Trump Jr 2028

TSA, Patriot Act, Homeland Security were all BIPARTISAN initiatives and overwhelmingly supported by both parties at the time.

I actually think that the question I asked is so broad that it’s a very subjective one and I’m interested in Rob’s opinion.

IMO, if we’re talking about party politics in the past twenty years (which I was), I think the shift in the right from party of GWB to MAGA is more extreme than the shift on the left from the party of Clinton/Obama to where it is now.

It’s only a question of degree though. Both have shifted from moderate views and leaders.

But that’s purely a subjective opinion.
The fact you can take Reagan speeches and Trump speeches and they will literally be arguing directly opposite of each other for me is the most glaring change in the last 50 years

I'm trying to think of if u could do that with Biden, Obama Clinton and compare their speeches against Carter, JFK, etc and see if they are in direct opposition
 
The fact you can take Reagan speeches and Trump speeches and they will literally be arguing directly opposite of each other for me is the most glaring change in the last 50 years

I'm trying to think of if u could do that with Biden, Obama Clinton and compare their speeches against Carter, JFK, etc and see if they are in direct opposition
You could take Biden arguing against Biden.
* Biden was previously opposed to sanctuary cities (although he did walk that back a decade later)
* In the 90s, Biden supported legislation that increased penalties for immigration-related offenses and expanded the powers of immigration enforcement.
*During George W Bush administration he voted for the Secure Fence Act (of course, so did Senator Obama). He justified his vote by saying the country needed to stop the drugs coming across the boards from corrupt Mexico.
 
Last edited:
You could take Biden arguing against Biden.
* Biden was previously opposed to sanctuary cities (although he did walk that back a decade later)
* In the 90s, Biden supported legislation that increased penalties for immigration-related offenses and expanded the powers of immigration enforcement.
*During George W Bush administration he voted for the Secure Fence Act (of course, so did Senator Obama). He justified his vote by saying the country needed to stop the drugs coming across the boards from corrupt Mexico.
He wasn't the leader of his party when he did that so that doesn't tell me how much the party leadership moved

Compare party leader to party leader to see how much the party moved


Not how much Joe Biden moved
 
He wasn't the leader of his party when he did that so that doesn't tell me how much the party leadership moved

Compare party leader to party leader to see how much the party moved


Not how much Joe Biden moved

In terms of Immigration there was a HUGE change in mentality from 2013 to 2020 within the democratic party. Every source you can find confirms. The Obama Admin deported more people per day/week/month while using removal policies that included vary minimal court dates and hearings. United states deportations included the subcategory of forced removals peaked from 2013-16 and reached levels quite a bit higher than today.

Biden, Lots of Deportations, but outside of Covid policies not a lot of forced removals. It was actually a fairly open boarder policy once Covid subsided. Ultimately this crippled the parties' chances at reelection in 2024.

The party has done a 180 in less than a decade on one of the biggest issues out there.
 
In terms of Immigration there was a HUGE change in mentality from 2013 to 2020 within the democratic party. Every source you can find confirms. The Obama Admin deported more people per day/week/month while using removal policies that included vary minimal court dates and hearings. United states deportations included the subcategory of forced removals peaked from 2013-16 and reached levels quite a bit higher than today.

Biden, Lots of Deportations, but outside of Covid policies not a lot of forced removals. It was actually a fairly open boarder policy once Covid subsided. Ultimately this crippled the parties' chances at reelection in 2024.

The party has done a 180 in less than a decade on one of the biggest issues out there.
Ok so that's why both Clinton and Biden deported more in total than Obama ?

Obama exported the MOST IN ONE YEAR vrs any other President. Trump is SECOND in that category for the 2nd Most in ONE YEAR.....but its a 4 year term and you have to look at ALL the data.

But lets look at the overall picture because apparently politics and the lies about immigration have clouded the reality of what actually occurred.

If anything the Dept of Homeland Security data shows that Trump has done far less in deportations in his One term than Reagan, Bush I OR Bush II did in any term they served....But Trump did have COVID and most everything shut down, including borders , immigrants , travel etc. So Trump did have less of a window in "Normal operating times" to hit deportation goals that Reagan, Bush I and Bush II didn't Face.

