Talk:Democratic Party/Archive1

Conservative
"The Democratic Party is a conservative political party in the United States. Its main opposition comes from the ultra-conservative Republican Party."

I died laughing. Thank you, whoever wrote this, for providing me with my daily lulz!!!!! And also, for telling the truth. Awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!! human be in 04:13, 26 August 2007 (CDT)

What?
How is the democratic party conservative? -- 21:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Compared to everywhere that isn't the US. You should look at it as the rest of the world saying "hi" - David Gerard (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He's right, you know. Name one left or liberal accomplishment of the party since the Civil Rights Acts.  03:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Howard Dean
was actually a New Democrat during the 90s. Supported NAFTA and the first Gulf War, fiscal centrist, etc. I suppose he does go in the progressive category since his 2004 run. Secret Squirrel (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Was last connected to the CPC, I remember. Same with Gillibrand, she was a former Blue Dog and then made a shift to the left. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

DNC conservative?
The Democrats were always the party of labor and the GOP the party of big business even dating back to the 19th century, so that hasn't changed. The American Federation of Labor was instituted by Democrats. The Democrats always opposed civil rights for blacks and women even as they instituted reforms on child labor and labor unions. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Were you homeskolled? Everyone here is aware that the Democrats were the party of racism and segregation prior to the Southern Strategy. The majority of us are also aware of the 1896 election, where Democrats became basically populist. Declaring the parties to be "business" and "labor" is not even wrong. Hipo crite 01:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "GOP the party of big business even dating back to the 18th century" I don't think 1854 was the 18th century.
 * "The Democrats always opposed civil rights for blacks and women even as they instituted reforms on child labor and labor unions" You're right on part a) up to the 1940s, but not on part b). Read up on the Democratic Party pre-Wilson and the Radical Republicans; I don't think Grover Cleveland was a populist. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If the parties switched like you want to claim, then why did only 2 Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act, out of 112, actually become Republicans, Strom Thurmond and John Jarman? If the parties switched, why was a Ku Klux Klan leader still serving as the ranking Democrat of the U.S. Senate for the Democratic Party, Robert Byrd? Byrd actually filibustered the Civil Rights Act. Al Gore is another famous Democrat helping lead today's Democratic Party, his father also voted against the Civil Rights Act at the time.


 * As pointed out here, integration occurred and the south abandoned slavery, while the old racist Democrats did remain with the party.


 * "The idea that 'the Dixiecrats joined the Republicans' is not quite true, as you note. But because of Strom Thurmond it is accepted as a fact. What happened is that the **next** generation (post 1965) of white southern politicians — Newt, Trent Lott, Ashcroft, Cochran, Alexander, etc — joined the GOP. So it was really a passing of the torch as the old segregationists retired and were replaced by new young GOP guys. One particularly galling aspect to generalizations about 'segregationists became GOP' is that the new GOP South was INTEGRATED for crying out loud, they accepted the Civil Rights revolution. Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter led a group of what would become 'New' Democrats like Clinton and Al Gore."


 * I see no evidence the actual racists ever switched parties, and they certainly did not switch soon enough to avoid influencing the 1970s liberal movements like abortion. The same Democrats who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act so fervently were the same ones who would be involved in the 1970s pro-choice movement. They went straight from supporting lynching to supporting abortion.


 * Democrats were the party of racism, and still are the party of racism. They just want to claim erroneously that the parties switched after all the civil rights legislation got passed because of Republicans and in spite of Democrat opposition. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, Democrats were supporting labor before the 1896 election as I pointed out, throughout the 19th century, dating back to the 1870s at least. That the parties have remained consistent in their stances on labor and business since their beginnings is a strong evidence they did not switch as the article claims. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "One particularly galling aspect to generalizations about 'segregationists became GOP' is that the new GOP South was INTEGRATED for crying out loud, they accepted the Civil Rights revolution." Shut up, get out. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You fail to mention that those 50 years have been overwhelmingly governed by Democrats in Congress. Democrats had virtually complete control of Congress until 1995, the only time Republicans have really had control at all was from 1995-2006 when employment and median incomes shot up, including for African-Americans. In other words, your argument results in blame primarily of Democrats since they've been the ones overwhelmingly controlling Congress the past 5 decades.


