Does anyone NOT think that the Democratic Party has CLEARLY moved Left?

[Terri4Trump]

He called his wife "mommy" and spent the war in Hollywood, making movies.

I don't care if he called her Queen Elizabeth. He was a better man than any of the losers we have today.

Not everyone dressed like Cary and not everyone dresses like 2018....What the hell happened to your logic abilities?

Bite me DickBlow

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He was a better man than any of the losers we have today.

Hmm, no, he was a fool.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Well in the late 80’s and early 90’s the entire nation was in thrall to Reaganism, and for Republicans, that continues to this day.

Greatest president ever. Greatest post-war economic boom .

Ronald Reagan was s a real MAN. God help us but they just don't make real men like him anymore. Oh, there may be a few scattered here and there I guess, but not many. Men have become sissified, little bitches. So sad.

Thanks, but no thanks.
Open borders, Amnesty Reagan was a disaster.

 

[Dragonlady]

All of the Dim candidates last night would give free healthcare to illegals.
Beyond fucking belief !

On health care, whether you agree with them or not, at least they're providing clarity.

Part of the reason for this move to the Left is that they feel Trump and the GOP have given them an opening to do so.
.

Here’s the culmination of their race to outbid each other....FREE EVERYTHING FOR EVERYBODY!

I don't need to list the examples, issues and policies.

There have been people here who deny this, so let's address it head on.

If you think the Democratic Party has not moved clearly to the Left, please explain your reasoning.

Thanks!
.

O.k., I don't disagree, but in an earlier time, say late 80s/early 90s, the Democrats were so far right they could be considered an extension of the Republican Party. Especially what I noticed in local elections back then, but it could still be the case in some places where Republicans are very popular.

It would be nice if the country was not run by corporations, but I only see that changing a very tiny bit in the near future.

Well in the late 80’s and early 90’s the entire nation was in thrall to Reaganism, and for Republicans, that continues to this day.

Reagan repudiated “trickle down economics” when unemployment reached 6%, the stock market crashed and his post tax cut deficit doubled. That’s when he started raising taxes. But W doubled down on trickle down, and look at the mess he left.

Trump thinks the third time’s the charm. It’s not working and he goosed that deficit so high it made Reagan, W and Obama all look like pikers in comparison. When economists warn Trump of the long term consequences he responded that he’d be long gone before that happened so what did he care?

I'll try not to sound TOO cynical here, but I doubt it goes even that deep.

Trump wanted to be President and he knew the route was through the base. He wants to elected again and knows it's all about pleasing the base again.

So to hell with the long run or the actual effects of the policies. . Ask Hannity and Limbaugh what the base wants, do that, and to hell with anything or anyone else says.
.

Are we at the point now where you have a complaint about a politician who actually responds to the wants of citizens?
This is exactly why we are so happy with him...of course we could have elected the one that called us names. But we didn’t.

Trump has not responded to the wants of citizens. He's hasn't brought back manufacturing jobs. Most of the big job announcements he made have been pulled. Foxxcon is NOT investing any money in Wisconsin because of the tariffs on Chinese goods. GM is CLOSING its plant in the mid-West and moving the jobs to Mexico. Amazon is NOT building a new headquarters in New York, and has not announced where it will build.

I would like to interject that this business of giving tax breaks to corporations has gotten utterly out of hand. I know the conservatives here will blame AOC for the Amazon debacle, but just who was SUPPOSED to pay for the additional roads, subways, and other developmental considerations in building a facility that large and that 50,000 people would be going to and from on a daily basis? A facility that large is drawing in a small city to it's location every day. Let's assume that this facility employs 3 shifts to keep it operating 24/7. If everybody works a 42 hour week, you'll have 12,500 people working at a time.

Each shift change would have 25,000 people coming and going from one small spot on the map at one time. Anyone who has every attended a large sporting event, concert, or other venue knows what the traffic coming and going from such happenings is like. And stadiums, outdoor concert facilities and large indoor arenas are generally located with quick and easy access to mass transit facilities and lines, as well as good vehicular access and parking for those who are driving. Imagine having the comings and goings of a large scale entertainment venue, moving into your neighbourhood, and they're running 3 shows at day - 25,000 arriving and leaving at the same time - three times a day. Even with flex time, that might spread out the action to a 90 minute period, it's still a lot of transit cars, parking space, and roadways to add an extra 37,500 people coming into area each day.