So Obama pulled a 180 on immigration vrs the rest of the Democratic Presidents before him??? That is simply NOT true when he didn't even get CLOSE to Clinton #'s. Clinton Deported 12.3 MILLION (granted MOST of those were Returns being deported more than once)

1749124725059.png
 
Last edited:
In terms of Immigration there was a HUGE change in mentality from 2013 to 2020 within the democratic party. Every source you can find confirms. The Obama Admin deported more people per day/week/month while using removal policies that included vary minimal court dates and hearings. United states deportations included the subcategory of forced removals peaked from 2013-16 and reached levels quite a bit higher than today.

Biden, Lots of Deportations, but outside of Covid policies not a lot of forced removals. It was actually a fairly open boarder policy once Covid subsided. Ultimately this crippled the parties' chances at reelection in 2024.

The party has done a 180 in less than a decade on one of the biggest issues out there.

Trump is why Biden's policies changed. They took it too far. It seems to me that Trump is now taking the opposite action again too far. It disgusts me that my country is treating people inhumanely.

Both parties change over time:
 
Can I say both without suffering your ire?
When have you ever worried about suffering my ire?

Never.

I think you enjoy igniting people's ire with your answers.

Both have, I agree.

Which one has shifted to the extremes more in your opinion.
 
Ok so that's why both Clinton and Biden deported more in total than Obama ?

Obama exported the MOST IN ONE YEAR vrs any other President. Trump is SECOND in that category for the 2nd Most in ONE YEAR.....but its a 4 year term and you have to look at ALL the data.

But lets look at the overall picture because apparently politics and the lies about immigration have clouded the reality of what actually occurred.

If anything the Dept of Homeland Security data shows that Trump has done far less in deportations in his One term than Reagan, Bush I OR Bush II did in any term they served....But Trump did have COVID and most everything shut down, including borders , immigrants , travel etc. So Trump did have less of a window in "Normal operating times" to hit deportation goals that Reagan, Bush I and Bush II didn't Face.

So Obama pulled a 180 on immigration vrs the rest of the Democratic Presidents before him??? That is simply NOT true when he didn't even get CLOSE to Clinton #'s. Clinton Deported 12.3 MILLION (granted MOST of those were Returns being deported more than once)

View attachment 11833

A problem with comparisons over time is that the immigrants have changed. In the past, immigrants were mostly Mexican/Central American men seeking work. Now, it is families from all over the place seeking asylum.

Screenshot 2025-06-05 at 8.00.44 AM.png
 
A problem with comparisons over time is that the immigrants have changed. In the past, immigrants were mostly Mexican/Central American men seeking work. Now, it is families from all over the place seeking asylum.

View attachment 11836
Post COVID immigration has changed quite a bit.

In the past , POTUS could just rack up numbers deporting migrant male workers over and over and over and over. Clinton excelled at that.

Now there is a compassion issue 2021 forward. Kids, Families, Wives, Uncles, Grandma's...its not longer about the Migrant worker.

I think it started under Obama and has continue through Trump and Biden and continues today. In the past the number of cases was generally equal to the number of deportations across ALL POTUS from 1981 forward.

Then you start to see these cases where you start to have discrepancies, and fewer people deported than actual cases. I think this yellow box below of missing data represents the asylum Seekers, families, Unaccompanied Minors, children & families.

Removing Illegals was no longer Black and White thing. They were no longer dealing with the Migrant Male worker traveling on his own and were now faced with entire families and generations seeking to flee violence or persecution etc. Removing a immigrant was no longer an easy decision and all of a sudden we need Immigration Asylum Lawyers and Judges and Infrastructure to support handling this New Type of Immigration we have not seen since Ellis Island.

This didn't start until Obama second term, continued under Trump and accelerated under Biden.