 * Think your arguments through better next time.--Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Think your arguments through better next time." There we are. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So you're admitting you used Cohen's Law when you said "Shut up, get out" and can't refute or address my points now? Well, it's good to see you have humility anyway. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * These are your claims:


 * That the current Democratic Party, which overwhelmingly elected the first black POTUS in American history, retains the same electorate and political ideology preferred by the American South of the 1960s, not the same Northern states representing the Union in the American Civil War.
 * That the Northern Rockefeller Republicans, which overwhelmingly voted for the Civil Rights Act, still exist as a political force.
 * That black wages, despite all evidence to the contrary, have not stagnated compared to whites since the advent of neoconservatism the New Right, and that the GOP is the party that is currently protecting civil rights (also, nice try at defending Trent Lott).
 * That the Southern Strategy, despite all historical evidence to the contrary, never existed.
 * That the US labour movement was (and still is) historically tied to racism.
 * That "abortion is black genocide" and the pro-sexual liberation, pro-Civil Rights counterculture that finally split the New Deal coalition was secretly racist. (Also, damn did that black eugenics work, eh?)


 * You're not just wrong, but fractally wrong. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * And don't you know that when the Democrats control congress, they are governing, but when the republicans control congress, the president is governing. It's just so convenient, if you just want to be right! I weep for the youth. Hipo crite 02:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Osaka, so you are arguing the Rockefeller Republicans like George W. Romney are an extinct breed, that black wage stagnation has nothing to do with the fact that Democrats have primarily run Congress the past 50 years, that Democrats changed their position on race but not labor, that the Southern Strategy meant all the racist Democrats who'd opposed civil rights suddenly decided to join the party who'd fought for civil rights and the parties just held hands and chose to switch sides, and that Lyndon B. Johnson being a racist passing the civil rights act to get the black vote is irrelevant. Obama ironically won using race-based appeals, for example his political godfather Emil Jones called African Americans (see Delmarie Cobb) who criticized Obama 'Uncle Toms' and said they had to vote for their brother. That so many people chose to vote for a corrupt, dishonest person because of skin color instead of character, with 96% of blacks voting for him, far more than any other demographic, was itself racist, ironically, and shows the Democrats are still racist. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Lyndon B. Johnson being a racist passing the civil rights act to get the black vote is irrelevant" So Harry Truman's desegregation of the military and JFK's efforts at civil rights means that the Democratic Party was a monolithic bloc of Southerners? Osaka Sun (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So wait... the Democrats are racist because they're too pro-black, because you were just arguing the opposite. And do you know what the hell a Rockefeller Republican is? ClothCoat (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This is far from the first time I've seen American conservatives like yourself interpret ideological/Congressional control wrong. US debt massively skyrocketed in the 80s due to military spending and tax cuts, yet it was either a split- or Dem-controlled Congress the entire time.  This suggests either two things: a) that the newly-instilled Democrats in the North were hilariously incapable of doing their jobs, or b) the majority of Democrats were from still from the South, relatively pro-Reagan, and eventually turned GOP.


 * Well, would you look at that. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Racism just means the opposite of what the great Martin Luther King Jr. preached, looking at a person's character apart from their skin color. There are black racists just like there are white racists. Many people voted for Obama without knowing where he stood on issues, as ridiculed by Michael Stern, and were just voting for him out of racism.