Working in development law for big projects was a major eye opener for me. There is a LOT of back and forthing between the municipality and the developer as to who will do what and when, and how much it will cost, where the lines will be located, and when does the City take over the services. The larger the project, the more variables. The developer is always angling for getting the most dollars possible, and the City is always concerned about the impact on the existing community.

Will existing traffic patterns be disrupted? Will existing roads providing access to the location be wide enough to handle any traffic increases? In big city developments, there may also be cost sharing agreements on infrastructure construction with neighbouring land owners, to add to the complexity. For example, if three condo buildings share a playground and swimming pool, or a parking garage, there will be a Cost Sharing Agreement between the three condo corporations for the shared facilities.

All of these costs should not be shunted to local taxpayers, because they're not getting any direct benefit from having Amazon in their community. Every man, woman and child in Wisconsin would have had to pay Foxxcon $731. to cover their tax breaks to locate in their state. How are taxpayers in these jurisdictions further ahead when they're in essencing bribing these companies with taxpayer dollers?

 

[DOTR]

All of the Dim candidates last night would give free healthcare to illegals.
Beyond fucking belief !

On health care, whether you agree with them or not, at least they're providing clarity.

Part of the reason for this move to the Left is that they feel Trump and the GOP have given them an opening to do so.
.

Here’s the culmination of their race to outbid each other....FREE EVERYTHING FOR EVERYBODY!

I don't need to list the examples, issues and policies.

There have been people here who deny this, so let's address it head on.

If you think the Democratic Party has not moved clearly to the Left, please explain your reasoning.

Thanks!
.

O.k., I don't disagree, but in an earlier time, say late 80s/early 90s, the Democrats were so far right they could be considered an extension of the Republican Party. Especially what I noticed in local elections back then, but it could still be the case in some places where Republicans are very popular.

It would be nice if the country was not run by corporations, but I only see that changing a very tiny bit in the near future.

Well in the late 80’s and early 90’s the entire nation was in thrall to Reaganism, and for Republicans, that continues to this day.

Reagan repudiated “trickle down economics” when unemployment reached 6%, the stock market crashed and his post tax cut deficit doubled. That’s when he started raising taxes. But W doubled down on trickle down, and look at the mess he left.

Trump thinks the third time’s the charm. It’s not working and he goosed that deficit so high it made Reagan, W and Obama all look like pikers in comparison. When economists warn Trump of the long term consequences he responded that he’d be long gone before that happened so what did he care?

I'll try not to sound TOO cynical here, but I doubt it goes even that deep.

Trump wanted to be President and he knew the route was through the base. He wants to elected again and knows it's all about pleasing the base again.

So to hell with the long run or the actual effects of the policies. . Ask Hannity and Limbaugh what the base wants, do that, and to hell with anything or anyone else says.
.

Are we at the point now where you have a complaint about a politician who actually responds to the wants of citizens?
This is exactly why we are so happy with him...of course we could have elected the one that called us names. But we didn’t.

Trump has not responded to the wants of citizens. He's hasn't brought back manufacturing jobs. Most of the big job announcements he made have been pulled. Foxxcon is NOT investing any money in Wisconsin because of the tariffs on Chinese goods. GM is CLOSING its plant in the mid-West and moving the jobs to Mexico. Amazon is NOT building a new headquarters in New York, and has not announced where it will build.

I would like to interject that this business of giving tax breaks to corporations has gotten utterly out of hand. I know the conservatives here will blame AOC for the Amazon debacle, but just who was SUPPOSED to pay for the additional roads, subways, and other developmental considerations in building a facility that large and that 50,000 people would be going to and from on a daily basis? A facility that large is drawing in a small city to it's location every day. Let's assume that this facility employs 3 shifts to keep it operating 24/7. If everybody works a 42 hour week, you'll have 12,500 people working at a time.