1749129465286.png


IMHO the ONLY thing that will fix this issue and I've been harping on it SINE OBAMA

The Feds MUST hire 80,000+ new Immigration Lawyers and prob 20,000 New Immigration Judges, Set up new facilities along points of entry and provide these asylum seekers a trial and allow them to plead their case as required by US Law, and then make that decision and turn around within a few WEEKS of them arriving and NOT turning them lose into the US with a trial date a year or more later. That's what that Yellow box represents...people awaiting trial and turned lose into the US and expected to come back to court later to hear their trial

The current back log of cases to review for Immigration has lead to most judges having back logs of cases SEVERAL HUNDRED years long.

Your Seeing TRUMP do the Exact thing I'm talking about as well. However, Trump is trying to only speed up the removal process at the end of the 2-5 year wait and NOT fix the FRONT end of the problem

When these people show up to court who have been living in the US for 2-5 years and doing their regular immigration check ins during their wait for their Immigration Hearing they are now being arrested. Trump's ICE are waiting at the courthouse and as soon as the Judge denies them entry, they are arrested and deported immediately.

NOW, lets clear the 2-5 year back log, by hiring more judges, more lawyers, set up facilities and Move that 2 -5 year trial waiting period down to 2-3 Weeks where they detained and have ICE stationed there to deport them within 2-3 weeks of arrival IF not approved for Asylum instead of allowing them into the US with a court date.

That is fantastic and should happen (although Trump's ICE has already been arresting them in the MIDDLE of their Hearings and even being found in Contempt doing it and they need to cut that SH** out)
 
Last edited:
When have you ever worried about suffering my ire?

Never.

I think you enjoy igniting people's ire with your answers.

Both have, I agree.

Which one has shifted to the extremes more in your opinion.
In the last 20, the right by a bit.

In the last 40, the left by a huge amount.
 
Ok so that's why both Clinton and Biden deported more in total than Obama ?

Obama exported the MOST IN ONE YEAR vrs any other President. Trump is SECOND in that category for the 2nd Most in ONE YEAR.....but its a 4 year term and you have to look at ALL the data.

But lets look at the overall picture because apparently politics and the lies about immigration have clouded the reality of what actually occurred.

If anything the Dept of Homeland Security data shows that Trump has done far less in deportations in his One term than Reagan, Bush I OR Bush II did in any term they served....But Trump did have COVID and most everything shut down, including borders , immigrants , travel etc. So Trump did have less of a window in "Normal operating times" to hit deportation goals that Reagan, Bush I and Bush II didn't Face.

So Obama pulled a 180 on immigration vrs the rest of the Democratic Presidents before him??? That is simply NOT true when he didn't even get CLOSE to Clinton #'s. Clinton Deported 12.3 MILLION (granted MOST of those were Returns being deported more than once)

View attachment 11833

Actual forced removals peaked in the 13-16 range. Most in the Clinton Admin were returns where people just left on their own. Forced removals under Obama 3,000,000. Forced removals under Clinton 870K. Its right there in the same article you pulled this chart from. And there are many many charts and other sources to show this. And yes, Obama was able to pick up the pace by circumventing the trial process and using ICE as judge and Jury.


There is too much out there. The Obama Admin was ruthless, and Trumps first term was no more than a carryover of the same policy.
 
Last edited:
Actual forced removals peaked in the 13-16 range. Most in the Clinton Admin where returns where people just left on their own. Forced removals under Obama 3,000,000. Forced removals under Clinton 870K. Its right there in the same article you pulled this chart from. And there are many many charts and other sources to show this. And yes, Obama was able to pick up the pace by circumventing the trial process and using ICE as judge and Jury.


There is too much out there. The Obama Admin was ruthless, and Trumps first term was no more than a carryover of the same policy.
so you don't understand the difference between a Return and a Removal when it comes to Immigration.

Return doesn't mean they left on their OWN FYI

These days, the term “removal” includes everything that used to be considered a deportation or exclusion.


"Returns," meanwhile, are a very specific immigration enforcement action. According to Theresa Brown of the Bipartisan Policy Center, returns refer to Canadians or Mexicans who were trying to enter illegally and were apprehended at their own border. These people, instead of being formally placed into proceedings, are simply turned around and prevented from entering the United States.