 * And Democrats had virtually complete control of Congress from 1933-1994. The only exceptions were 1947-49, 1953-55 (both GOP controlled house and senate), and 1981-87 (Republicans controlled the Senate by a slight margin). So in other words, if you want to blame someone for the problems of African-American wages and employment over the last 50 years, look at the party who controlled Congress primarily during that time, which was clearly the Democrats. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 04:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So let me understand, the white supremacist democrats are also anti-white racists? Or they became anti-black? Or their anti-black and too pro-black? Also, congress can't change what people do at the state level. According to the laws of Crank magnetism I'm going to take a wild guess here and say that you are also a global warming denialist, a Christian fundamentalist, a young earth creationist, and convinced the Nazi's were left-wing. How many did I guess correctly?ClothCoat (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Party Switchers
"If the parties switched like you want to claim, then why did only 2 Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act, out of 112, actually become Republicans, Strom Thurmond and John Jarman?"

How interesting. How many more party switchers would you need to have before you believed there was a true ideological switch? Hipo crite 02:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Lol yep I've seen hard right nuts pull these arguments before. The early dixiecrat politicians didn't change parties, but the dixiecrat voters themselves did change parties, which switched the ideologies in each party around. The dixiecrats were far-right paleoconservatives, if you honestly think modern Democrats are paleoconservatives you're crazy.ClothCoat (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've examined this in-depth here. 112 Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, a higher percentage of Democrats than Republicans voted against the CRA, and only 2 of them switched. Clearly the racist Democrats stayed Democrats and were the same liberal Democrats who started the pro-abortion and gay rights movements in the 1970s just a few years later.


 * You've attempted to examine it in depth. I'm asking you how wrong you could be before you change your opinion. How many more party switchers does it take to change your mind? Be exact. Hipo crite 04:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, the South did not begin supporting the pro-civil rights GOP until it began supporting civil rights following integration in the 1960s. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please enlighten us as to why white supremicts would be pro gay right and pro abortion. Also, did you read what I said about the voters and ideologies swiching, not the politicians themselves. The dixiecrat politicians died off and were replaced with moderates/lilberals and, again, the dixiecrats HATED liberals, that's why they tried to break off from them twice. See the State's Rights Democratic Party and the American Independent Party. While you're at it look up wingnut.ClothCoat (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * White supremacists would be pro-abortion because they discriminate against the rights of children so they can live as they want without the responsibilities which should accompany sexual lifestyle choices, passing the consequences on to their unborn children by murdering them just like they once murdered African Americans through lynching. Alan Keyes pointed this out in his speeches, he was the first Republican I ever voted for. They refuse to respect the right to life of the unborn and sometimes even born (see Born Alive Infant Protection Act - which they opposed) just like white supremacists once opposed those same rights for African Americans.


 * As for gay rights, they want to declare themselves a privileged class just like white supremacists once did, which is why they try to force the teaching of gay role models in classrooms and create laws that allow them to sue anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle. Anyway, the same pattern is used by those movements as white supremacists. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You are Poe's Law in action. But Why are the white supremacists themselves pro-gay, oh wise one?ClothCoat (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe that's the logical extension of the same selfish attitude that made them want to control the rights of other people based on race, I don't know. Regardless, liberals in both movements oppose the freedoms of religion, speech, and right to life of others like their forebears, the white supremacists, did. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As I think about this further, I think perhaps it is because homosexuality is a form of slavery, enslaving others to one's own lusts, a point that has been made by ex-homosexuals like Michael Glatze. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank God you added that, for a second I thought you were a far-right homophobe. Tell me, what do you think about Nazis and homosexuality?ClothCoat (talk) 04:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

IP Block Response
Interesting that Osaka went to all that trouble to cover up the fact that he accused me of a fallacy he himself had used and I was just responding to concerning Cohen's Law, hiding the conversation, protecting the page, and instituting of an IP ban just to try and prevent people from seeing his little mistake. I'm actually surprised he didn't try archiving the discussion or removing the material, maybe he figured on waiting a day or two in hopes people wouldn't notice.