Each shift change would have 25,000 people coming and going from one small spot on the map at one time. Anyone who has every attended a large sporting event, concert, or other venue knows what the traffic coming and going from such happenings is like. And stadiums, outdoor concert facilities and large indoor arenas are generally located with quick and easy access to mass transit facilities and lines, as well as good vehicular access and parking for those who are driving. Imagine having the comings and goings of a large scale entertainment venue, moving into your neighbourhood, and they're running 3 shows at day - 25,000 arriving and leaving at the same time - three times a day. Even with flex time, that might spread out the action to a 90 minute period, it's still a lot of transit cars, parking space, and roadways to add an extra 37,500 people coming into area each day.

Working in development law for big projects was a major eye opener for me. There is a LOT of back and forthing between the municipality and the developer as to who will do what and when, and how much it will cost, where the lines will be located, and when does the City take over the services. The larger the project, the more variables. The developer is always angling for getting the most dollars possible, and the City is always concerned about the impact on the existing community.

Will existing traffic patterns be disrupted? Will existing roads providing access to the location be wide enough to handle any traffic increases? In big city developments, there may also be cost sharing agreements on infrastructure construction with neighbouring land owners, to add to the complexity. For example, if three condo buildings share a playground and swimming pool, or a parking garage, there will be a Cost Sharing Agreement between the three condo corporations for the shared facilities.

All of these costs should not be shunted to local taxpayers, because they're not getting any direct benefit from having Amazon in their community. Every man, woman and child in Wisconsin would have had to pay Foxxcon $731. to cover their tax breaks to locate in their state. How are taxpayers in these jurisdictions further ahead when they're in essencing bribing these companies with taxpayer dollers?

What do you know about the wants of American citizens? You are a foreign subject.

 

[DOTR]

I don't need to list the examples, issues and policies.

There have been people here who deny this, so let's address it head on.

If you think the Democratic Party has not moved clearly to the Left, please explain your reasoning.

Thanks!
.

O.k., I don't disagree, but in an earlier time, say late 80s/early 90s, the Democrats were so far right they could be considered an extension of the Republican Party. Especially what I noticed in local elections back then, but it could still be the case in some places where Republicans are very popular.

It would be nice if the country was not run by corporations, but I only see that changing a very tiny bit in the near future.

Well in the late 80’s and early 90’s the entire nation was in thrall to Reaganism, and for Republicans, that continues to this day.

Reagan repudiated “trickle down economics” when unemployment reached 6%, the stock market crashed and his post tax cut deficit doubled. That’s when he started raising taxes. But W doubled down on trickle down, and look at the mess he left.

Trump thinks the third time’s the charm. It’s not working and he goosed that deficit so high it made Reagan, W and Obama all look like pikers in comparison. When economists warn Trump of the long term consequences he responded that he’d be long gone before that happened so what did he care?

I'll try not to sound TOO cynical here, but I doubt it goes even that deep.

Trump wanted to be President and he knew the route was through the base. He wants to elected again and knows it's all about pleasing the base again.

So to hell with the long run or the actual effects of the policies. . Ask Hannity and Limbaugh what the base wants, do that, and to hell with anything or anyone else says.
.

Are we at the point now where you have a complaint about a politician who actually responds to the wants of citizens?
This is exactly why we are so happy with him...of course we could have elected the one that called us names. But we didn’t.

Obama "actually responded to the wants of citizens" too, yet I'm guessing you weren't fond of how he did that.

At least he had more citizens vote for him than for his opponents.
.

Obama responded to the wants of the ruling elites. Not citizens. It wouldn’t have taken lawsuits and threats had he been responding to citizens.

 

[Pete7469]

Yep, the Democratic Party has moved left. But why is that bad? The left is 'of the people', and to be clear and honest, the right is not.

Lincoln said it best, we are a nation of the people, by the people and for the people. That alone should enlighten the readers that the Republican Party in the 21st Century is no longer the party of Lincoln.

The left is of "the people"? Yeah sure, if your goal is to work people to death and expedite their transformation into fertilizer like every other leftist government on earth has done to this day.

