Under Obama, the Democratic Party has moved further to the right since Reconstruction

bac, I thought of you when I saw this Politico headline with Ralph Nader calling Obama a war criminal. Now there were people who attacked Bush from the right just as there are people who attack Obama from left. While it's easy for partisan Republicans and Democrats to dismiss each other I often find it interesting to hear complaints when they come from the same "side".

I'm not posting this because I believe Nader is right I just think it adds a different dynamic to the discussion. Then again if you agree with Nader bac maybe apple will call you a "downer" again because you know, Obama can do no wrong.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81649.html

It's not about Obama doing no wrong. If the Repubs disagree with his policies then they should state clearly why. Not make up lies. Is that too much to ask?
 
At one time in our history it was republicans who fought for humanity, then it shifted to democrats who fought for humanity. But today, neither of them do. They only fight to win elections.

The Democratic Party has been slipping to the right since Clinton, but Obama has moved the democrats further to the right since the days of Reconstruction when republicans were the good guys.

The Democrats have shifted further to the left on many issues. The ones you list below you are just realizing, it doesn't mean they haven't always been true.

Today's Democratic Party is pro-war and as callous about human life as they were during the days of slavery. Think Muslims as the slaves.

Today's Democratic Party supports NDAA .. which is far worse than the Patriot Act that many democrats where against when Bush was in office. Far removed from the Democratic Party that fough FOR civil liberties and AGAINST unnecssary government intrusion.

Today's Democratic Party supports the killing of American citizens without trial .. just because a president says to kill them. Light years from what the democratic stand would have been if a republican was in office.

Today's Democratic Party supports the murders of innocent children, women, and men just as callously as any fire-breathing hate-filled right-winger would. I guess they call them collateral damage to ease the spot where their conscience used to be.

Vietnam... The Democratic Party under Kennedy and Johnson thought much of the above.

Today's Democratic Party has little to nothing to say about how Wall Street buys republican politicians .. and they have just as little to say about bailouts and nobody going to jail for the frauds that the American people paid for with their homes, investments, and pensions.

This is comical. Wall St has been buying both parties for decades. To pretend it is just the republicans being bought is comical. They contributed more to Obama than to McCain. They also contributed heavily to Clinton. Hell, it was corrupt practices by Joe Kennedy that made the Kennedy fortune.

Social Security will be cut .. there will be no talk of restoring the billions that have been stolen from the program. Election will be over, who needs old people?

Nope. The US cannot renig on its obligations to SS. SS is also an easy fix. Medicare is going to get crushed because we cannot pay for all the glorious promises made by idiots like Obama. They sound nice and everyone WANTS to be able to do everything for everyone... but it is not fiscally viable.

I won't say the Dems haven't shifted to the right on any issues... but on the whole, Obama is far to the left of Clinton. Obama is all about pulling more and more power into the hands of the DC elite. That is a left wing pursuit, not right.
 
BAC, it is so easy to characterise the West as targeting Muslims. If that were the case, why did NATO intervene in Kosovo and Bosnia? Also, what religion has killed the most Muslims? Hint, it isn't Christianity.

Today's Democratic Party is pro-war and as callous about human life as they were during the days of slavery. Think Muslims as the slaves.
 
The same reason I have a need for a boss to care about me and the guy who tests the swimming pool water at the local Y and the chef in the restaurant. These are people in charge of the places I go. They see the big picture.
If they are the ones with the big picture, why would they let us elect them?
 
Much respect for you Apple, but the point isn't the half-measures of Obamacare .. nor is it about republicans at all. The point here is the direction of the Democratic Party .. and the greater point is the need for a party and politicians who do not support needless for-profit wars, killing American citizens without trial, and who do not support the NDAA.

I understand but tackling those issues would distract from other issues. Health care coverage has been a topic since 1912! One hundred years exactly. Look how the Repubs attacked ObamaCare. What would happen if Obama appeared weak on security? He'd accomplish nothing and be voted out in a heart beat. The lies are so pervasive and the Repubs are doing all they can to trip him up.

After two Bush terms and the consequences letting Obama finsh his job is the logical thing to do. If nothing else if he fails his "type" of government, social policy strong, will have been tried.

This is really a test of social policy, a change of direction for the country. My bet is in '16 another Dem government will be elected as the people will have experienced ObamaCare. The American people have been lied to for so long they have trouble trusting Obama and his policies. Once they realize them first hand there will be no turning back. The Repubs know that. That's why the unprecedented attack on ObamaCare.