And all that to avoid addressing the substance of my points that the Democrats were the ones who controlled Congress, I suppose I should be flattered you need to go to such extremes to avoid debating me, claiming false fallacies and seeking to shut down discussion. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

April 15th
I fail to understand the significance of "April 15th" in the quote attributed to Ronald Reagan. Can someone explain it to me? Or maybe we could have it explained in a footnote. Corpse in the bed (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * April 15th is the deadline for filing US federal income tax returns. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

liberal Republicans are Ike Republicans?
Jesus, who wrote this crap? Nixon must've been a liberal Republican, and Rockefeller a communist. nobsOne who's been there.
 * "Nixon must've been a liberal Republican." Well... Osaka Sun (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

"Dead On Arrival"
Can we talk about this section please? It seems a bit overly pessimistic, after all as FCP points out Clinton actually got just as much support as Obama did...just not in the right places. I'm just as guilty as anyone of feeling doom and gloom right now, but Trump didn't flip Rust Belt voters, just barely enough of them stayed home that Trump was able to squeak on through. Remember, eighty thousand votes plus the lowest favorability rating of anyone to enter the Oval Office and he's already screwing up. Plus, his win has scared millions of Americans into action across the country. Anyone with any decency is settling in for a grueling, hard fought slog the moment the man steps into the White House. I don't think we're down and out just yet. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Holy fucking shit
I made a small edit amending it from far-left to center-left. Then I come back and find out much of the article has been re-written. I think they would do well to restore the Funeral Pyre and Center Cannot Hold sections. Both were relevant to what is currently going on. I'm a new poster and "Christopher" responded to me encouraging me to make an account. I don't know enough to meaningfully edit many articles, but there are no far left factions in the Democratic Party. I also wouldn't even particularly agree that any of the Progressives described as European style Social Democrats are anywhere close to actual socialists.Manicman (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC) Who wrote this intro?

It's just a liberal stream of consciousness. Why? 13:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Why? Well, you autopatroled the person who made most of that disaster... Hipocrite (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a good thing RationalWiki has no shortage of blame. It'd be disastrous otherwise. 15:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You need to point out the inherent racism in the Democratic party. The Democrats controlled blacks under the 3/5 Rule in the pre-Civil War era (a census count of 50,000 slaves counted for 30,000 constituents in a white Southern Democrat Congressional district) in the pre-Civil War era. White Democrats have always considered themselves stewards of black's wellbeing, since in their view, blacks are incapable of doing it themselves. Then the Republicans extended the vote to blacks, but Democrats will be goddamned if they let Republicans divide the relationship and control they have had over blacks since the founding of the Democratic party, so they bought them off with welfare and food stamps to keep them on the plantation. The subservient relationship between blacks and their white Democrat Masters hasn't changed much over the years, with a few bumps in the road like Reconstruction, when Republicans tried to corner blacks as a voting block, earning the GOP the undying hatred of white Democrats til this day.nobs 14:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1: That's irrelevant to the shit posted above.
 * 2: It's almost like nobs willingly ignores some major party switch in the past century. I wonder why. 14:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. It's definitely relavent to to the party's history and makeup.
 * 2. There never was a switch in parties. Welfare and food stamps have not altered the social relation between white Democrats and blacks, keeping them dependent on their overseers. Just as the Democratic slave masters fed blacks on the plantation, so have the Democrats continued (in theory) since Lyndon Johnson and the War on Poverty. nobs 15:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And I presume black Democrat representatives are just the capos of the Dem gang? 15:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * When Republicans ended the 3/5 Rule and extended the vote to blacks, white Democrats (and some blacks) viewed this as an effort to divide the traditional social relations in Southern society, when in reality blacks and whites were economically dependent on each other. Democrats initially reacted with violence and voter suppression tactics (the KKK). Over time, as the federal government expanded and times became more prosperous, Lyndon Johndon decided to lock up blacks as a voting block in the Democratic party (respecting the principal of one-man-one-vote) once and for all, as the GOP had failed to do so after Reconstruction. Johnson ended the social political divisions the GOP created between blacks and white Democrats. nobs 16:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In this sense, Trump & Johnson are uniquely alike - at war with their own party over ideology in an effort to expand it and lock up coveted voting blocks. Just as Johnson was willing to abandon bedrock party principals like segregation to win blacks back en masse, Trump is willing to dump free trade to win blue colar workers and labor unions. nobs 16:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's do a survey of contemporary racist groups in America (KKK, Neo-Nazis, Aryan Brotherhood, Race Realist, etc...) about who they voted for over the last 30 years of so, including this election, and which current political party most aligns with their views. I'm predicting Hillary, Obama, Kerry, Gore and Bill and the Democratic party in general aren't going to be ranked too high in the results.  Petey Plane (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The groups you cite, according to hate group watchdogs like the SPLC & ADL, number barely 10,000 members in the United States. And even that number may be exaggerated. So the point you rather lamely make is irrelevent. nobs`
 * And you tied the modern Democratic party to the historical Democratic party's relationship to the KKK, which hasn't been supportive of the Democratic party in nearly half a century, so i'm a little confused as to how my argument is lame and irrelevant, yet yours is not. The simple fact is, modern racists and "race-realists" more closely associate and self-identify with Republicans and conservatives.  Petey Plane (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. White Democrats vote Democrat to get government benefits, but they're still racist as common shit. nobs 15:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, you've convinced me. Your argument of "Bullshit!" proves that the vast majority of Democrats are in-fact racists.  Petey Plane (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

