Democrats what changed?

[AzogtheDefiler]

When Mr. Obama won and when Mrs. Clinton ran the party was sane and what really separated it from the GOP was its fiscal policy, pro choice stance, 2nd amendment discussion and foreign policy. Overall however the parties agreed that the US is a great country.

Since then your party has moved to:

• Open Borders: Obama was known as the Deporter in Chief and certainly was not defending illegal immigration;
• Environment: Obama was for clean energy as illustrated with Solyndra but he certainly wasn't anti fracking or supportive of the insane Green New Deal.
• Insurance: ACA was controversial and supported by Obama but he nor his voters were not so pro Nationalized Healthcare. And especially not for free healthcare for illegals.
• Foreign Policy: Obama did make some questionable deals with Iran and sat by as Russia took Crimea. But he was never or at least overtly so anti Israel.
• Financial: Obama wasn't a massive job creator and did over regulate, especially the banks but he was never pro breaking up the big banks or taxing the rich at exorbinant rates.
• 2nd Amendment: Democrats didn't love it but didn't overtly go and say they wanted to abolish it.
• Police: Ferguson happened and BLM was formed but the party was never blatantly anti police. We saw what happened in Dallas and the party was certainly not looking at that event favorably.
• History: Proud of our history. Was never talk of taking down statues of ex Presidents or renaming schools.

Now all of the sudden the party has gone toward Socialism in ~four years.

• Pro Open Borders or lax immigration policy and if questioned one is labeled a racist.
• Support Nationalized Healthcare
• Support BDS on Israel and treat China and Iran more favorably than the US
• Want to raise taxes to ridiculous rates
• Want to abolish the 2nd amendment
• Vilify the Police...so as as to defund the departments
• Say we are a racist nation and refuse to acknowledge holidays like Columbus Day

What changed in such a short time frame and why?

Thank you

Obama Leaves Office As 'Deporter-In-Chief'

President Obama has been dubbed "Deporter-in-Chief" by immigrant rights activists because of his record of deportations. Latino USA breaks down the label and places the term in historical context.

www.npr.org

 

[depotoo]

When Mr. Obama won and when Mrs. Clinton ran the party was sane and what really separated it from the GOP was its fiscal policy, pro choice stance, 2nd amendment discussion and foreign policy. Overall however the parties agreed that the US is a great country.

Since then your party has moved to:

• Open Borders: Obama was known as the Deporter in Chief and certainly was not defending illegal immigration;
• Environment: Obama was for clean energy as illustrated with Solyndra but he certainly wasn't anti fracking or supportive of the insane Green New Deal.
• Insurance: ACA was controversial and supported by Obama but he nor his voters were not so pro Nationalized Healthcare. And especially not for free healthcare for illegals.
• Foreign Policy: Obama did make some questionable deals with Iran and sat by as Russia took Crimea. But he was never or at least overtly so anti Israel.
• Financial: Obama wasn't a massive job creator and did over regulate, especially the banks but he was never pro breaking up the big banks or taxing the rich at exorbinant rates.
• 2nd Amendment: Democrats didn't love it but didn't overtly go and say they wanted to abolish it.
• Police: Ferguson happened and BLM was formed but the party was never blatantly anti police. We saw what happened in Dallas and the party was certainly not looking at that event favorably.
• History: Proud of our history. Was never talk of taking down statues of ex Presidents or renaming schools.

Now all of the sudden the party has gone toward Socialism in ~four years.

• Pro Open Borders or lax immigration policy and if questioned one is labeled a racist.
• Support Nationalized Healthcare
• Support BDS on Israel and treat China and Iran more favorably than the US
• Want to raise taxes to ridiculous rates
• Want to abolish the 2nd amendment
• Vilify the Police...so as as to defund the departments
• Say we are a racist nation and refuse to acknowledge holidays like Columbus Day

What changed in such a short time frame and why?

Thank you

Obama Leaves Office As 'Deporter-In-Chief'

President Obama has been dubbed "Deporter-in-Chief" by immigrant rights activists because of his record of deportations. Latino USA breaks down the label and places the term in historical context.

www.npr.org

If you had researched Obama before hand you would have seen that was his goal before he ran. Similarly Clinton, just not as obvious.

 

[ClaireH]

When Mr. Obama won and when Mrs. Clinton ran the party was sane and what really separated it from the GOP was its fiscal policy, pro choice stance, 2nd amendment discussion and foreign policy. Overall however the parties agreed that the US is a great country.

