[WalterBright]

LBJ's "Great Society" programs still exist and are greatly expanded. The scope of federal entitlements have steadily expanded. And there are strident calls for Medicare for all.

Have you not noticed the recent elections of Democrat Socialists, and the Democrat leaders are endorsing them? This was unthinkable just a few years ago.

The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act are not socialism. I am not sure the VRA has been undone - didn't Los Angeles just enact a law to allow non-citizens to vote?

[jshier]

And none of those things are a move leftward, simply a return to FDR's Democratic Party, where universal healthcare and equal rights first had a chance of passing. That a handful of democratic nominees (most of the Democratic Socialists you allude to simply won their primaries, they aren't in power yet) are on the ballot for the first time demonstrates that the party itself has, in fact, moved rightward, as they wouldn't otherwise need to be described separate from the party itself. And your equation of left and socialism is deeply flawed. Ensuring equal rights with the CRA and VRA wasn't socialism (which is largely an economic framework, not political), but it was certainly a move to left. So much so the country essentially repolarized around those positions. Oh, and you do realize the difference between federal legislation and local laws about who can vote, right?

[WalterBright]

> And none of those things are a move leftward

Endorsing and electing Democrat Socialists is not a move leftward?

Sanders, AOC, Jayapal, Mandami, Katie Wilson, Bass, etc., are already elected and in power.

> Ensuring equal rights with the CRA and VRA wasn't socialism (which is largely an economic framework, not political), but it was certainly a move to left.

No, it was not a move left.

[idiotsecant]

You just keep saying 'socialisim' over and over like it's a viable argument