+
 * @nobs: Your comparison of Trump and Johnson would be a bit better if African-Americans hadn't begun voting Democratic in 1932. From the American Pageant: "One striking feature of the election (of 1932) was the beginning of a distinct shift of blacks, traditionally grateful to the Republican party of Lincoln, over to the Roosevelt camp...Beginning with the election of 1932, they became, notably in the urban centers in the North, a vital element in the Democratic Party."


 * But besides that, you're right about Trump and Johnson. The only question is if Trump will keep his promise of better lives for blue-collar workers. If he doesn't, then who will the Rust Belt turn to? That's what I want to know. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, 1932 the Democrats did do better among blacks for the first time since the Civil War. But they didn't embrace the the Democrats en bloc until 1960. African-Americans for the most remained Lincoln Republicans until 1960. The GOP was the party of Civil Rights from the Civil War til Eisenhower. FDR always opposed the GOP longstanding proposal for a federal anti-lynching law. But Eleanor Roosevelt was personally popular among blacks. nobs 19:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * @Petey:Learn from me. See what your bullshit talking points got you? Not a Fucking Thing! No White House. No Congress. No Senate. No Supreme Court. You got 8 measely states out of 50 where you have any influence at all. You control only four, and that ain't enough to win Electoral College, even if they were the four largest.
 * And to think, you were ridin' high a few years ago; the world was becoming center left progressive, remember? How did this happen? Talking bullshit, calling everybody under the goddamn sun a racist for the fun of it. Will you ever learn from your errors?
 * If the Democrats ever wanna be effective again and overcome the mistakes they made, they need to admit their lives are out of control and only a power higher than themselves can restore them to sanity. Show some compassion for your fellow citizens, and stop calling everybody a goddamn racist. nobs 18:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Why in God's name did you delete my response to you, nobs? RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I got a new tablet and its been nothing but problems. Sorry. nobs 19:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ronin, have you ever seen this picture? It is an object lesson in studying history. It was widely circulated upon the news of FDR's death, and seemed to express the mood of the nation upon hearing the news. Now, when I was a student of history in the Civil Rights era of the 1960s, this photo was re-circulated by media and party propagandists with new spin for a new generation: that blacks had been loyal Democrats since the New Deal. But ask anyone who was alive in 1945 and they will tell you the exact opposite: the significance of the photo was national unity, that even Republicans were shedding tears. And national healing, that Democrats, who were no friend of blacks, could touch a Republican in such an emotional way. nobs 19:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "stop calling everybody a goddamn racist." Wait, didn't you just call all Democrats racist?  I'm still waiting on the evidence you have of that.  Also, if you'd read closely, i never called all Republicans racist, or you for that matter.  I said that modern racists and racists movements more closely align with Conservatives and Republicans, and believe that Republicans (and Trump) best represent their views, of the two current political parties.  Petey Plane (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC))
 * White Democrats vote Democrat to get VA or SSI benefits but call blacks the N word behind their back. They hate Republicans cause their afraid the GOP will cut their benefits back. They join in the chorus of DNC bosses calling Republicans racist to motivate blacks to get out and vote for the Democrat sugar daddys. And its easy cover for them, blaming Republicans for the racism that's been handed down in their families since Andrew Jackson. Their 'ideology' is simple: deceive blacks to get what you want and need out of them, and milk the public purse. Democrats hold these as virtues since before Andrew Jackson.