I see his second term as having fewer wars and the people having confidence in him when he says there's no need for a war. As the first Black President coupled with initiating/promoting social policies he's walking a fine line. People are still skeptical. They trust him only so far. Race coupled with social policies are a huge change not to mention the change that occurred financially. I think the people should hear him out. This is a rare chance for the country.
 
Big or small, lying is lying.

And Democrats lie all the time about Republicans. You either choose not to see it or just ignore it when you do because you support their agenda. Like I said it's a big world out there when you take off the partisan blinders.

However I do understand those who are fed up with the two party system and the constant partisan bitching back and forth while the two parties often act in the exact manner.
 
The same reason I have a need for a boss to care about me and the guy who tests the swimming pool water at the local Y and the chef in the restaurant. These are people in charge of the places I go. They see the big picture.

I feel sorry for you. Sounds like you are setting yourself up for loads of disappointment. No wonder libs are always so angry.

They think thier affirmative action president is a shoe in yet they are still so angry all the time. Makes no sense
 
Kudos to you for being able to interpret that question. Could you explain it to me please. My initial response was WTF?
this is where the liberals show their insanity. Apples insistence that the government is in charge of us, that they are the boss, that they created our society. It's insane. The history revisionism is necessary for her to believe that, I guess. That is why I asked the question, if they are the ones in charge, the ones with the 'big picture', why would they let us uneducated proles elect or unelect them? her answer 'that's democracy' fails beyond comprehension, because democracy implies that 'we the people' would be the ones in charge, not the government.
 
BAC, it is so easy to characterise the West as targeting Muslims. If that were the case, why did NATO intervene in Kosovo and Bosnia? Also, what religion has killed the most Muslims? Hint, it isn't Christianity.

It's real easy because it's true.

Go take a look at our record and where we've been slaughtering innocent people.
 
The Democrats have shifted further to the left on many issues. The ones you list below you are just realizing, it doesn't mean they haven't always been true.

Vietnam... The Democratic Party under Kennedy and Johnson thought much of the above.

No they didn't. There was nothing like NDAA in their times, they did not support killing an American citizen without trial, and much of the Democratic Party stood against the Vietnam War.

This is comical. Wall St has been buying both parties for decades. To pretend it is just the republicans being bought is comical. They contributed more to Obama than to McCain. They also contributed heavily to Clinton. Hell, it was corrupt practices by Joe Kennedy that made the Kennedy fortune.

You should listen better.

Wall Street pouring money on Obama IS THE POINT. Clinton got Wall Street money but it pales in comparison to Obama.

Prior to Obama the democratic base was solidly against the machinations of Wall Street.

Nope. The US cannot renig on its obligations to SS. SS is also an easy fix. Medicare is going to get crushed because we cannot pay for all the glorious promises made by idiots like Obama. They sound nice and everyone WANTS to be able to do everything for everyone... but it is not fiscally viable.

Sure .. ever heard of the CPI?

Planet earth can provide healthcare to its citizens .. but it's too hard for us.

Sure.

I won't say the Dems haven't shifted to the right on any issues... but on the whole, Obama is far to the left of Clinton. Obama is all about pulling more and more power into the hands of the DC elite. That is a left wing pursuit, not right.

Doesn't matter what you say .. the evidence is right in front of you.
 
this is where the liberals show their insanity. Apples insistence that the government is in charge of us, that they are the boss, that they created our society. It's insane. The history revisionism is necessary for her to believe that, I guess. That is why I asked the question, if they are the ones in charge, the ones with the 'big picture', why would they let us uneducated proles elect or unelect them? her answer 'that's democracy' fails beyond comprehension, because democracy implies that 'we the people' would be the ones in charge, not the government.
Your question was nonsense just like your twisting of her words is here. Nonsense.
 
I understand but tackling those issues would distract from other issues. Health care coverage has been a topic since 1912! One hundred years exactly. Look how the Repubs attacked ObamaCare. What would happen if Obama appeared weak on security? He'd accomplish nothing and be voted out in a heart beat. The lies are so pervasive and the Repubs are doing all they can to trip him up.

After two Bush terms and the consequences letting Obama finsh his job is the logical thing to do. If nothing else if he fails his "type" of government, social policy strong, will have been tried.

This is really a test of social policy, a change of direction for the country. My bet is in '16 another Dem government will be elected as the people will have experienced ObamaCare. The American people have been lied to for so long they have trouble trusting Obama and his policies. Once they realize them first hand there will be no turning back. The Repubs know that. That's why the unprecedented attack on ObamaCare.