How can anyone be stupid enough to post "The LEFT IS OF THE PEOPLE"? On what planet is gulags, death camps, forced labor, deliberate famines, genocide and oppression a good thing?

I'm delighted the "right" is not. The "right" is the philosophy of Lincoln, the GOP is supposed to be the opposition of the sort of big government that leftists like stalin created.

What's wrong with the centre?

The center of Right Vs. Wrong? It means you're never better than HALF WRONG. It means you only purge the resistance I suppose.

There is no "center" between freedom or slavery.


.


.

 

[Tehon]

I don't need to list the examples, issues and policies.

There have been people here who deny this, so let's address it head on.

If you think the Democratic Party has not moved clearly to the Left, please explain your reasoning.

Thanks!
.

The Democratic Party is a center right party. Look at how they legislate and don't get fooled by primary rhetoric, pandering for leftist votes. Once the candidate has been selected they usually move back to a center right position anyway.

Bernie Sanders is the Independent who has moved the conversation more to the left. But note how the Democratic Party conspired against him in the previous election and how the other candidates (actual Democrats) tried to distance themselves from him last night.

 

[Terri4Trump]

 

[Terri4Trump]

The Democratic Party is a center right party.........

LOLLLLL. You are retarded AND on crack!!!

 

[Silver Blooded]

I don't need to list the examples, issues and policies.

There have been people here who deny this, so let's address it head on.

If you think the Democratic Party has not moved clearly to the Left, please explain your reasoning.

Thanks!
.

The Democratic Party is a center right party. Look at how they legislate and don't get fooled by primary rhetoric, pandering for leftist votes. Once the candidate has been selected they usually move back to a center right position anyway.

Bernie Sanders is the Independent who has moved the conversation more to the left. But note how the Democratic Party conspired against him in the previous election and how the other candidates (actual Democrats) tried to distance themselves from him last night.

That is totally not true. I see sound clips of HRC and other politicians from the 90's and early 2000's I 100% agree with what they said in the sound clips. Nowadays, I can barely agree with ANYTHING that comes out of the mouth of any member of the democratic party -- politics related. I swear, if the Democratic party hadn't moved from the 90's I would be a registered Democrat.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Popular vote doesn’t count, and your figure is also wrong.

It doesn't count for selecting the president, but it clearly shows where the country is collectively.

Here's the thing... we've had discussions on issues, and the left has kind of prevailed on a lot of them.... as they always do, as society always progresses.

Blacks having equal rights was a crazy liberal idea at one point. Like within my lifetime, and while i am old, I'm not that old. Now no one really debates they shouldn't.

Liberalism and Leftism are two isolated ideas.

Liberalism said we have God given rights and we all can buy guns.

Leftism, see Stalin for all examples.

 

[Rustic]

I don't need to list the examples, issues and policies.

There have been people here who deny this, so let's address it head on.

If you think the Democratic Party has not moved clearly to the Left, please explain your reasoning.

Thanks!
.

Ohhhh, Stormy... No one has denied that the Democrats moved to the left. Because the country has. Republicans have only won the popular vote once in the last 31 years.

Here's the reality that you don't get. No one votes for moderation.

The party that runs a moderate, loses. Every time.

Lol
This is supposed to be a republic, not a shit eating democracy… You fucking retard

 

[Pete7469]

The Democratic Party is a center right party.........

LOLLLLL. You are retarded AND on crack!!!

No... Crack would have him jerking off watching romper room videos.

That idiot is huffing paint.

He did touch on something important by accident though. The billionaires who fund the DNC use it as a tool to keep the occutards contained. Full blown commie bed wetters can not be allowed to organize like the bolsheviks did, or then they might start actually going after the "1%". What we are watching right now, is the monster getting out of control when Bernie beat their hag in the primaries before 2016, so they cheated him out of the nomination. He sold his soul cheap.

I'm not sure why the elites don't grasp that educating people about how economics and free markets actually work, and benefit the largest amount of people would be better than promoting the politics of hate and envy. I can only guess they assume it's easier to control stupid people, than educated them and let them sink or swim.