 * All you're reciting above with, 'modern racists and racists movements bla bla bla..." is DNC talking points to get blacks out to vote and keep blacks on the DNC plantation. Vote for me or the bogeyman is gonna getcha. nobs 20:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, still looking for some citations on most Democrats being racists. Petey Plane (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Better yet, you present evidence other than the fewer than 10,000 members of organized racist groups that supposedly endorse Republicans. Again, your bullshit is flawed; the Aryan Brotherhood is a prison gang of felons who in most states (except for a few run by Democrats) can't vote.
 * Who are you gonna cite, the SPLC? Of their 917 "hate groups", of which 20% are black separatists added for balance, look at Lobelville Tennessee, for instance. You'll find two dead people constitute three "hate groups". You need better evidence for any of your claims other than the DNC or SPLC.
 * But you're missing my main point: the reason DNC is wallowing in the dumpster now and will continue for the foreseeable future is because of people like you exhibiting the behavior you exhibited here. Unlike Reagan & the Bush's, Trump may make the crossover Democrats to the Republican party permanent. Those voters know when they vote Democrat they are "blue collar", when the vote GOP they are "racist". They are tired of the DNC's bullshit.


 * And didn't a bunch of Islamophobic bigots just make Keith Ellison, the DNC's biggest fundraiser, ride the back of the bus? Ordinarily being the number one fundraiser gets you the job as DNC Chair. Not Ellison, because he is black he is held to a different standard. nobs 19:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @nobs, no, I hadn't. Thanks for sharing! RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I approve of the edit from center left party to just centrist party. They really can't be called center left at this point. It would be relevant to note that one of the main reasons they are perceived as left wing is that their rhetoric certainly is liberal.-Manicman

I keep editing it to reflect this, and someone keeps deleting it. It's worth noting that the main reason the Dems are falsely perceived as left wing is because of their left wing rhetoric. Leave this edit there!

Liberal v. Progressive
Yesterday I added California rep Maxine Waters to the "liberal" section. Today she was moved to the "progressive" section. I remember a similar, longer edit war happening a few months ago with the same thing, just on Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris. So in the hopes of not doing that again, I thought we should make a section for who's a liberal vs. who's a progressive, since those seem to be the categories where the lines are most blurred. Post any changes you'd like to make here, so we can hash them out before starting an edit war. ClintWayne (talk) 02:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)ClintWayne
 * Shouldn't they all be in the same section of "Opportunists who pretend to care about particular ideologies/causes when it suits them"? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Political position
I object to describing the U.S. Democratic Party as a center-right.

The main ideology of the U.S. Democratic Party is social liberalism, and social liberalism is often classified as Centrist or Center-left ideology in Europe, except in very few areas, such as France and Sweden. (ex., , (De Lucia, Dario (2017). Dal PCI al PD. Imprimatur editore. "Le culture di riferimento dei politici appartenenti al Partito democratico sono: la socialdemocrazia, il cristianesimo sociale e il liberalismo sociale [The reference cultures of politicians belonging to the Democratic Party are: social democracy, social Christianity and social liberalism]."),, , etc.)