Currently, the federal government uses two different terms for when it apprehends an unauthorized immigrant and expels him or her from the country. There are “removals,” which involve a formal court order. And then there are “returns,” which do not

1) ‘Deportation’ is no longer an official legal term​

“Deportation” was an official legal term before 1996 — any time the government removed someone from inside the country who was in the US unlawfully, that was considered a deportation.
IN 1996, AN 'ORDER OF DEPORTATION' BECAME AN 'ORDER OF REMOVAL'
There were also “exclusions,” which was the term for denying entrance to someone who was trying to get in.
In 1996, both of these processes got rolled into a single process called "removals." Likewise, a formal "order of deportation" became an "order of removal."
But in the immigration debate, people kept talking about “deportations” — a term that didn’t have an official legal meaning anymore, and so could be used to refer to different things.

2) ‘Removal’ and ‘return’ have become the main terms in immigration enforcement over the last decade​

These days, the term “removal” includes everything that used to be considered a deportation or exclusion.
"Returns," meanwhile, are a very specific immigration enforcement action. According to Theresa Brown of the Bipartisan Policy Center, returns refer to Canadians or Mexicans who were trying to enter illegally and were apprehended at their own border. These people, instead of being formally placed into proceedings, are simply turned around and prevented from entering the United States. (Before 2006, this was known as a "voluntary departure.")
Changing the terms has made it difficult to track immigration statistics over time. So, in recent years, the government's Office of Immigration Statistics has put out tables showing the number of "returns" and "removals" going back to 1927 — reinterpreting old historical data with the new terminology.

3) Removals have much harsher consequences than returns​

PEOPLE WHO ARE RETURNED ARE NOT SUBJECT TO FORMAL CONSEQUENCES
Unauthorized immigrants who are removed from the country are ineligible to apply to re-enter legally for a period of years. If they try to come back to the US illegally and succeed (as of 1996) their removal order is "reinstated" and they can be deported again without another trial.
People who are returned, by contrast, are not subject to formal consequences — they can turn back around and try again, or they can apply to re-enter the country legally.

4) Bush had more returns than Obama, Obama had more removals​

Over the course of eight years, the George W. Bush administration oversaw 8.3 million returns and 2 million removals.
In the three years between fiscal year 2009 and 2012, most of which was under Obama, there were 1.6 million returns and 1.6 million removals. The Obama administration, from February 2009 to the present, has removed more than 2 million people.
WHEN DISCUSSING THEIR RECORDS, BUSH and OBAMA USE DIFFERENT STATS
So the combined removals and returns under Bush are much higher than under Obama. But Obama will pass Bush’s removals by the end of this year.
The administrations have added to the confusion by emphasizing different statistics. The Bush administration appears to have counted both removals and returns when discussing its immigration enforcement (but doesn't appear to have called them both "deportations"). The Obama administration, by contrast, has counted only removals.

5) The Bush administration started the trend of putting a heavier emphasis on removals​

During the Bush administration, the thriving economy drew a lot of unauthorized migration. Many of these people were apprehended at the border. Still, many slipped through and the unauthorized population grew significantly.
CRITICS CALLED RETURNS "CATCH-AND-RELEASE" — SO BUSH RAMPED UP REMOVALS
At the time, many critics derided the Bush administration's returns as a "catch-and-release" system — the administration was turning away people at the border who would then come back and try again.
So, in response, the Bush administration decided to ramp up the number of formal orders of removal (and criminal charges) for people who would previously have been returned, says Theresa Brown of the Bipartisan Policy Center, who was a Customs and Border Protection and Department of Homeland Security official at the time.
Bush officials figured that relying more heavily on removals would deter people from repeatedly trying to cross the border. This system has persisted under Obama, and is now part of what's called the Consequence Delivery System.

