Dems silently release 2018 platform from unlawful convention. Includes support for killing grandma law, hindering fossil fuels, repeal of right to work laws, and for state income tax.

While everyone has been distracted this week by Democrats finding out they screwed up their convention reporting, invalidating the results of the first one, and forcing them to hold another one, their platform was quietly released.

And now we know why it was done in silence. Because there are some points in there that are doozies.

2018 South Dakota Democratic Party Platform by Pat Powers on Scribd

Democrats released a platform which underlines Democrat support for state income taxes, a law allowing seniors to commit suicide, attacking fossil fuels, and coming down very strongly against South Dakota’s right to work laws demanding their repeal.

As noted in the platform under Human Rights:

The South Dakota Democratic Party supports:

  • The addition of age, sexual orientation, veterans’ status, and gender identity as protected classes under state employment, and housing discrimination, and public accommodation laws.
  • The repeal of the death penalty.
  • Common sense gun safety solutions, consistent with our Second Amendment Rights.

As noted in the platform under Labor and Employment:

The South Dakota Democratic Party supports:

  • The recognition that organized labor is essential to improving life in South Dakota. We affirm that “Right-to-Work” laws, which are used to weaken labor and have no real bearing on the right to obtain a job, must be repealed.
  • The belief that non-dues paying bargaining unit members who benefit from union representation should pay a fair share for the cost of their representation.
  • The proposition that anyone working more than 40 hours per week deserves time and one half regardless of employment status.

As noted in the platform under Natural Resources and Environment:

The South Dakota Democratic Party supports:

  • Recognizing that the effects of human-caused climate change negatively impact South Dakota, and urge Federal, State, and local governments to enact policies that mitigate and reverse those effects.
  • A commitment to United Nations Framework Convention’s on climate change new carbon standards for coal-fired power plants
  • The opposition to development of large-scale fossil fuel pipelines, fracking, and uranium mining.
  • The position that eminent domain shall not be allowed for transport, extraction or disposal of fossil fuels or fossil fuel products.

As noted in the platform under Seniors:

The South Dakota Democratic Party supports:

  • The right to end-of-life decisions which includes a person’s right to die.

As noted in the platform under State and Local Government:

The South Dakota Democratic Party supports:

Taxation

  • A tax system which taxes all income levels fairly as allowed by the South Dakota State Constitution.

I have the feeling there’s a reason they slipped this platform out quietly.

Since Democrats have to hold another convention, lets see if this platform holds up, or if they end up changing it after the criticism starts.

31 Replies to “Dems silently release 2018 platform from unlawful convention. Includes support for killing grandma law, hindering fossil fuels, repeal of right to work laws, and for state income tax.”

  1. Michael L. Wyland

    Yes, there’s a lot for a Republican or Independent to take issue with in that platform.

    I took a look at the GOP platform for comparison (http://southdakotagop.com/about-the-party/our-platform/) and was disappointed to find it was silent on issues of government transparency, accountability, conflicts of interest, etc. I’m disappointed that the GOP delegates didn’t address that “elephant in the room” (double meaning?) in the platform. It’s an easy pick-up for us, as the topic should be nonpartisan and noncontroversial (Sarcastically speaking, I’d love tho hear the defenders of closed government that condones conflicts of interest without public disclosure).

    Reply
    1. Anne Beal

      Michael you need to Re-read the GOP platform.

      “Federal, State and Local governments should be transparent…”
      And
      “We believe the free flow of information empowers and energizes a republic and serves to keep government accountable.”

      I don’t know how you missed that

      Reply
      1. Michael L. Wyland

        You’re correct; the summary statements include the following: “LIMITED GOVERNMENT—Federal, state and local governments should be transparent and limited to their respective roles as essential to inherently governmental functions.” However, the platform sections themselves do not refer to transparency, accountability, or conflicts of interest.

        Arguably, Section 5.8, “We believe the free flow of information empowers and energizes a republic and serves to keep government accountable. We support the federal Freedom of Information Act” is a step backward from state and local government accountability by not encouraging state laws that mirror the federal FOIA. In fact, the platform doesn’t even acknowledge or congratulate the current governor and legislature for the tentative and halting recent steps they’ve taken.

        I’ll reiterate my original point: The SDGOP missed a key opportunity apparent enough that both Kristi Noem and Billie Sutton have made the issue a talking point in their gubernatorial campaigns.

        Reply
        1. Anne Beal

          We made a point of eliminating redundancies. Saying something once is enough. Every two years the same people show up and waste everybody’s time with their ideas about rewriting the planks, so that they say the same thing multiple times with different words.

          Congratulating anybody is the stuff of resolutions, and such congratulations do not belong in the platform.

          Reply
  2. a friend of education

    I see merit in the proposal eliminating sales tax on food, but I’m dead set against imposing a state income tax. Terrible idea. We’ll vote straight-ticket R.

    Reply
  3. Anne Beal

    I love it when somebody says “we need common sense gun laws.”
    Do they mean the laws we’ve already got don’t make sense? Which of our current gun laws should be repealed because they don’t make sense? Just what makes a gun law sensible? Please give an example of a common sense gun law.

    This usually gets no response at all, or they tell me my questions don’t make any sense.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      I also noticed that the Dems like to use the term “common sense” a lot without presenting what they propose. I think most South Dakotans have too much common sense to fall for this bushwah.

