So how was that supposed to be interpreted? "everyone should receive due process?" Why don't they just say that, instead of trying to do a motte and bailey where the sign makes an absolutist statement on immigration policy, that then gets walked back on to something anodyne?
It's a (I agree somewhat silly) rejection of labelling people "illegals".
I assure you that very few of the people with those signs want open borders. That's a position held by almost nobody.
Back to the point: when did the democrats shift to any of these alleged positions? They didn't. It's what the opposition says they did, but they in-fact didn't.
>Back to the point: when did the democrats shift to any of these alleged positions? They didn't. It's what the opposition says they did, but they in-fact didn't.
That's a distinction without a difference. If Democratic voters and activists are pushing for a given position, it's cold comfort to the independent or Republican that it's not an official position of the Democratic party (whatever that might mean). Just look at Project 2025. It was produced by the Heritage Foundation, a right-leaning think tank that is technically independent of the GOP. Trump even distanced himself from it during the campaign. Does that mean Democrats aren't right to worry about it, because it wasn't an official position?
Look at the things you're comparing: a misreading of a somewhat-common yard sign plus what Fox News and Mark Levin say the democrats support, versus a concerted effort by a highly influential prominent think-tank that involved so very many top folks in Trump's campaign that his statements distancing himself from it were never anything but blatant lies.
Show me something actually equivalent, and you'll have a point. Find me the most-influential think tank you can that supports stuff like "abolishing the police force" or "denying the basic right for country to have an immigration policy". CFR? Brookings? Atlantic Council? IDK, find one. Find a policy statement on that stuff, Democrats usually put tons of policy docs on their campaign websites because they're nerds who incorrectly think normal people both can and are willing to read, so it should be well-documented. After all, the claim was that they shifted their campaign focus to that! To "abolishing the police force" (?!) and such. Not that a few individual democrats with little or no power said some things, maybe.
> That's a distinction without a difference.
Once you erase the long list of material fucking differences, sure.
> If Democratic voters and activists are pushing for a given position
ALMOST NONE ARE. The person who "deny[ies] the basic right for country to have an immigration policy" is vanishingly rare and you'll have at least as much luck finding them among the committed libertarian sorts as even the farther-left end of democrats—still not much luck, but about as much.
It's correct to say it's a problem for democrats that people think they hold these positions. It's incorrect to say it's because they in-fact do. It's because of effective propaganda.
You folks are assigning a caricature of their positions to them and then blaming them for adopting those caricatured positions. WT literal F.
>Look at the things you're comparing: a misreading of a somewhat-common yard sign plus what Fox News and Mark Levin say the democrats support
You're over-indexing on the influence of "Fox News and Mark Levin". Most people aren't news junkies. The whole contention is that people who aren't going out of their way to find uncharitable interpretations of "no human is illegal" will think that it's a pro-immigration message. By that I don't mean something like "we should use better names", I mean policies like unlimited migration, or even something like amnesty for all undocumented immigrants in the US. You reject this premise[1][2], but haven't really provided any justification for why that interpretation is unreasonable.
>Show me something actually equivalent, and you'll have a point. Find me the most-influential think tank you can that supports stuff like "abolishing the police force" or "denying the basic right for country to have an immigration policy".
>It's correct to say it's a problem for democrats that people think they hold these positions. It's incorrect to say it's because they in-fact do. It's because of effective propaganda.
>You folks are assigning a caricature of their positions to them and then blaming them for adopting those caricatured positions. WT literal F.
Again, my contention isn't that the Democratic party or left-leaning think tanks hold those positions, it's that they're poorly worded, leading independents and centrist Republicans to misinterpret their message, and pushing them away from the Democrats.
Note the original comment you replied to claims that "those kind of positions are a notable and visible part of progressive/Democratic culture". It says nothing about whether such positions are the official policies of the Democratic party.
> Note the original comment you replied to claims that "those kind of positions are a notable and visible part of progressive/Democratic culture". It says nothing about whether such positions are the official policies of the Democratic party.
No, the claim was:
> The democrats have fundamentally abandoned the working class in favor of stupid wedge issues. It was the "progressives" who chose to shift their campaign focus onto gaining more privileges for trans women, abolishing the police force, endorsing Islamic supremacist groups tale of their own victimhood, and denying the basic right for country to have an immigration policy. I don't see how any of this is aimed at the working class.
The only one of the four claimed positions that's even arguably not a fantasy ginned up by Republican propaganda is the one about trans women. The post was blaming democrats for taking positions that they did not take.