 

[Tehon]

I don't need to list the examples, issues and policies.

There have been people here who deny this, so let's address it head on.

If you think the Democratic Party has not moved clearly to the Left, please explain your reasoning.

Thanks!
.

The Democratic Party is a center right party. Look at how they legislate and don't get fooled by primary rhetoric, pandering for leftist votes. Once the candidate has been selected they usually move back to a center right position anyway.

Bernie Sanders is the Independent who has moved the conversation more to the left. But note how the Democratic Party conspired against him in the previous election and how the other candidates (actual Democrats) tried to distance themselves from him last night.

That is totally not true. I see sound clips of HRC and other politicians from the 90's and early 2000's I 100% agree with what they said in the sound clips. Nowadays, I can barely agree with ANYTHING that comes out of the mouth of any member of the democratic party -- politics related. I swear, if the Democratic party hadn't moved from the 90's I would be a registered Democrat.

She switched from calling out superpredators to calling out deplorables?

 

[Rustic]

I don't need to list the examples, issues and policies.

There have been people here who deny this, so let's address it head on.

If you think the Democratic Party has not moved clearly to the Left, please explain your reasoning.

Thanks!
.

Yep, the Democratic Party has moved left. But why is that bad? The left is 'of the people', and to be clear and honest, the right is not.

Lincoln said it best, we are a nation of the people, by the people and for the people. That alone should enlighten the readers that the Republican Party in the 21st Century is no longer the party of Lincoln.

...And Lincoln was one of our shittier presidents

 

[Rustic]

I don't need to list the examples, issues and policies.

There have been people here who deny this, so let's address it head on.

If you think the Democratic Party has not moved clearly to the Left, please explain your reasoning.

Thanks!
.

I think that the Democratic Party NEEDED to move to the left. Since Bill Clinton moved the party 50 paces to the right to win election in 1992, Democrats have basically abandoned leftist policies. But now the full on destruction of 40 years of right wing low tax policies, no infrastructure or program investments for the people, combined with the economic drain of 18 years of continuous war, has come home to roost, it's time to stop pretending that Republicans know how to stimulate an economy, or provide a stable platform for economic growth.

Lol
Government programs don’t help anybody, but fucking losers.

Tax money never goes to the country

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

All of the Dim candidates last night would give free healthcare to illegals.
Beyond fucking belief !

On health care, whether you agree with them or not, at least they're providing clarity.

Part of the reason for this move to the Left is that they feel Trump and the GOP have given them an opening to do so.
.

Trump is not very conservative, he is a little to the right of center

 

[Tehon]

The Democratic Party is a center right party.........

LOLLLLL. You are retarded AND on crack!!!

No... Crack would have him jerking off watching romper room videos.

That idiot is huffing paint.

He did touch on something important by accident though. The billionaires who fund the DNC use it as a tool to keep the occutards contained. Full blown commie bed wetters can not be allowed to organize like the bolsheviks did, or then they might start actually going after the "1%". What we are watching right now, is the monster getting out of control when Bernie beat their hag in the primaries before 2016, so they cheated him out of the nomination. He sold his soul cheap.

I'm not sure why the elites don't grasp that educating people about how economics and free markets actually work, and benefit the largest amount of people would be better than promoting the politics of hate and envy. I can only guess they assume it's easier to control stupid people, than educated them and let them sink or swim.

I'm the idiot huffing paint........ that you agree with. Okay then.

 

[Rustic]

I don't need to list the examples, issues and policies.

There have been people here who deny this, so let's address it head on.

If you think the Democratic Party has not moved clearly to the Left, please explain your reasoning.

Thanks!
.

I think that the Democratic Party NEEDED to move to the left. Since Bill Clinton moved the party 50 paces to the right to win election in 1992, Democrats have basically abandoned leftist policies. But now the full on destruction of 40 years of right wing low tax policies, no infrastructure or program investments for the people, combined with the economic drain of 18 years of continuous war, has come home to roost, it's time to stop pretending that Republicans know how to stimulate an economy, or provide a stable platform for economic growth.