Since then your party has moved to:

• Open Borders: Obama was known as the Deporter in Chief and certainly was not defending illegal immigration;
• Environment: Obama was for clean energy as illustrated with Solyndra but he certainly wasn't anti fracking or supportive of the insane Green New Deal.
• Insurance: ACA was controversial and supported by Obama but he nor his voters were not so pro Nationalized Healthcare. And especially not for free healthcare for illegals.
• Foreign Policy: Obama did make some questionable deals with Iran and sat by as Russia took Crimea. But he was never or at least overtly so anti Israel.
• Financial: Obama wasn't a massive job creator and did over regulate, especially the banks but he was never pro breaking up the big banks or taxing the rich at exorbinant rates.
• 2nd Amendment: Democrats didn't love it but didn't overtly go and say they wanted to abolish it.
• Police: Ferguson happened and BLM was formed but the party was never blatantly anti police. We saw what happened in Dallas and the party was certainly not looking at that event favorably.
• History: Proud of our history. Was never talk of taking down statues of ex Presidents or renaming schools.

Now all of the sudden the party has gone toward Socialism in ~four years.

• Pro Open Borders or lax immigration policy and if questioned one is labeled a racist.
• Support Nationalized Healthcare
• Support BDS on Israel and treat China and Iran more favorably than the US
• Want to raise taxes to ridiculous rates
• Want to abolish the 2nd amendment
• Vilify the Police...so as as to defund the departments
• Say we are a racist nation and refuse to acknowledge holidays like Columbus Day

What changed in such a short time frame and why?

Thank you

Obama Leaves Office As 'Deporter-In-Chief'

President Obama has been dubbed "Deporter-in-Chief" by immigrant rights activists because of his record of deportations. Latino USA breaks down the label and places the term in historical context.

www.npr.org

Azog, if you're not a top educator with a wide audience you've missed your calling, or perhaps you're working on AI advancements presenting other specifics to be analyzed... hard to know Your list has given us readers a lot of food for thought. Thank you for posting such an informative post with specific comparisons. I will hope to give you better feedback after researching more about each comparison. For now, I would like to add one factor if I may to the evidence of the population that fully embraces socialism: the reliance on felon votes to win presidential elections.

Even though this "felon connection" to the Democratic party has been implied numerous times and by many, the following statement is so blatantly clear that I am still shaking my head trying to imagine being a self-labeled moderate Dem and accepting it as part of the package.

The article reads as follows: Aubrey Jewett, a professor of political science at the University of Central Florida, said the registration numbers in Florida reflected a significant effort by Republicans. “They have made it clear that, despite the pandemic, they were going to still knock on doors and register voters,” he said.

At the same time, Jewett said, Democratic voter registration was probably handicapped by a protracted court battle over whether felons would have to pay outstanding fines to restore their voting rights. “I think Democrats were somewhat hopeful that there were going to be more felons that regained voting rights and actually registered,” he said. “That ended up not being a huge boost.” Behind in Polls, Republicans See a Silver Lining in Voter Registrations

That statement in bold is profound. If I were a moderate Democrat, I'd be fighting against this perception with all that I had. I would defend it tooth and nail to say felons are not needed to win and this assessment is taking it too far, that surely such a stark connection could not be right since I supported that particular party. So I have to ask, where is the public outcry about this type of statement and what exactly does that say about a political party that counts on felons to win a presidential election?

Even when felons deserve retribution following their sentence (not all do unfortunately) to state that there is a direct correlation to winning and felon voters who are just released from jail is a whole different ballgame. Kind of like saying, "Unless the thugs get involved, we have less of a chance". Some felons are thugs, that's not debatable. Just look at recidivism rates in the nation for convicted felons of violent crimes to see how many thugs are cycled in and out of prison without any sign of rehabilitation much less sincere remorse. Whether or not repeat offenders of violent crimes be given the right to vote will remain an issue per state activism for quite some time it appears.

As of October, 2020, in D.C., Maine, and Vermont, felons never lose their voting rights, even when they are incarcerated. I find that concept baffling considering the purpose(s) of incarceration, but not the first time around for me with total bafflement. In 16 states felons receive automatic restoration of voting rights upon release; in 21 states felons lose voting rights during incarceration and a period of time following while on probation or parole; in 11 states felons lose their voting rights indefinitely for some crimes (personally, I like that idea assuming those include the more horrific crimes). Felon Voting Rights

If a chain is a strong as its weakest length, what do the moderate Democrats consider to be their weakest link? Are they taking measures to improve this weak link or are they encouraging it to grow in numbers? I assume answers to that question would vary depending upon where one falls of the left side of the "political line". Surely there is trouble a brewing, and the leftists and liberals must see it coming with a major splintering now turning into total separation mode within their party. How far will socialists go beyond counting on felons to produce a win? What else will be considered "necessary" (means to an end) to up the chances for a win in future elections?