5) Obama has continued to prioritize removals, while having fewer people to return​

The Obama administration continued the strategic shift toward removals that began under Bush. That’s why Obama is on pace to eclipse Bush’s removal totals.
UNDER OBAMA, FEWER PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO enter IN THE FIRST PLACE
At the same time, returns have dropped under Obama. One reason: fewer people were trying to get into the country in the first place. Due to the recession, the number of immigrants trying to cross illegally dropped substantially. As a result, Border Patrol agents were apprehending many fewer people, meaning there were fewer people they could return.
Furthermore, more and more of the people the Obama administration was apprehending, says Brown, were people crossing from Mexico who weren’t from Mexico. Those people couldn’t be returned either — “returns” can only be used for Mexicans on the southern border (and Canadians on the northern one). And due to the Consequence Delivery System, the administration preferred to remove people rather than return them. “That combination of factors,” says Brown, “meant that the number of returns has gone down at the same time the number of removals has gone up.”
 
Last edited:
Actual forced removals peaked in the 13-16 range. Most in the Clinton Admin were returns where people just left on their own. Forced removals under Obama 3,000,000. Forced removals under Clinton 870K. Its right there in the same article you pulled this chart from. And there are many many charts and other sources to show this. And yes, Obama was able to pick up the pace by circumventing the trial process and using ICE as judge and Jury.


There is too much out there. The Obama Admin was ruthless, and Trumps first term was no more than a carryover of the same policy.

I agree with most of what you say. However, I think some context is needed. Obama's deportation policy was directed toward the prison system. His administration rounded up illegal immigrants who already had their due process and were already convicted of a crime. He also focused on recent border crossings and deprioritized illegal immigrants with strong family or community ties that had already been in the US for some time.

Trump changed all that, significantly broadening the scope of who could be deported. Yes, the ACLU was all over Obama about his deportations. But I really don't think there's a comparison to the inhumane ways Trump's ICE is handling it.


A good one from the Bipartisan Policy Center during Trump's first term:

Comparing Trump and Obama’s Deportation Priorities

The impact of this bottom-up system of prioritization is still unclear, but it will likely mean that who is in line for removal will be determined only by whom ICE can practically and easily apprehend (“low hanging fruit”) and the discretion of individual ICE officers.
 
so you don't understand the difference between a Return and a Removal when it comes to Immigration.

Return doesn't mean they left on their OWN FYI

These days, the term “removal” includes everything that used to be considered a deportation or exclusion.


"Returns," meanwhile, are a very specific immigration enforcement action. According to Theresa Brown of the Bipartisan Policy Center, returns refer to Canadians or Mexicans who were trying to enter illegally and were apprehended at their own border. These people, instead of being formally placed into proceedings, are simply turned around and prevented from entering the United States.


Currently, the federal government uses two different terms for when it apprehends an unauthorized immigrant and expels him or her from the country. There are “removals,” which involve a formal court order. And then there are “returns,” which do not

1) ‘Deportation’ is no longer an official legal term​

“Deportation” was an official legal term before 1996 — any time the government removed someone from inside the country who was in the US unlawfully, that was considered a deportation.
IN 1996, AN 'ORDER OF DEPORTATION' BECAME AN 'ORDER OF REMOVAL'
There were also “exclusions,” which was the term for denying entrance to someone who was trying to get in.
In 1996, both of these processes got rolled into a single process called "removals." Likewise, a formal "order of deportation" became an "order of removal."
But in the immigration debate, people kept talking about “deportations” — a term that didn’t have an official legal meaning anymore, and so could be used to refer to different things.

2) ‘Removal’ and ‘return’ have become the main terms in immigration enforcement over the last decade​

These days, the term “removal” includes everything that used to be considered a deportation or exclusion.
"Returns," meanwhile, are a very specific immigration enforcement action. According to Theresa Brown of the Bipartisan Policy Center, returns refer to Canadians or Mexicans who were trying to enter illegally and were apprehended at their own border. These people, instead of being formally placed into proceedings, are simply turned around and prevented from entering the United States. (Before 2006, this was known as a "voluntary departure.")
Changing the terms has made it difficult to track immigration statistics over time. So, in recent years, the government's Office of Immigration Statistics has put out tables showing the number of "returns" and "removals" going back to 1927 — reinterpreting old historical data with the new terminology.

