "have to vote for lesser evils because the GOP is so bad...."

people have different reasons though.

Some older people are really fed up with that lack of a positive choice and extortion.

Younger people have no belief or alliegence to democrats because they don't see a lot of difference.

etc.

[YouDig]

89. I'm glad to hear that.

I've never voted for the "lesser of two evils", that whole concept is dumb. I vote for the better option. Do you really think Obama is an "evil"? The choices are between imperfect and truly awful. It's a very clear choice.

Young people who don't see a lot of difference are idiots. Old people don't see a lot of difference are also idiots. The differences are huge, especially now with Trump. But even before that.

If we don't get single payer then just let Trump win? So dumb.

I think part of the reason those people talk about emails all the time instead of any kind of policy issue is because if you think about policy for even one second it becomes totally obvious that Hillary is hugely better than Trump. Trump threatened to default on the debt last week. Before that he threatened to assassinate innocent family members of terror suspects. He wants to ban Muslims from entering the US. And so on.

It's just crazy.

[Armstead]

98. Obama is great -- but he is too closely aligned with a system with evil effects

Clinton is better than Trump because he is batshit crazy.

But in terms of the power structure she is aligned with....No thanks. Been there, done that too many times.

[Amaril]

64. Yes, that's apparently today's meme

from Brock central: "Profess 'confusion' over why people are concerned about the continuing investigation into possible security breaches by Clinton -- refer to it as an 'obsession' -- express concern for the mental well being of those discussing it."

Seen it parroted by at least a dozen posters in different threads -- we got it.

Psssst.......it isn't working.

[YouDig]

71. Yeah, conspiracies about David Brock are also big here. Somehow the Bernie people

are not only obsessed with the emails, but they also believe that everyone who isn't is some kind of secret operative.

Through and through, it's a very strange worldview.

[Amaril]

109. LOL

You seriously think the patterns aren't obvious?

Once or twice a week, a new meme is introduced & gets repeated in thread after thread after thread. The faux "confusion" over the "obsession" with the emails is just the latest. It's actually pretty comical.

Oh, and, deny, deny, deny. Leaks are pesky things, aren't they?

[Dragonfli]

182. Very true, very sad. /nt

[TransitJohn]

99. Yeah, no shit

It's just so much meaningless catapulted propaganda.

[lumberjack_jeff]

118. Nailed it. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

146. From a poli sci perspective... they are correct

[Human101948]

36. Hillary is becoming indistinguishable from a Fox News contributor...

And millions of Democrats disgree with you.

[840high]

94. .+1

[Demsrule86]

131. You should know

I have never seen more supposed liberals posting crap from Fox news and other right wing hate sites...and they are Bernie supporters supposedly the new left. Allegedly.

[arcane1]

50. Funny how many people joined in mid-April and all say the same thing. n/t

[emulatorloo]

4. Quite liberal/progressive in my county.

DU is a bubble filled w political junkies, so don't take it too seriously. It doesn't reflect the real world very well.

[Thinkingabout]

6. There does seem to be RW posters here and a lot of RW talking points,

We have to weed those on individual basis. The Democratic Party and platform is still here.

I hear the same talking points as I hear on RW talk shows and of course anti Hillary points.

[JonLeibowitz]

18. Have you been reading your posts aloud?

[TimPlo]

23. See you know talking about corruption from Wall Street

And Big corps is a left position. They have twisted it to be a Right Wing talking point because you dared criticized Hillary.

[CobaltBlue]

60. TimPlo—Some Hillary voters think it’s not a problem…

Apparently, her beautiful smile is enough for Hillary Clinton to get those Wall Street donations.

They want nothing in return.


Yes! That’s pretty much the thinking.


(What is that phrase Judge Judy likes to say? It has to do with some rain.)

[TimPlo]

65. I guess none of them have worked a day in their life

Where your job depends on tips. 1 regular customer gives you no tip and another gives you 40% tip. Who can honestly say that if it came down to picking one to offer better service too that they would not give the 40% on it.

[Armstead]

46. Silly boy....The definition of right wing is anything that is critical of Clinton

[Demsrule86]

135. You should know

How many right wing article have you posted here bashing Hillary? And yes it is right wing to attack the Democratic nominee.

[Actor]

53. The "Hillary has herself to blame, has done this to herself" is STRAIGHT out of rightwing land

[Armstead]

59. She chose to give speeches to shady Wall St firms and Big Corporations for huge paybacks...

...right before deciding to run for President.

