What is the party platform for the Democratic Party nowadays?

seebell

Hall of Fame
Mar 12, 2012
9,530
448
98
Gurley, Al
here ya go Bazza. I googled (always ready to help the ill-informed:biggrin: ) around a bit but the most recent thing I found was the 2016 Democratic Platform already posted above by uafan.

You might find this informative:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Democratic_Party.htm

The next platform will ban the private ownership of Australian Cattle Dogs, a position every right thinking American supports. What is a Bazza anyway?
 

uafanataum

All-American
Oct 18, 2014
2,101
210
73
It's still a valid question because it serves as a unified counterattack to what the Republicans are doing. Look in this thread and you'll see their platform: laugh at Trump's errors, point out his mistakes and flaws, be condescending to his supporters or anyone who disagrees with their manifesto, but offer no alternative solutions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
To be fair over half the country does this now and it's not just Democrats. Trump has made politics into a mix between a comedy and a tragedy.
 

AlexanderFan

Hall of Fame
Jul 23, 2004
6,073
227
73
42
Birmingham
To be fair over half the country does this now and it's not just Democrats. Trump has made politics into a mix between a comedy and a tragedy.
Our farce of a political system started way before Trump. He's almost like Neo in the Matrix, he's the sum of years of the system doing so much nonsense and he defies logic and the rules of the system, yet somehow he's here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Bazza

TideFans Legend
Oct 1, 2011
25,376
2,507
173
New Smyrna Beach, Florida
Our farce of a political system started way before Trump. He's almost like Neo in the Matrix, he's the sum of years of the system doing so much nonsense and he defies logic and the rules of the system, yet somehow he's here.
This is how I see it too. We are going through a correction for all the BS that has taken place in the past administrations.
 

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
40,222
4,885
173
50
East Point, Ga, USA
Our farce of a political system started way before Trump. He's almost like Neo in the Matrix, he's the sum of years of the system doing so much nonsense and he defies logic and the rules of the system, yet somehow he's here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
i think it's more like back to the future 2 and doll hands donny is biff.

but the matrix is a much more enjoyable movie than red dawn.
 

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
40,222
4,885
173
50
East Point, Ga, USA
It's still a valid question because it serves as a unified counterattack to what the Republicans are doing. Look in this thread and you'll see their platform: laugh at Trump's errors, point out his mistakes and flaws, be condescending to his supporters or anyone who disagrees with their manifesto, but offer no alternative solutions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
so the dem's have an actual manifesto that they are trying to ram down folk's throats, but they offer no alternative solutions.
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,011
701
128
You have some interesting issues with basic logic...

If I said that the Democratic party also seemed to be the party of flamboyant homosexuals, would you then assume that I believe all members of the party are flamboyantly homosexual, closeted, white supremacists?
Excellent contribution to this fascinating dialogue.
 

Bazza

TideFans Legend
Oct 1, 2011
25,376
2,507
173
New Smyrna Beach, Florida
I don't care for either party.

But I do find it mildly interesting to see what strategies are used, if any, by each party to compete for votes.

More of an analytical thing than anything super personal.

It's important to always maintain an ample supply of popcorn while conducting such observations and discussions!
 

selmaborntidefan

Hall of Fame
Mar 31, 2000
21,311
1,193
173
50
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
Thanks for your excellent post and sound reasoning, Bill. Sorry to snip your post, but the part I left above is what I was thinking - and wondering if this is what the Democratic Party is going to go with this time around. I think it would very tempting with so much media buzz about Trump and his bombastic personality.

92 posted that there will be no platform until the next election year - I guess that's how the "old system" of ours works. But why not work on something for the mid-terms?

92tide is also right.

(That was the sound of hell freezing over as I said that).



Platforms are utterly meaningless.

Let me give you the BEST example: in 1980 the GOP had a brouhaha in Detroit over abortion (well, there weren't many brews and very few "ha ha" moments but I digress). They had six main advisers on this, FIVE of whom told them to leave it out of the platform completely. The religious right was flexing its muscles that year and as they basically were converts from Carter (for the most part), it was the old "we have to give them something." So the advisers settled on the phrase that Reagan would appoint judges who recognized "the sanctity of life," which was code for "pro-life judges" without saying it. Or so went the story. But one advisor told a prominent reporter, "You just wait and see how little they actually get after the election." And who did Reagan appoint first? Pro-choice former state senator Sandra O'Connor, and he never once asked about how she would rule on abortion.

Four years later in Dallas there was a similar push as Falwell was featured prominently. Tom Nichols, now a conservative commentator, has related that behind closed doors as the religious carping was going on and they wanted something in the platform, one of the consultants off the record said, "Screw (the F word really) them, they're not voting for Mondale - we know it and they know it."

Oh and it's not just the GOP. Look at this line from 1992:

provide civil rights protection for gay men and lesbians and an end to Defense Department discrimination;

Let me translate for those of you who weren't around: "We're gonna have open gays in the military" and it was one of the few things Clinton promised he actually tried to do right out of the gate.

When it failed and we got the DADT compromise, guess what? One prominent consultant - after the 1994 wipeout - was asked about that subject and said, "Screw them, they're not voting for the Republicans anyway."