I see his second term as having fewer wars and the people having confidence in him when he says there's no need for a war. As the first Black President coupled with initiating/promoting social policies he's walking a fine line. People are still skeptical. They trust him only so far. Race coupled with social policies are a huge change not to mention the change that occurred financially. I think the people should hear him out. This is a rare chance for the country.

Nothing rare about Obama but the color of his skin in the big chair. Other than that, he's all day corporatist with a foreign policy to the right of George Bush.

He should kill innocent people so the republicans can't call him weak? Needless to say, I am in sharp opposition to that.

Again, this isn't about Obamacare, it's about the direction of the Democratic Party.

Today, democrats are every bit as warmongering as the right-wing. They are every bit as callous about innocent human life .. which I rarely hear one single word about from democrats. If one wanted to create a thread that democrats won't comment on, create one about war and the destruction of human life under Obama .. and listen for the crickets.

We will have this conversation again when Obama is re-elected and turns even further to the right.

What will you claim then?
 
Oh my: Majorities of liberal Democrats now support drone strikes, keeping Gitmo open

Pity poor Glenn Greenwald, who thought the left’s opposition to Bush’s counterterror policies was based on something more profound than crude partisan tribalism. Why he thought that, I don’t know: The writing was on the wall when the anti-war movement started dying even as Obama geared up for a surge of tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan. In fact, I’ll bet O now regrets banning enhanced interrogation so soon after his inauguration. At the rate we’re going, we might be seeing 60+ percent support among liberals for waterboarding too.

The poll shows that 53 percent of self-identified liberal Democrats — and 67 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats — support keeping Guantanamo Bay open, even though it emerged as a symbol of the post-Sept. 11 national security policies of George W. Bush, which many liberals bitterly opposed.

Obama has also relied on armed drones far more than Bush did, and he has expanded their use beyond America’s defined war zones. The Post-ABC News poll found that 83 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s drone policy, which administration officials refuse to discuss, citing security concerns…

But fully 77 percent of liberal Democrats endorse the use of drones, meaning that Obama is unlikely to suffer any political consequences as a result of his policy in this election year.

Support for drone strikes against suspected terrorists stays high, dropping only somewhat when respondents are asked specifically about targeting American citizens living overseas, as was the case with Anwar al-Awlaki, the Yemeni American killed in September in a drone strike in northern Yemen.

---

The silver lining for Greenwald and other principled opponents is that these will all become horrible perversions of democracy again if/when Mitt Romney is elected this fall. Once again he and the rest will be the tip of the legal spear against an out-of-control warmonger president instead of a daily dose of online absolution for those who’ve betrayed the cause.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/...now-support-drone-strikes-keeping-gitmo-open/

Could Obama get away with waterboarding with liberals?

Of course he could.
 
Oh my: Majorities of liberal Democrats now support drone strikes, keeping Gitmo open

Pity poor Glenn Greenwald, who thought the left’s opposition to Bush’s counterterror policies was based on something more profound than crude partisan tribalism. Why he thought that, I don’t know: The writing was on the wall when the anti-war movement started dying even as Obama geared up for a surge of tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan. In fact, I’ll bet O now regrets banning enhanced interrogation so soon after his inauguration. At the rate we’re going, we might be seeing 60+ percent support among liberals for waterboarding too.

The poll shows that 53 percent of self-identified liberal Democrats — and 67 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats — support keeping Guantanamo Bay open, even though it emerged as a symbol of the post-Sept. 11 national security policies of George W. Bush, which many liberals bitterly opposed.

Obama has also relied on armed drones far more than Bush did, and he has expanded their use beyond America’s defined war zones. The Post-ABC News poll found that 83 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s drone policy, which administration officials refuse to discuss, citing security concerns…

But fully 77 percent of liberal Democrats endorse the use of drones, meaning that Obama is unlikely to suffer any political consequences as a result of his policy in this election year.

Support for drone strikes against suspected terrorists stays high, dropping only somewhat when respondents are asked specifically about targeting American citizens living overseas, as was the case with Anwar al-Awlaki, the Yemeni American killed in September in a drone strike in northern Yemen.

---

The silver lining for Greenwald and other principled opponents is that these will all become horrible perversions of democracy again if/when Mitt Romney is elected this fall. Once again he and the rest will be the tip of the legal spear against an out-of-control warmonger president instead of a daily dose of online absolution for those who’ve betrayed the cause.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/...now-support-drone-strikes-keeping-gitmo-open/

Could Obama get away with waterboarding with liberals?

Of course he could.
and we're shocked? Not a bit.
 
Back
Top