That was one self inflicted wound.

[840high]

101. It's the truth. She did it - in

fact she has provided ample baggage for 20+ years.

[Thinkingabout]

133. Exactly, everything is either Hillary's or Obama's fault.

[Demsrule86]

138. Absolutely right

I would be embarrassed to post articles from Fox or Breitbart or champion Peggy Noonan's lies about the Clinton foundation which has done much good. If it looks like a Republican and posts like a Republican...?

[Chasstev365]

7. Dwight Eisenhower, Howard Baker, and Nelson Rockefeller were more liberal the Clinton Democrats

[griffi94]

9. It's primary season lol

DU is sharply divided between a liberal Democrat
and a very progressive Democratic Socialist.

The liberal Democrat is going to win the nomination tho.
Democratic primary voters who aren't activists aren't nearly
so sharply divided.

The liberal Democrat is crushing the Democratic Socialist
by an insurmountable number of pledged delegates
and 3 million votes.

[PufPuf23]

103. Let me correct your claim.

Hillary Clinton is not a "liberal Democrat"; Clinton is a neo-liberal Democrat and liberal Democrats are the main within party opponents.

Bernie Sanders is not a "very progressive Democratic Socialist"; Sanders is a moderate social Democrat.

The difference between a social democrat and a democratic socialist is that capitalists and corporations own, manage, and profit from means of production in a social democracy while in democratic socialism the government and worker owned coops own and manage means of production and there is no private profit from controlling capital.

Gaslight much?

[griffi94]

112. Eye of the beholder

I think the Beatles are mediocre and the Stones are boss.

Nothing you wrote changes the outcome.
Bernie is getting crushed by
hundreds of delegates and millions of votes.

I guess Democratic primary voters prefer the neo-liberal
to the moderate social Democrat.

[PufPuf23]

127. yeah sure. eom

[Demsrule86]

141. Bernie is not moderate

He did much that would be used to destroy him. America will not elect a socialist or a perceived one (yes I know the difference but average voters do not). Thankfully, Hillary is our nominee.

[Warren DeMontague]

10. If you're a "Megachurch Mom", WELCOME HOME!

I know you've been clamoring for a leader who will do something about the full frontal nudity on HBO.

ITS TIME.

[BlindTiresias]

11. Indeed

it is difficult to determine who are truly ideologically committed to modern right wing thought and who are merely reflexively mimicking those positions due to their opposition to Sanders, though.

[Maedhros]

61. Which is worse? [n/t]

[BlindTiresias]

68. The difference

Is between a demon and a mere useful idiot, the former deserves exile and the latter deserves pity.

Both are bad but the solution should differ, imo.

[Broward]

13. It's right-wing for sure.

However, some continue to claim otherwise. First, Obama is center-right yet no matter how far to the right he
moved to "compromise" with the GOP he's still labeled left by Repubs. Moreover, the Third Wayers and
their sheep repeat the falsehood that corporate Dems like Obama and Clinton are liberal. This just continues to
move the left pole of the debate ever rightward.

[redstateblues]

37. Complete bullshit. Both Hillary and Obama are liberal

Not liberal enough for your Purity Party. Your invocation of the scary straw men is so wearying. Thankfully the primary season is almost over.

[Ed Suspicious]

43. In what ways are they liberal? Why are you so willing to compromise your principles?

Then, are they really principles?

[Broward]

52. You are doing the bidding of the billionaire class whether you know it or not.

[pacalo]

14. I think the Bernie Sanders group is all that's left of the "Democratic Party".

Just read this reply to a Bernie supporter:

Really, bye! Have fun! Enjoy the wilderness with Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein and Susan and Tim.

The post was hidden by four people; three people were fine with it.

[Maedhros]

63. Hey, we're not wanted in the Democratic Party anymore.

What would they do if all the liberals and progressives really DID leave?

[pacalo]

74. It just might happen. Lefties value integrity.

[Maedhros]

126. The Democratic Party believes that it does not need to earn our votes anymore.

We need to prove them wrong.

[pacalo]

128. You are absolutely correct on both counts.

[nadinbrzezinski]

159. Actually they still NEED your votes to win

but they are approaching the moderate Republicans to complete the realignment. So the left wing has to come to terms with that reality. It will take some times, but we have a right wing, and a radical right wing party.