And Europe is not the standard of global politics. liberal Democratic Party in East Asia are usually classified as leftists in their own countries, but they often tend to be more conservative than the U.S. Democrats in issues such as politics, society, culture and labor. Should we, then, call the Democratic Party of America a radical leftist party in East Asia? This doesn't make sense!

I don't think the Democratic Party of the United States is conservative from a global perspective in terms of social and cultural aspects. When we look at liberal Democratic Parties in East Asia, they are almost center-right in terms of European and American standards, but we do not classify liberal Democrats in East Asia as center-right.

In the first place, the left- and right-wing concept itself was historically very relational and applied differently depending on the period and local situation. So I'm against describing the Democratic Party of America as a center-right.--BluePink (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As the person who pretty much restored the previous sentence, the issue with the Democratic party from a European perspective, at least speaking from my perspective is that essentially they're all over the place politically. Center-right is simply the closest position I can find when I compare them to our country's (I'm dutch) political spectrum on average in terms of the people that make up the party. The fact remains that even policy wise, Bernie Sanders, inarguably the farthest left the Democratic Party is generally willing to side with is still considered a more center-left politician here, whereas someone like Pete Buttigieg or Joe Biden (the "moderates") would be considered as a part of our de facto right party in terms of a policy perspective. (small related note: The Republican party at best would be comparable to a small far right party here) Of course, I cannot speak for how the party is perceived in Asia, in no small part because of a simple lack of knowledge of the political situation there and simply because I do not live in that area. (Also, small sidenote, could you change or edit your reference to not be a reference? They're afaik not used on talkpages and it's kinda screwy on the formatting). The Crow (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We should consider that the political environment of each country is different. For example, the average statistic shows that racism in Europe is worse than in North America. But we do not say that Europe is more conservative than the United States. Nor is it true that the mainstream of the Republican Party is now a hard-line right, but not all Republican members are of that way. To be exact, Alt-lite like Trumpists and paleoconservative in the Republican Party have similar tendencies to the far-right in Europe. but minority of center-right politicians within the Republican Party. (For example, Arnold Schwarzenegger supports Greta Thunberg. The mainstream Les Républicains, France's center-right ot right-wing party, is negative about Greta Thunberg.) In addition, the Netherlands is a country with a fairly liberal political environment by Western European standards.--BluePink (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me give you another example. A few years ago, there was a party called PDP in South Korea. The party opposed the LGBT rights and was a very pro-life party, but it was classified as center-left within South Korean politics. Japan's LDP is so nationalistic that it is classified as an extreme right in Europe, but it is not classified as an extreme right in Japanese politics. What I want to say is that judging the U.S. Democratic Party by European standards is meaningless because the global political landscape itself is already quite right-leaning. Rather, the current politics of the United States and Europe are relatively less right-leaning than those of other regions.--BluePink (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So I'm eager for Bernie Sanders to be elected president of the United States. It is the only hope to change the political landscape around the world that is now running to the Far-Right.--BluePink (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Those in backward and poor circumstances are apt to have a very social conservative concept. This, in a way, may be a natural result. Neoliberalism has been the result of this way. This is not a problem for the poor but a problem for the system. (The reason why the U.S. formed a more conservative social culture than Europe is also related to the extreme gap between the rich and the poor.)--BluePink (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Wallace
I ain't a Republican (I'm simply a Conservative), but did ya know that George Wallace was a Democrat? 2003:C3:3741:1600:E0A1:C185:51E6:E4DF (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes and? Are we going into the "bad people were Dems!" talking point? Because that's a dumb talking point. 17:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If Wallace were around today he'd be a Republican. You remember the Southern Strategy, right? — Oxyaena Harass  18:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)