Wait, do you really think democrats had nothing to do with all those things? Really? NAFTA was signed by Slick Willy, and both dems and repubs in the house and senate voted roughly in the same numbers for it.
As usual you are full of crap..... Have you just not had enough time to keep up with posting drivel lately?
NAFTA isn't the be all and end all measure of party agendas on corporatism, but for what it's worth:
There 38 'no' votes. 28 were Democrats, and 10 were Republican. 3-1 isn't 'equal'.
The House has an even clearer picture: House Democrats voted NO, the bill would not have been passed by Dems (102 yes, 156 no a 3-2 no ratio). House Republicans voted YES, the bill would be and was passed if it were only Republicans (132 yes, 43 no, a 3-1 YES ratio).
(By the way, 'socialist' Senator Obama supported the expansion of NAFTA, at the risk of labor support in the presidential primary).
As I've said before, The Republicans are effectively almost completely corrupted now (NAFTA was a while ago - note, of the ten Republican Senators who voted 'no', none are still in the Senate), while Dems are split, with corporatist and progressive wings.
In the Senate, it's worse for progressive Dems. They have a small group like Sanders and Boxer.
There are many, many bills that did not pass with most Dems and a majority of Senators - often 57 to 59 - supporting them and 100% or close to it Republicans voting 100% or 100% less 1 or 2 not just voting no, but abusing the filibuster to block the bills as a minority.
The parties are far from the same - it's false to say otherwise, even if the corporatist wing of Democrats is largely similar to Republicans.
The progressive wing of the Democratic party is very different from both corporatist Dems and Republicans, but it's a minority. So, vote for them if you claim you are against the corporatists of both parties. But for some reason the 'both parties are the same' ranters refuse to vote for the only group that fits what they SAY they want against the corporatists - because it seems these posters aren't really all that concerned about corporatism as they say they are.
They find reasons to not support the progressives - which leaves only the corporatists as the real alternative, who already have the major funding advantage.
And for the Republicans who claim not to support them - I was just reading a bit of history on campaign finance reform, and Mitch McConnell had a nickname from the 90's of "The Darth Vader of Campaign Finance Reform", saying 'Spending is speech' - and this is the guy Republicans have made their leader who would be in charge of the Senate if Republicans had control.
NAFTA was passed relatively early on, with the corporate agenda pushing it as 'small government' - what could go wrong with being able to buy cheaper goods? There were no big bucks on the other side, except some unions, who were ignored with 'of course they'd say no'.
I doubt many who are even concerned with NAFTA here are familiar with its provisions, which have been called 'the greatest giving away of national sovereignity', or which I'd say include a great reduction in the power of democracy.
Ultimately, major corporations are in conflict with the public being able to vote any regulation, and tax they want on any corporations - and the only way for corporations to get what they want on that is to cripple the power of the government the people elect. Current free-trade agreements contain such provisions.
Facebook
Twitter