[DirtyHippyBastard]

91. I, and many others, plan on leaving the day after, if HRH gets the nomination. nt.

[Maedhros]

124. I was already out. I only registered to vote for Bernie, then I will switch back. [n/t]

[BootinUp]

15. Ralph... is that you? nt

[Art_from_Ark]

28. Brock... is that you?

[Trajan]

181. +1,000,000 ...

Well played ...

[NCTraveler]

20. Thats because many of the posts are.

I'm with you. I never thought I would see the acreage argument or regular attacks from places like Fox News and Judicial Watch. I had some asshat here directly state I support pedophilia. Pretty sick stuff going on and you are correct, it has a pretty strong stench of being right wing.

[jamese777]

27. In all political parties...

during primary season there is rampant demonization of the intra-party opposition. Once a party chooses its nominee, all but those on the extreme fringes put their ideological differences aside in order to defeat the opposition party.
There are pretty extreme policy differences between Donald Trump and either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton, ie building a wall on the border, registering and monitoring all Muslims and banning Muslim immigration, flirting with the use of nuclear weapons, praising Vladimir Putin's foreign policy, et cetera.

[Maedhros]

75. Stop with the "extreme fringe" nonsense.

Those who oppose war are not "extreme fringe"

Those who oppose corporate-dominated politics are not "extreme fringe"

Those who oppose fracking, the TPP, and private prisons are not "extreme fringe"

When people minimize and insult liberals by calling them "extreme fringe", it means their objective is to brow-beat and shame liberals into accepting conservative corporate policies from ostensibly Democratic politicians. Or, to put it more bluntly: they are full of shit.

/ignore list.

(ON EDIT: another 50-post user who joined in 2006, that just HAD to show up to post milk-toast Third Way propaganda).

[Dragonfli]

184. .

[CobaltBlue]

30. mmonk—Your sense of rightwing is good; but, I don’t hang/post at the Hillary Group.

[hrmjustin]

33. When i see some of the ops trashing Hillary I notice how similar they are to right wing attacks on

her.

Some even use right wing sources to attack her here.

[Rass]

34. Easy to read chart

Political spectrum chart:

[Rass]

41. false? hahaha

here is some more truthiness for ya...report away

[redstateblues]

48. Bernie will endorse Hillary at the convention

[Human101948]

39. That rates Hillary as a moderate authoritarian right winger...

sounds right.

What's the source?

[BlindTiresias]

42. Political compass

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

[redstateblues]

45. Ridiculous. You pulled that out of your ass. I've seen others that have Hillary

Slightly to the right of Bernie.

[BlindTiresias]

47. Political compass

Is fairly well respected and tends to be reasonably accurate. It is not the most complex test but as far as visual mapping of ideology it does a decent job.

[redstateblues]

55. So Bernie will endorse a RW Authoritarian?

Reall goofy to lump HRC with Cruz et al. It makes whoever made that up look foolish

[BlindTiresias]

57. You can message them

And ask them for further justification, the operators of the site tend to be fairly open to commentary and would likely gladly show their work to you.

If you do contact them, I think we would all benefit if you made an OP regarding the exchange.

[TransitJohn]

115. Don't count on that to happen.

[Rass]

62. History lesson

Research "third way democrats" for some background. As for OP's answer, ..yes, the democratic party is to the right since they support Hillary more and has stacked the odds against Bernie. Progressives are trying to fix that problem.

Bernie launched an extremely successful campaign considering how the corporate mainstream censored him. If he decides to run as an independent, they can no longer ignore him and public awareness will be on his side.

[Lizzie Poppet]

49. The membership or the leadership?

I'd offer that the latter is considerably more right-leaning than the former...but the gap is closing, as the leadership continues to steer the party in a direction that causes more left-leaning persons to abandon it.

[Maedhros]

77. The rank-and-file is becoming increasingly willing to be 'herded' into accepting conservative policy

It's the expected result of "Party before policy" thinking.

[Lizzie Poppet]

83. Good point. Brand loyalty is mindless.

Loyalty to principle/policy? Another matter...

[Maedhros]

123. That would be called "integrity." [n/t]

[Kall]

51. It's Not Bush, unless it's privately calling Jeb Bush's big donors.

[Art_from_Ark]

54. Let the de facto head of the Democratic Party explain it

[Go Vols]

108. Obama says he'd be seen as moderate Republican in 1980s,

and Hillary is touting herself as Obama 3.0?

