Witnesses to Trump's execution spree are dismayed by Democrats' decision to remove death penalty opposition from their party platform.
  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    37·
    3 months ago

    That’s a weird claim, when the Central Park Five were speakes at the DNC, probably the most well known symbol against death penalty.
    And the democrats have both a presidential candidate and VP candidate that are clearly against the death penalty.

    Download the party program pdf:
    Link to page:
    https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/

    Direct link to download:
    https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-Democratic-Party-Platform.pdf

    Page 38 of the party program:
    >And Democrats continue to support abolishing the death penalty.

    Article is bullshit because the claim in the headline:

    Democrats Abandoned Their Anti-Death Penalty Stance.

    Is easily refuted by the facts of the policies of their candidates.

    And the claim below the headline:

    remove death penalty opposition from their party platform.

    Is evidently false. It’s right there on page 38 of their official program!!!

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      1·
      3 months ago

      I was unable to find any mention of it in the 2024 platform. But then they didn’t even have time to change the names in it. So I’m not sure what, if anything, it actually signifies.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        4·
        3 months ago

        Imagine how wonderful it would be, if journalists linked sources that are essential to their story.
        That said, this is not their official program, it’s based heavily on Biden policies, not Kamala Harris.
        I imagine with Harris as their new candidate, democrats will make a new program. As it is, this program is basically meaningless. Both Harris and Walz strongly oppose death penalty.
        So I maintain the story is grossly misleading. As is evident by the invitation of one of the Exonerated Five to the DNC.

  • tootoughtoremember@lemmy.world
    9·
    3 months ago

    They keep bragging about many Republicans they had on stage. Great, I guess the Democrats are just the Republicans from 10-20 years ago if those speakers find the current Democratic party palatable. I’m sure that will rally people to vote blue like they did in 2008. Was it caving on immigration, peace, and crime what made Obama so popular?

    • ClassStruggle@lemmy.mlEnglish
      6·
      3 months ago

      They’re not even Republicans from 10-20 years ago. They’re Republicans from five years ago.

      • Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world
        13·
        3 months ago

        Yes because Republicans from five years ago would definitely have all the largest union leaders and several socialists speaking at their convention.

        • EmpireInDecay@lemmy.mlEnglish
          6·
          3 months ago

          If they were speaking at the DNC, they were not socialists. They had more Republicans and cops speaking at that convention than marginalized communities.

          • Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world
            8·
            3 months ago

            If they were speaking at the DNC, they were not socialists.

            So Bernie and AOC aren’t socialists now?

            They had more Republicans and cops speaking at that convention than marginalized communities.

            Uh? No they didn’t? Did you even watch the convention? They had a few Republicans and cops who spoke for less than ten minutes each. Meanwhile they had dozens of women of color, and women’s rights were one of the main themes of the entire convention.

    • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      5·
      3 months ago

      This is why I think it’s not impossible that we’ll have a party swap where these right wing politicians all become the new democratic party and the progressives fuck off to form a new left wing.

    • Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world
      23·
      3 months ago

      Her acceptance speech was bog standard for a democratic nominee, she played to both conservatives and progressives. Don’t act like she’s suddenly now a conservative because she pandered to the military and veterans.

        • qprimed@lemmy.mlEnglish
          14·
          3 months ago

          because the campaign knows any relatively sane person is already not voting for trump. the campaign is try to pull in a few of the “stupid” / “distracted” / “both sides bad” / “only voted republican before but they are weird now” people.

          we wont really know anything about a harris administration until she starts selecting appointments. so far her VP selection is tentatively 'opefull.

        • Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world
          11·
          3 months ago

          The ticket is pandering to progressives as well, there’s no way in hell Tim Walz would be going up there and saying Healthcare and Housing are human rights otherwise.

      • Tylerdurdon@lemmy.world
        2·
        3 months ago

        Yep. It’s normal for someone’s views to be divergent. Obviously my opinion isn’t popular (oh well) but it’s common for folks to hold views from each party.

        For example, I’m on the left but enjoy my 2nd amendment rights. Does that mean I’m pro-gun? No way. I think we should be limited to handguns for home protection and hunting rifles for hunting, also to include mandatory licensing and membership in a regulated militia as requirements for ownership. That doesn’t put me squarely in either party.

        The examples go on an on, but overall I’m tired of having 2 parties and a neat little list that we should subscribe to so that we “belong.”