Yeah, real Democrats don’t execute the mentally disabled as a political stunt, and describing belief in human rights as “pro-criminal” is criminal for a Democrat.
Yeah, real Democrats don’t execute the mentally disabled as a political stunt, and describing belief in human rights as “pro-criminal” is criminal for a Democrat.
Using “DLC” as an exemplar rather than an epithet in 2024, is counter to values shared by the pro-Constitution, pro-civil rights, pro-civil liberties, pro-human rights core of the party. You might as well say Dixiecrat.
You first. I remember the CIA importing cocaine to the U.S. and the GOP providing chemical weapons targeting info to Iraq while selling weapons to Iran, yes.
I forgot, were you at DKE, and under what moniker, or do we have a new troll who's trying to disrupt things by using right-wing propaganda to caricature and attack the left? Is your line of "argumentation" analysis of campaigns and elections?
And the people who "had control of Congress, most Governors and most state legislatures" were to the RIGHT of where the Democratic Party is today. Back then, Joe Manchin would have been considered a "radical liberal."
Manchin never would have been considered very liberal, let alone a radical, in my lifetime. Do you forget that there used to be moderate and liberal Republicans?
Well aware of that fact. Political affiliation was for many years in the USA based primarily on regionalism, religion, and ethnicity. Not based on ideology. My point is that many of those once hardcore Democratic states were not dominated by liberals. Paleo's continued insistence that the Democratic Party became the minority party because we became too conservative is simply not based in fact or reality. Joe Manchin was well to the left of the Herman Talmadge, George Wallace, Lloyd Bentsen, Willis Robertson, et cetera types. BTW, lest we forget that Tip O'Neill if anything was actually considered a moderate to conservative at best until he came out against the Vietnam War.
It wasn't just segregation. Even before FDR's death, many Democratic politicians - especially in the south - had broken with FDR and the New Deal. It was called the Conservative Coalition as they aligned with Republicans. Not to mention the so called "boll weevil" Democrats of the late 1970s and 1980s. As a whole, the Democratic Party of 2024 is absolutely more liberal, even and especially on economic issues than the Democratic Party of 1984 or of 1944. If that wasn't the case, Taft Hartley would have never come to pass.
Yeah, real Democrats don’t execute the mentally disabled as a political stunt, and describing belief in human rights as “pro-criminal” is criminal for a Democrat.
Are you talking about Clinton in 1992? He did what he needed to do to win and I don’t fault him for letting that guy get executed.
Using “DLC” as an exemplar rather than an epithet in 2024, is counter to values shared by the pro-Constitution, pro-civil rights, pro-civil liberties, pro-human rights core of the party. You might as well say Dixiecrat.
How old are you? Were you alive in the 1980s, when Democrats were losing presidential elections by 40+ state landslide margins?
The DLC was needed desperately back then to make the Democratic Party attractive to voters. Crime was one of the issues they were right about.
You first. I remember the CIA importing cocaine to the U.S. and the GOP providing chemical weapons targeting info to Iraq while selling weapons to Iran, yes.
So you’re one of those far, fringe left types.
Newsflash:the fringe that voted against the Civil Rights Act, because we needed to keep the South Solid? Not where we are as a party.
I forgot, were you at DKE, and under what moniker, or do we have a new troll who's trying to disrupt things by using right-wing propaganda to caricature and attack the left? Is your line of "argumentation" analysis of campaigns and elections?
What's far left and fringe about that?
The CIA, at best, knew about the Contras smuggling drugs into the US and looked the other way.
That's not a fringe argument. John Kerry chaired a whole Senate committee during his freshman term that found exactly this.
I was. And maybe that outrage was politically necessary then, but it isn't now.
And had control of congress, most governors and most state legislatures.
And the people who "had control of Congress, most Governors and most state legislatures" were to the RIGHT of where the Democratic Party is today. Back then, Joe Manchin would have been considered a "radical liberal."
Manchin never would have been considered very liberal, let alone a radical, in my lifetime. Do you forget that there used to be moderate and liberal Republicans?
Well aware of that fact. Political affiliation was for many years in the USA based primarily on regionalism, religion, and ethnicity. Not based on ideology. My point is that many of those once hardcore Democratic states were not dominated by liberals. Paleo's continued insistence that the Democratic Party became the minority party because we became too conservative is simply not based in fact or reality. Joe Manchin was well to the left of the Herman Talmadge, George Wallace, Lloyd Bentsen, Willis Robertson, et cetera types. BTW, lest we forget that Tip O'Neill if anything was actually considered a moderate to conservative at best until he came out against the Vietnam War.
The elephant in the room is segregationists.
It wasn't just segregation. Even before FDR's death, many Democratic politicians - especially in the south - had broken with FDR and the New Deal. It was called the Conservative Coalition as they aligned with Republicans. Not to mention the so called "boll weevil" Democrats of the late 1970s and 1980s. As a whole, the Democratic Party of 2024 is absolutely more liberal, even and especially on economic issues than the Democratic Party of 1984 or of 1944. If that wasn't the case, Taft Hartley would have never come to pass.
That's absolutely correct.