3) Removals have much harsher consequences than returns​

PEOPLE WHO ARE RETURNED ARE NOT SUBJECT TO FORMAL CONSEQUENCES
Unauthorized immigrants who are removed from the country are ineligible to apply to re-enter legally for a period of years. If they try to come back to the US illegally and succeed (as of 1996) their removal order is "reinstated" and they can be deported again without another trial.
People who are returned, by contrast, are not subject to formal consequences — they can turn back around and try again, or they can apply to re-enter the country legally.

4) Bush had more returns than Obama, Obama had more removals​

Over the course of eight years, the George W. Bush administration oversaw 8.3 million returns and 2 million removals.
In the three years between fiscal year 2009 and 2012, most of which was under Obama, there were 1.6 million returns and 1.6 million removals. The Obama administration, from February 2009 to the present, has removed more than 2 million people.
WHEN DISCUSSING THEIR RECORDS, BUSH and OBAMA USE DIFFERENT STATS
So the combined removals and returns under Bush are much higher than under Obama. But Obama will pass Bush’s removals by the end of this year.
The administrations have added to the confusion by emphasizing different statistics. The Bush administration appears to have counted both removals and returns when discussing its immigration enforcement (but doesn't appear to have called them both "deportations"). The Obama administration, by contrast, has counted only removals.

5) The Bush administration started the trend of putting a heavier emphasis on removals​

During the Bush administration, the thriving economy drew a lot of unauthorized migration. Many of these people were apprehended at the border. Still, many slipped through and the unauthorized population grew significantly.
CRITICS CALLED RETURNS "CATCH-AND-RELEASE" — SO BUSH RAMPED UP REMOVALS
At the time, many critics derided the Bush administration's returns as a "catch-and-release" system — the administration was turning away people at the border who would then come back and try again.
So, in response, the Bush administration decided to ramp up the number of formal orders of removal (and criminal charges) for people who would previously have been returned, says Theresa Brown of the Bipartisan Policy Center, who was a Customs and Border Protection and Department of Homeland Security official at the time.
Bush officials figured that relying more heavily on removals would deter people from repeatedly trying to cross the border. This system has persisted under Obama, and is now part of what's called the Consequence Delivery System.

5) Obama has continued to prioritize removals, while having fewer people to return​

The Obama administration continued the strategic shift toward removals that began under Bush. That’s why Obama is on pace to eclipse Bush’s removal totals.
UNDER OBAMA, FEWER PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO enter IN THE FIRST PLACE
At the same time, returns have dropped under Obama. One reason: fewer people were trying to get into the country in the first place. Due to the recession, the number of immigrants trying to cross illegally dropped substantially. As a result, Border Patrol agents were apprehending many fewer people, meaning there were fewer people they could return.
Furthermore, more and more of the people the Obama administration was apprehending, says Brown, were people crossing from Mexico who weren’t from Mexico. Those people couldn’t be returned either — “returns” can only be used for Mexicans on the southern border (and Canadians on the northern one). And due to the Consequence Delivery System, the administration preferred to remove people rather than return them. “That combination of factors,” says Brown, “meant that the number of returns has gone down at the same time the number of removals has gone up.”

  • Returns: This is very similar to expedited removal and applies to persons who have violated immigration laws, who are returned to their country of origin without undergoing formal proceedings. Unlike removals, however, returns are generally quicker and often do not require a hearing before an immigration judge. They usually apply to persons apprehended near the border or shortly after entry who agree to leave voluntarily. However, despite being a less formal process, returns can result in sanctions that may affect future attempts to enter the United States.
I know what it is. They are not Ice raiding homes.
 
Last edited:
In terms of Immigration there was a HUGE change in mentality from 2013 to 2020 within the democratic party. Every source you can find confirms. The Obama Admin deported more people per day/week/month while using removal policies that included vary minimal court dates and hearings. United states deportations included the subcategory of forced removals peaked from 2013-16 and reached levels quite a bit higher than today.

Biden, Lots of Deportations, but outside of Covid policies not a lot of forced removals. It was actually a fairly open boarder policy once Covid subsided. Ultimately this crippled the parties' chances at reelection in 2024.

