The Shift in the Democratic Party
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
**What happened to the party? This use to be the party of free speech, anti-war, about freedom of religion and about helping the poor and disaffected that were hurt by the pains of globalization.**
This IS what we are about. |
Anonymous
|
I don't understand why people like the OP come on this forum. Why do you bother if you don't like either party and don't vote? And what kind of person is swayed to vote for a third party by someone who posts on an internet forum? Very strange indeed. |
Anonymous
Evidence proves otherwise. |
Anonymous
LMAO. I’m not OP. |
Anonymous
Clinton was progressive but a deal maker. He negotiated mild welfare reform with the Republican House and Senate and got a minimum wage increase and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program as part of the deal. Also got them to approve the tobacco settlement that was a windfall for states to use as matching funds for SCHIP. NAFTA was started by Reagan and negotiated by Bush. Clinton got side agreements on labor and environment added and established the Trade Adjustment Assistance program with extra benefits, training, etc. for workers displaced by trade. The budget was balanced mainly because the economy was great under Clinton, we reduced or at least stopped increasing defense spending after the USSR collapsed, and no big stupid unnecessary tax cut package was enacted. |
Anonymous
|
Per OP, the Democratic Party used to be but is no longer:
1. The party of free speech. They still are for the most part. Certainly free-speech advocates like the ACLU are more often aligned with Democrats than Republicans. 2. Anti-war. Depends on how far you look back - FDR was a Democrat. But, Democrats were more likely to oppose Vietnam. They were definitely on board with First Iraq and Afghanistan, but they were more likely to oppose Second Iraq. Biden, of course, was able to get us out of Afghanistan where Bush, Obama, and Trump could not. 3. About freedom of religion. They're still more likely than Republicans to be supportive of non-Christian religious views. But they tend not to support tearing down the wall between Church & State. 4. About helping the poor and disaffected (that were hurt by the pains of globalization.) They are much more likely than Republicans to support policies that help the poor - regardless of whether the poverty is a function of globalization. And, per OP, Democrats are now: 1. Co-opted by the military industrial complex. Less than the Republicans. The only military spending Republicans seem to oppose is spending that would impede Putin and his war of aggression against Ukraine. 2. Ditch the struggling blue collar worker. Less so than Republicans and less now than under Obama and especially Clinton. Biden has done the more for blue collar workers than any President since probably LBJ: the American Rescue Plan, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act were all bills that should benefit blue collar workers as much as anything has in a generation. 3. In bed with large tech billionaires. Money rules politics, but guys like Musk and Thiel certainly aren't pro-Democrat. 4. On the side of censorship and the use of authoritarian tactics when it comes with dealing with oppositional speech. Nope. Just look at DCUM - it's awash with speech that is intensely critical of the government and Democrats. Nobody seems to be coming after Jeff to shut it down. |
Anonymous
Ignorance is bliss, huh? |
Anonymous
Yep, pp comes off every bit as adolescent as accused. |
Anonymous
Well, the fact that OP doesn’t understand what free speech is is just one of the reasons I think he’s a conservative troll pretending to be a democrat and he’s just here to stir the pot or breed apathy. |
Anonymous
It’s absolutely f*ing hilarious you would post this simultaneously w/ Joe Biden - the head of the democractic party - become the FIRST PRESIDENT IN US HISTORY TO WALK THE PICKET LINE as part of the UAW strike. Like..you voted for Clinton…didn’t even say it was reluctant..you were happy then? But now you coming here to b*t*h about ditching blue collar workers? You are are a lying sack or PROFOUNDLY uniformed in the relative pro-labor policies of Biden and Clinton. Biden really is one of the most pro-labor presidents to ever exist in US history. Point blank. And the picket line is symbolic but his ACTUAL policies in negotiating this as well as IRA and several others did actual PRO LABOR things. You’re…full of sh!t. But we all knew that when you came here to advocate for poor Russia and Putin. |
Anonymous
Thank god. |
Anonymous
Can we please stop trying to convince this person to vote ? If you really can’t decide which party is better for the US - the dems or the authoritarians who tried to end elections in this country - please for the love of god let this idiot sit it out. Honestly, thank god they know their own limits. |
Anonymous
Clinton was also the last newly elected president that made sense from the standpoint of resume and fitness for office. Go figure. We did begin to see a growing amount of toxicity in relationships between congressional leaders and the Clinton Administration in the 90s but that environment was much less toxic than today's environment. Bottom line- government functioned at an acceptable level in the 90s. Government isn't currently functioning at an acceptable level. |
Anonymous
Applause! Thank you. This is what I’m here for. |
Anonymous
The US has a crucial interest in the war in Ukraine and our involvement is prudent. Our involvement isn't a matter of foaming at the mouth for war. Foreign policy savvy government officials from both parties and around the world concur with this sentiment. Seemingly writing blank checks to fund Ukraine's war effort without there being a clear plan of action to end the conflict is something that we can question and debate but anyone suggesting our involvement isn't necessary has no idea how globally devastating a Putin victory could be. |