They took Reagan's "government is the problem" speech line and ran with it as if it were gospel. And now they've got a guy in the White House who goes out of his way to insult and polarize.

This has left the door wide open for the Left to act. The problem is that they're going too far, which is typical in the political world.

I mentioned earlier that the biggest concern I've had since the day Trump was elected has been that the response and reaction to him would be like nothing we've ever seen before. So far I think I'm right. And that could lead to a kneejerk reaction that goes too far.
.

I agree that they've gone WAY too far, with Sander's force march to Medicare For All. And I don't think that wiping out ALL student debt is doable or even desireable, especially for the Ivy League private schools with the big ticket tuition. OTOH, I do agree that something drastic needs to be done on both issues, but the devil is in the details.

A few years ago, I opined that high student debt loads coming out of university were going to hobble this generation of graduates in terms of disposable income to get married, start a family, buy cars, houses, and generally become the kind of consumers of durable goods that drives the economy forward. And the people most hobbled, are those who leave Ivy League Schools with enough debt to purchase a modest house in many small town communities.

At the time I was espousing these ideas, I was called a crazy leftist looking for free shit, but from the standpoint of a student of economics, on issues such as this, turn entire economic shifts. The demographic is large enough, and the impact is rippling throughout the economy. My oldest child is 18 years older than my youngest, so I've had the perspective of sending two generations out into the world, and the world for my 47 & 45 year old children and their friends has been far, far different, than entry into the work force for their sister's generation.

Statistically, the Baby Boom Echo kids stayed in school longer, and lived at home longer than their parents. When I left home at age 18 to go to the Big City to school, I never went home again. I don't think I ever spent another night under my mother's roof. My older children's generation left home, married and started their families, 3 or 4 years later than their parents, and the next generation is staying home even longer, in large part because of carrying enormous amounts of student debt. These are middle class, well educated adults, who's disposable income, which would either be going to savings, or building a home and a life for themselves, is now paying principle and interest on their student loans.

When it comes to health care, if it's not broke don't fix it. If people want insurance companies directing their treatment and paying 30% of their health care dollars to the insurance companies, plus co-pays that would bankrupt most families, because paying an $18,000 a year premium isn't enough "skin in the game" for insurance companies. Customers need co-pays to ensure they don't "abuse the system". I say let them continue to be ripped off.

But at the same time offer a public alternative, that has the same kind of administrative costs as Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA. At a premium 25% lower than the private market, with no-pays, no pre-approvals, and low administration costs, and watch the public leave the for-profits behind. In a heartbeat. Americans are the cheapest people in the world. That's why you had off-shoring in the first place. Better, cheaper, healthcare for all is possible.

You're currently paying nearly double the amount of money per capita that all other industrialized countries in the world pay, and 10% of your population has little to no access to quality health care at all. Your healthcare costs are driven by the willingness of private insurers to pay ridiculous amounts for some treatments. Healthcare decisions should not be decisions motivated purely by profit, and what is most profitable for the insurance industry. These are not "disinterested parties".

The answer is sitting right in front of us: Just expand the current, popular Medicare/Medicare Supplement/Medicare Advantage system to all. An effective mix of public foundational coverage and dynamic free market competition and innovation. Tweaks could easily be made to it to make it more affordable.

I can understand why the GOP hates it - it includes the evil government and they're trained to lose their shit there out of sheer ignorance - but I think the Democrats would be VERY smart to roll something like that out.
.

Once the public sees the cost differential, and the lack of pre-approvals (a TOTAL WASTE OF TIME AND RESOURCES), reduced paperwork, etc. the public option will leave the private insurers in the dust. As a Canadian, I cannot believe the costs and the hoops that Americans tolerate to access health care. I go to the hospital or the doctor's office, hand them my OHIP card, they verify my address, phone number and the contact information for my next of kin hasn't changed, or give them my new information, which is entered on their records, and my paperwork is done. I only have to notify OHIP if my address changes and get a new picture taken for my card every 5 years.

Lol
You do realize millions of Americans want nothing to do with what you speak of. It would be a living hell fuck that....