You mean the platform that they were more than lling to violate to do their best to rig the election for Hillary?
After they betrayed the American people by undermining our democracy like that, I would not be quick to believe any so-called "platform" that they have.
Other than some people expressing their subjective desire for Secretary Clinton to win, what tangible thing(s) did the Democratic Party do that disadvantaged Senator Sanders in the primary? The debate schedule is the only thing I can think of, and that's circumstantial. The Sanders campaign also agreed to most of it ahead of time. He mostly complained after he was the one who wanted to retroactively change the debate schedule after he realized the possible advantage of, for example, a debate in California.
"Minimum Wage" or "Living Wage" did not help the poor - it helped the ultra-rich. The government stepped in and said "this is the lowest amount of money you can legally pay an employee", and what did companies do? They paid everyone the lowest amount, wheras before the wage depended on supply, demand and negotiations between the employer and the employee. Before an employee could just say "your contract sucks, I'll go to a different company that'll value me more", there was a market for labourers. Now there isn't one because everyone's using minimum wage as a crutch. That, and it doesn't help anyways - rising the minimum wage will just inevitably rise living costs since companies will have to make up for the difference, thus you return to the point you started from. If increasing wages was the solution, why stop at all? Let's just rise the wages to $100 per hour, that'll make everyone rich as fuck, right? Wrong - companies will just move to China and India, like they have been for the past two decades because liberals crippled the market and made development unsustainable in the western hemisphere. There's a reason why the economy is stagnant in the west and booming in the east. Wages are not the issue here, the system is fundamentally flawed at the core.
Are you arguing that wages will increase if we abolish the minimum wage? History shows that the minimum wage has increased wages, not decreased them. A minimum wage also does not inflate the prices of goods and services for reasons I've explained above.
Without the minimum wage, businesses are likely to pay as little as they can get away with to their lower employees. And, before you say it, history shows the free market system is not going to allow for competition between businesses that raises their minimum wages. Businesses don't feel the need to, for example, attract the very best for menial jobs. There was (and is) a legitimate problem that led to the creation of the minimum wage in the first place. Don't get swept away with libertarian idealism.
That was BEFORE the other parts when you finally stated that you did infact not deny that they affected profits.
I don't even know how this is a point of contention - if the costs of running a business increase, the budget of that business decreases. A smaller budget means less money for development and upkeep, this includes current wages and the prospects of future positions. You can't pour yourself a glass of milk and claim that the carton is still full, that's ridiculous - a company's budget is finite.
You don't seem to understand the difference between affecting profits and affecting jobs. Affecting profits does not necessarily affect jobs as long as businesses are still in the business of being maximally profitable. A minimum wage might increase, but even so, it might still be profitable for me to have all of my employees due to the demand for my product. And, again, higher wages can equal higher demand for my product, and it can mean consumers are on average more willing spend more for my product, affecting my price vs. demand intersection.
I really do understand that what you're saying seems simple, but as I mentioned earlier, your point of view demonstrates a surface understanding of economics, when in fact there are a lot more variables to consider. It's like saying, "Of course the world's flat. A child could see that." Sometimes, reality is more complicated than what's intuitively obvious on the surface. Instead of going with your gut or what seems obvious, look at the data.
I did not imply anything about the recession although they did further more to hurt employment in that time.
Then as far as I'm aware, the history you're referring to doesn't exist.
You are the one who has repeatedly denied the simple basic principles regarding inflation, wage-employment relations, and so on. Do not come to me b##ching about the discussion when you are the one who has repeatedly denied the simple principles while also playing dumb.
Again, I'm not the one who has denied basic economic principles and data, but I'm not going to make snide remarks about it.