I didn't care much for moderate R's back then either.

[Armstead]

56. Liberal on certain select social issues-- Conservative on Wealth and Power

[Maedhros]

79. Well, they let the grassroots fight the really hard battles (e.g. LGBTQ rights),

then jump in after the fight is over and take the credit.

You never see the Democrats out in front, taking the fight to the enemy.

[Armstead]

80. You're correct....Maybe "more liberal than the GOP" would be more apt

[Maedhros]

122. That's the crux of it.

The modern Democratic rank-and-file thinks that the definitions of "liberal" and "progressive" mean nothing more than "not Republican."

[AgingAmerican]

67. The Democratic party (DNC) is libertarian

Right wing economic policies and semi-liberal social policies.

[SwampG8r]

139. Could it be that anyone to the right of Trotsky is a right winger?

Nope you were wrong i did get to imply exactly that and there wasnt anything you could do.about it

[basselope]

82. The leading candidates are center right.

The people are left, but easily fooled.

[Smarmie Doofus]

86. It's pretty RW. Its ICON ( Clinton) is our Iron Maiden.

A tired Cold Warrior full of WWII era misunderstandings of how the world works. Her biggest fans are self-described "feminists" who mistake obstinance , selfishness, cruelty and unyielding ambition for "strength".

Just like their VN era daddies.... now that I think of it.

This is emotional disturbance set to play out geopolitically in the coming years. Thatcher was hamstrung by the decline of the empire. Clinton is not. Catastrophic results for humanity will result.

And they call *this* progress.

[Doctor_J]

93. Very right wing. They favor torture, more war, more domestic spying, more privatization,

capital punishment, poverty level wage, TPP, ttip, fracking, and the dismemberment of Medicare and social security. Gingrich's revolution of twenty years ago would fit perfectly with the Turd Way.

[jamese777]

104. Crowdpac Ratings

Crowdpac.com is a for-profit, nonpartisan voter education website. Its scoring system is based on public statements, voting records and campaign contributions including contributions to the candidate as well as contributions from the candidate. Scores fall along a liberal/conservative spectrum, with 10L being the most liberal and 10C being the most conservative. A score of zero would indicate a political moderate. Scores are listed from most liberal to most conservative.
Bernie Sanders: 8.2 Liberal
Hillary Clinton: 6.5 Liberal
John Kaisch: 4.6 Conservative
Donald Trump: 6.1 Conservative
Ted Cruz: 9.9 Conservative

The American Conservative Union rates every member of the House and Senate on how they vote on key economic, social and foreign policy issues of primary concern to conservatives. When she was a Senator, the ACA rated Hillary Clinton (100% is perfect conservative):
2001: 12%
2002: 10%
2003: 10%
2004: 0%
2005: 12%
2006: 8%
2007: 0%
2008: 11%

By way of contrast, the most liberal Republican in the Senate is Susan Collins of Maine. She has a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 46% conservative out of a possible 100.

[floriduck]

106. It is two wings of one bird. And the divide widens by the minute.

One wing has migrated further right to what solid Republicans once were. And one wing that has watched the creeping to the right and is finally creeping out about it due to a candidate who gives them hope.

[ozone_man]

107. Moderate wing of Republican party.

Depressing, but true.

[B Calm]

111. K&R Spot On!

[Downwinder]

116. Blue Dogs are coming out.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

119. There is disagreement over economics, but broad agreement on social policy

Over in Republicanland, they are anti-choice, anti-science, and more or less willing to deny religious freedom protections to Muslims. Additionally, many (not all) would like to turn the clock on gay rights back to before Stonewall.

[Vote2016]

136. Far right of Ike's Republican party, somewhat right of Nixon's Republican party, unrecognizable to F

[hobbit709]

137. The D Wing of the Corporatist Party.

[brooklynite]

142. Answer: A Center-Left coalition...

Pro-choice
Pro-Gay rights
Pro-civil rights
Pro-immigration reform
Pro-progressive taxation

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

144. It's a label slapped on almost anything that looks like it might procure a vote or donation.

[Sky Masterson]

164. Republicans with different wedge issues.

.

[PowerToThePeople]

171. I think you have figured it out.

[elana i am]

183. yep, a right wing shit show.

[tammywammy]

186. Locking

forum for general discussion of the Democratic presidential primaries. Disruptive meta-discussion is forbidden.