      Reply
  4. Charlie Hoffman

    Anne common sense in terms of regulating anything which has been misused causing pain or injury is how Government stays in business. If we push a personal acceptability clause into the framework of every idea coming out of the liberal narrative they go out of business which in effect is what South Dakota Conservatives have done in the last 40 years.
    The courts thankfully have not allowed every personal poor decision to be labeled as another’s fault and with Trump picking Constitutional lovers for all benches we are safe nationwide for a few more years.

    Reply
  5. emily

    I read every line of the actual platform and disregarded the bloggers biased account of the platform because of foolish partisan spin. Every line is something we Republicans believe in as a group. If it was a SDGOP list no one would complain.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      Emily??????

      Anti death penalty; state income tax; forced unionism…

      Never been in GOP platform…and hopefully never will

      Reply
    2. Pat Powers Post author

      As I’m sure you’re aware, “Emily,” posting via proxy servers is banned. But I suspect you know that, since you’ve likely been banned under your real identity as well.

      Reply
  6. Springer

    Emily must be reading another platform if she thinks it agrees with the thinking of Republicans! Belief on global warming? Supporting the UN carbon standards? Forced union dues which are used not for collective bargaining but for political purposes? Income tax??? “Common semse” gun laws….by their definition of course? More protected classes (pretty soon they will want a protected class based on a person’s name)?

    Reply
  7. Anne Beal

    “Emily” has lost her mind if she thinks republicans want the state to pay for everything from universal health care to the South Dakota state fair. (The state should be subsidizing carnival rides, rock concerts and cookware demonstrations?)
    It’s quite a shopping list they’ve got there. Funding for public early childhood pre-k (AKA daycare) totally local determination of school closure/consolidation decisions, etc. it goes on and on. I could not read the whole thing. I kept imagining how much money they want to spend. They would have to enact a state income tax to pay for everything they’ve got listed there.

    Also, “right to die” and “women’s right to make their own healthcare decisions”
    are just euphemismistic ways to say “we believe in the right to kill off unwanted family members.”
    Add that to opposition to the death penalty (we don’t think convicted murderers should die, just innocent babies and grandparents) and you have a platform which is just insane. Really. Totally nuts.

    Reply
  8. Springer

    If people decide to become parents, they first need a little introspection and classes on personal responsibility to realize their duties as far as support go. They are responsible for feeding them, housing them, medical care, etc. If they aren’t open to this, then don’t have the child. It now seems expected that someone else will feed the kids during summer months, will pay for their early childhood education (babysitting), will pay their Medical bills, etc, at least to the Democrats.

    Reply
  9. Anne Beal

    I think the Republican Party should look at this shopping list the Democrats have come up with, calculate what everything will cost, and at every candidate forum or debate the Republican candidates can ask their opponents “how do you plan to pay for this?”

    Reply
  10. Anne Beal

    I am trying to distill this shopping list down to the basics:

    Agriculture:
    Money for R&D, education, the State Fair, monetary incentives for easements, expanded marketing

    Education:
    Local districts decide closure/consolidation issues.
    All-day everyday kindergarten
    Pre-K “education”
    Increased funding for post-secondary education
    Funding for non-Native American students who attend tribal colleges, and continuing education for senior citizens.
    More instruction in art and music.
    21st century technology in ALL schools
    And finally, collective bargaining for all the public education employees

    Healthcare:
    Medicaid expansion PLUS increased reimbursement for medical providers
    Increased funding for mental health & addiction treatment, transportation to medical appointments, access to nutritious food, and don’t forget, safe and clean drinking water is a “right.” And prescription drugs need to be cheaper.
    Law enforcement;
    They want increased funding for domestic violence shelters, sexual assault centers, transitional housing, visitation centers, and law enforcement efforts to stop human trafficking
    They also want more staffing for the SD Human Rights Commission

    Labor:
    They want the FMLA to apply to everybody, not just those employees who have worked for over a year for a business which employs more than 50 workers. Everybody. They want more money for workers’ comp and unemployment benefits, too.

    Voting rights:
    (This one might be my personal favorite)
    Since they view our Native Americans citizens as too incompetent to figure out how to resister to vote, locate a polling place, or even speak English, they want voter registration satellite offices, more money for voter registration drives and get-out-the-vote efforts, and finally, TRANSLATORS at the polls, for all those Native Americans who don’t speak English. This is hilarious. I had no idea the SD Democratic Party thinks Native Americans don’t speak English.

    Reply
  11. Anonymous

    This is the party of Sutton, Bjorkman, and Seller no matter how much those three (and all the others) claim to be moderates. If you are fooled by those claims you have your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears.

    Reply
  12. Anonymous

    As much as I disagree with the nutjobs of the State Democratic Party (Sutton, Bjorkman, Seiler and a few others not included in the nutjob faction) I don’t see any of them looking to discriminate based on the color of their skin, country of origin, religion or whatever.

    Reply
    1. William Beal

      When your political party’s ideology demands you bean-count human beings by their color, country of origin, religion or whatever it’s probably difficult to to understand that individuals, whatever their race, can be hurt by discriminatory “diversity” policies.

      Reply
  13. Anonymous

    Will Sutton, Bjorkman, Seiler and a few others be willing to add ‘P’ to LGBT? They don’t want to leave anyone out, they must not discriminate. Identity politics and intersectionality are the games they play and they play them so well.

    Reply
      1. Anonymous

        That’s what the terrorist organization, Black Lives Matter and the fake Muslim, Linda Sarsour, calls for on a weekly basis. Doesn’t Keith Ellison want to put Jews out to pasture? Democrats keep their party so well represented with high quality candidates. EQUALITY!!

        Reply

Leave a Reply to Anne Beal Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.