Special interest group after group is thrown a sop to make them shut up and after the election, who really cares?
 

selmaborntidefan

Hall of Fame
Mar 31, 2000
21,311
1,193
173
50
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
www.democrats.org/party-platform
It's the 2016 platform but that's as current as it gets. IMO Selma is correct though, and the platforms are just tools used to lie the the American public.
Let me qualify this.

I don't think they're really intended for the public, that's a post-Convention circumstance. It's true, but it's irrelevant.

The platform is to bind together the party AT the Convention, and it's really a relic of the old pre-primary days when the Convention was where the REAL nomination occurred.

Almost nobody in one party argues against specific points in platforms in the debates - or if they do, it's limited to 1 or at most 2 key things.

The public in general just doesn't really care. It's like the fact you never see much of one party quoting what a primary opponent said about the general election nominee - it's understood to not matter.
 

selmaborntidefan

Hall of Fame
Mar 31, 2000
21,311
1,193
173
50
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
Let's look at the idea of the uselessness of a platform and I'll use the best-known issue and the GOP platform to make my point.


1980
While we recognize differing views on this question among Americans in general — and in our own party — we affirm our support of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children.

1988
That the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We therefore reaffirm our support for a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.

1992
We believe the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We therefore reaffirm our support for a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.

2012
we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution ...

=================


Now......whatever one thinks of this issue there can be LITTLE DOUBT it's a pro-life on the abortion issue declaration. And the way to do that is....with judicial appointments, litmus test questions on how one will rule. So how did it work?

Sandra O'Connor - state senator who held mild but clear pro-choice views
Antonin Scalia - definite Catholic pro-life judge
William Rhenquist - elevated to CJ in 1986, one of two judges to vote AGAINST Roe-v-Wade in 1973 (pro-life)
Anthony Kennedy - moderate conservative
David Souter - left-winger appointed by Pres Bush in 1990
Clarence Thomas - pro-life ex-Catholic turned charismatic Christian (who had had a militant Muslim phase as a youth)


So the GOP went to bat five times (Rhenquist was a guarantee as Chief as he was already on the Court and the GOP held the Senate) and
gave us a left-winger, two middle of the roaders, and two pro-lifers.

And when I point this out, what do I hear? "Oh, but Bork!"

I've never understood how the campaign that knocked off Bork really has anything to do with the choices of Souter and O'Connor. If that was the issue we're told and those were the choices.......well, it doesn't say much for those making the choices now, does it? Warren Rudman later bragged on how he had conned the Bush White House on Souter, whom Bush said would be a conservative "home run" as a judge.


That's just on the most volatile issue that's covered. I could name idea after idea that never had a chance of passing and guess what? Whoever actually believed it will ALWAYS find a way to blame the OTHER party for obstructing them from doing what they wanted.
 

MattinBama

Hall of Fame
Jul 31, 2007
9,232
1,403
173
Titus, AL
It's still a valid question because it serves as a unified counterattack to what the Republicans are doing. Look in this thread and you'll see their platform: laugh at Trump's errors, point out his mistakes and flaws, be condescending to his supporters or anyone who disagrees with their manifesto, but offer no alternative solutions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Interesting that I as an independent voter represent the Democratic party platform according to you.
 

chanson78

All-American
Nov 1, 2005
2,537
679
123
43
Huntsville, AL
So after three people have provided links, and some back and forth snark, there hasn’t been any actual evaluation of the information provided. I’ll add a fourth just to make it an even number. Link

Edit: Other than Selma’s excellent analysis regarding the futility of actually evaluating either party based upon their platforms.

This seems more like a ham fisted way of attempting to absolve the current Republican Party of it’s gross policy changes in light of the current administration. As a result I think I can help with some canned whaboutism for your next thread.

1. Sure the president has made 1,628 false claims in 298 days, but remember how Clinton lied about Lewinsky? They are obviously exactly the same!
2. Sure the new tax bill isn’t reaping all the benefits that were promised, but remember how Obama blew up the deficit after the worst economic crisis since the depression? Totes the same!
Since anything Clinton works, and the only person that makes Republicans clutch their pearls more than Obama is Clinton, I’m gonna reuse the first one.
3. Sure the president paid a porn star to keep quiet about an affair while his third wife was pregnant with his fifth child, but remember how Clinton had relations with an intern?

Look I get it, you’re tired of people on this board pointing out the facts about the absolutely terrible character, temperament, and intelligence of the sitting president. However, choosing to use the Republican playbook of Gaslight, Obstruct, Project of the current GOP isn’t going to fly. Most people on non-sports spot it for the tripe it is.
 
Last edited:

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
17,363
1,587
173
Hooterville, Vir.
Bazza endeavoring to state one's opponent's position is an activity fraught with difficulty, one to be attempted with great empathy, if at all.
You probably can' get an honest statement of what the Democrat position is on something without going to the Democrats themselves. Likewise, it is dangerous to get Democrats to articulate Republicans' positions.
It may be very satisfying to state one's opponents' positions, so we can hate them better. It is probably not an honest way of proceeding.
I would advise caution.

Now, as others have said above, political parties generally publish platforms only in presidential election years, and as Selma correctly stated, they are general guides, at best.

I know it is hard watching your guy get bashed in the news every day. Democrats had to deal with the same thing 2009-2017. Try going fishing. It will help.
 

Latest threads

TideFansStore.com