The party has done a 180 in less than a decade on one of the biggest issues out there.
Is there hard data showing how much illegal immigration went up under Biden or has this just been repeated so frequently by conservative media that people accept it as truth? For instance conservatives have convinced the country liberal cities are the most dangerous places in the world but if you look up the cities with the highest murder rates red states are pulling more than their weight.
 
In the last 20, the right by a bit.

In the last 40, the left by a huge amount.
I'd say all the shifts to extremism.....both the left's and the right's.....has mostly occurred in the past ten to 15 years or so.

I'd also say that the right shift in that period has been huge and concerning. The Republican party of today looks esentially nothing like the Republican party of 20 years ago, and even less like the Republican party of 40 years ago. @RxCowboy might have something to say to that as he has spoken on it for quite a while now.

I'd say that the left shift in the past twenty years makes it look more like the Democratic party of Carter/Mondale (40 or so years ago) than it looks like the Democratic Party of Slick Willie and even Obama.

IMO, both Bill Clinton and Obama were pretty danged moderate. Bill more so than Obama, but they were both more moderate than Democratic leadership before them.

The country went entirely sideways during the 2016 election and its build-up, IMO.
 
Last edited:
I'd say all the shifts to extremism.....both the left's and the right's.....has mostly occurred in the past ten to 15 years or so.

I'd also say that the right shift in that period has been huge and concerning. The Republican party of today looks esentially nothing like the Republican party of 20 years ago, and even less like the Republican party of 40 years ago. @RxCowboy might have something to say to that as he has spoken on it for quite a while now.

I'd say that the left shift in the past twenty years makes it look more like the Democratic party of Carter/Mondale (40 or so years ago) than it looks like the Democratic Party of Slick Willie and even Obama.

IMO, both Bill Clinton and Obama were pretty danged moderate. Bill more so than Obama, but they were both more moderate than Democratic leadership before them.

The country went entirely sideways during the 2016 election and its build-up, IMO.
I’m still pretty much what I was politically 20 years ago, but I find myself pretty far to the left of the current Republican Party. It’s insane.
 
I’m still pretty much what I was politically 20 years ago, but I find myself pretty far to the left of the current Republican Party. It’s insane.
Same w me. I’ve always been fiscally center but socially a little left of center politically. When it comes to how I’ve structured my life I’m pretty conservative.

To JD’s point above, I agree. I also wonder when you go back 40 yrs how much of the Democrat Party’s shift left is not so much a shift left but a reflection of the moderate/conservative white males leaving the party in the late 80’s and 90’s. I’ve read nothing on it just anecdotally know many personally who switched parties at this time. What were they called? Blue dog democrats?

Take my FIL He was a tinker employee and switched parties when Bill was shutting bases. Funny he switched back to D in 2018 bc of Trump/Stitt. Now he’s back to Republican bc he wants to vote against extreme Rs in a primary. My wife and I are considering the same bc of what happened to Rep Talley and the prospect of Walters.
 
Same w me. I’ve always been fiscally center but socially a little left of center politically. When it comes to how I’ve structured my life I’m pretty conservative.

To JD’s point above, I agree. I also wonder when you go back 40 yrs how much of the Democrat Party’s shift left is not so much a shift left but a reflection of the moderate/conservative white males leaving the party in the late 80’s and 90’s. I’ve read nothing on it just anecdotally know many personally who switched parties at this time. What were they called? Blue dog democrats?

Take my FIL He was a tinker employee and switched parties when Bill was shutting bases. Funny he switched back to D in 2018 bc of Trump/Stitt. Now he’s back to Republican bc he wants to vote against extreme Rs in a primary. My wife and I are considering the same bc of what happened to Rep Talley and the prospect of Walters.
I’ve talked about my parents being working class Democrats who built a mom and pop furniture store through a lot of hard work and left two sons in the furniture business and put two other sons through pharmacy school, and one who had a career in pharmacy academia. Yet the Dems have been taken over by screeching liberal white college educated women who openly despise people like my parents, and people like my parents have fled to the Republican Party because the Democrats despise them. It’s fked. And the Democrats can’t figure out why they’re losing the working class voters they’re screeching at.
 
Back
Top