I don't think this is a very insightful article; it seems to presume that the policies advocated by Obama, because they were Obama's personal beliefs and personal preferences, were adopted across the party BECAUSE of Obama. I don't think that is true, at all.
If you look at the Republican party, you see an organic process: Trump took it over by out-witting and out-fighting and out-rallying and out-campaigning from the grass roots up. TO THIS DAY there are elements within the party which cannot be relied upon, because they have rather profoundly different core beliefs/unifying principles: (1) MANY Neo-Cons remain: they mostly only want war, with other people (never them) doing the risky stuff: killing and dying. (2) There is also the "Tea Party" group, which got started arguably with Ron Paul's run for President in 2008. (3) And then there is the "Liberal" wing of the party which includes the female senators from Maine and Alaska, who regularly go off on their own track.
Anyway, to this day, the Republican party has strong elements of independence. That is what an organic party evolution looks like. It gets cobbled together and held together with a lot of work.
The Democrat party, on the other hand, looks like something which was simply PURCHASED -- in totality --and given marching orders, again in totality. It is like a totalitarian "dictatorship" or a *strongly* controlled corporation.
I think you need to question WHO or WHAT did the purchasing and, specifically, why/where such a seemingly "stupid" and "psychotic" and absolutely hateful and destructive set of marching orders was imprinted on, effectively, EVERY politician in the party (yes, there were a few relative independents: the former senator from West Virginia and the former senator from Arizona). But the independents RESIGNED. Now it is just "the Borg".
I think there is a story there, if you dig deep enough, which is scarcely being explored, just yet.
The Obama-Clinton-Biden nexus has one thing in common which *I* think, but don't know for absolute sure, would tie things together.
What is that? Well, all three were obviously (at least obvious to me;) PURCHASED, lock-stock-and-barrel, by a FOREIGN power ...and I am going to go out on a limb and say/speculate: the SAME foreign power. And, as should be evident to everyone on this board, and in this country, by now: it AIN'T Russia.
Dig hard into the standard questions behind any hard-to-solve murder-mystery: Means. Motive. And Opportunity.
I think the answer is rather obvious. But, then, I've been thinking hard about this since at least 2000, and SPECULATING about a bunch of other odd things from decades before that. I mean, the United States was RIPE for the picking. It was just a matter of time before some Major Power made the move in earnest. At least that is how it has long seemed to me.
To start with, the two political parties were AVAILABLE for PURCHASE dating back to at least the 1970s. That has always bothered me...that their highest value was if they were both purchased by the SAME controlling entity. And I think they were for a time...until Trump upset the roll-up and dislodged the NeoCon traitors and hangers-on.
| 
