Why don't the Dems get it?

[Bubblehead1980]

So it's been almost two weeks since the "shellacking" of the Dems in the elections and since then have noticed that even after the Dems and Barry O just do not get it.

I've heard Barry, Pelosi and other Democrats try to claim that this was not the American people telling them to stop but just there was a "communication issue", the voters were "misinformed", or just annoyed with the "slow but steady progress".

Yet you have heard multiple Republicans publicly say they are aware this was not a ringing endorsement of the GOP but a message for Barry and the Dems.The GOP/Tea Party gets it on this for sure.

Another sign the Dems just don't get it is they may let Pelosi become minority leader? So they may allow the woman who lead then to the disaster of Nov 2 stay leader? Denial is a scary thing. Lets hope they don't push anymore radical parts of their agenda during the lame duck session, such as the DREAM act or other bleeding heart crap.

[DarkFish]

Why have I got the feeling I've seen this thread before?:hmmm:

Ah, General Topics... nevermind:shifty:

[SteamWake]

I say let them install Pelosi as minority speaker.

Let that wretched hag be the face of the liberal democrats. Remind everyone how they just dont get it.

"Its not my fault we lost..." :har:

[Tribesman]

So it's been almost two weeks since the "shellacking" of the Dems in the elections and since then have noticed that even after the Dems and Barry O just do not get it.


It been almost two weeks from the mid terms and you still don't get that its just the mid terms, yet even if it was the main elections you still end up with just a bunch of muppets.
Its you who doesn't get it Bubble, a few years out of school in the real world should cure you though.

So it isn't the politicians who don't get it, its the voters who think the politicians really give a toss what the voter think that are the ones that don't get it.

[mookiemookie]

It been almost two weeks from the mid terms and you still don't get that its just the mid terms, yet even if it was the main elections you still end up with just a bunch of muppets.
Its you who doesn't get it Bubble, a few years out of school in the real world should cure you though.

So it isn't the politicians who don't get it, its the voters who think the politicians really give a toss what the voter think that are the ones that don't get it.

B-b-b-but it's different this time!

[Takeda Shingen]

B-b-b-but it's different this time!

It will be. John Boehner's tears have magical properties that will cleanse the impurities found within the Legislative Branch of government.

[Buddahaid]

It will be. John Boehner's tears have magical properties that will cleanse the impurities found within the Legislative Branch of government.

We are healed.

[yubba]

Lefty dems claim commununication issue :hmmm: even I understood, 1 spread the wealth around:O:. 2 we were the enemy and should be punished:down:. 3 com pre hens alble immigration:damn:. 4 raise taxes. 5 my favorite, we have too pass these bills in a hurry so we can find out whats in them:har: no wonder they got hosed.

[Bubblehead1980]

It been almost two weeks from the mid terms and you still don't get that its just the mid terms, yet even if it was the main elections you still end up with just a bunch of muppets.
Its you who doesn't get it Bubble, a few years out of school in the real world should cure you though.

So it isn't the politicians who don't get it, its the voters who think the politicians really give a toss what the voter think that are the ones that don't get it.


Tribesman,

I am plenty of aware of how politics works BUT the Republicans learned from their losses and if they want to gain more seats and the Presidency, they will listen and have.You allege that once I hit the "real world" I will look at things different.Perhaps you should step back and realize how over cynical you are? I am not naive, I can be quite the cynic but I know where to draw the line.

I could be wrong but I do believe things will be different on the part of the GOP, you will see a different house under them this time.Not because I think they are all(some are but not all) patriots etc but they want to stay in power, well that is motivation enough to listen to the people and I believe they will this time.Took the losses in 2006 mid terms and actually watching someone like Obama win the Presidency for most Republicans to "get it" I could be wrong and if I am, I will admit to it later.


As said, the Dems just don't get it, this was a referendum on Obama and the Dem's agenda and it was soundly rejected by the people.However, instead of listening they are going to just pretend it was ignorance on the voter's part etc which really shows just how out of touch Obama, Pelosi etc are.You say it was "just the mid terms" but congressional elections are a big deal.Obama was only able to pass the crap he has the past couple years because of the majority, without it, it changes his options.Your "just the mid terms" comment really shows your lack of knowledge about how the American government works.

My hope is that some moderating forces in the Dem party will take over and save what was once a decent party that truly was on the side of the regular person and not ran by a far Left ideology that just pisses on the Constitution, try to legalize illegal aliens, and blame America for everything. I am sure they will stay stubborn and it won't hit home for them until their precious Barry loses in 2012, perhaps then they will come out of denial, we shall see.

[Bubblehead1980]

B-b-b-but it's different this time!


Oh it will, no more Pelosi running things:yeah:

[krashkart]

Oh it will, no more Pelosi running things:yeah:

No more Pelosi, just some other twit. :haha:

[Bubblehead1980]

It will be. John Boehner's tears have magical properties that will cleanse the impurities found within the Legislative Branch of government.


You know, why poke such fun a John Boehner? Like him or dislike him the man was happy.The guy came from very little and has lived the American dream.Perhaps it all hit him at once, the man is going to be the next speaker of the house so was overwhelmed and shed some tears.Why assume it is crocodile tears? I dislike this term but don't be a "hater" :arrgh!:

[Takeda Shingen]

You know, why poke such fun a John Boehner? Like him or dislike him the man was happy.The guy came from very little and has lived the American dream.Perhaps it all hit him at once, the man is going to be the next speaker of the house so was overwhelmed and shed some tears.Why assume it is crocodile tears? I dislike this term but don't be a "hater" :arrgh!:

If Nancy Pelosi had teared up like that four years ago, you'd have been all over her. Why does Boehner get a pass? Cornball is cornball, regardless of the letter after the name.

[Bubblehead1980]

If Nancy Pelosi had teared up like that four years ago, you'd have been all over her. Why does Boehner get a pass? Cornball is cornball, regardless of the letter after the name.


I agree cornball but have to understand what it means to that person.Honestly, if I were in his position can't say I would not be a little emotional.

Well to me it would be different, Pelosi did not exactly have many challenges coming up to her position since her father was in Congress, husband is wealthy and being from SF and it's "tolerance", she has not had a serious challenge to her seat in years bc the kooks in SF love her.Boehner on other hand made his own way and most interesting fact is he did it without having debt, he is and has stayed debt free.I remember Diane Sawyer pointing that out during her post election interview with him.The cynic factor is at play which makes many assume he was doing it as a ploy, you have a guy who literally lived the "American Dream" and was overcome by emotion.

I agree cornball BUT seems a few have suggested it was croc tears and that is incorrect.

[tater]

Seemed real when I saw it. Didn't really think about ti one way or another. Pelosi as minority leader would be a gift that keeps giving, frankly.

[Bubblehead1980]

Seemed real when I saw it. Didn't really think about ti one way or another. Pelosi as minority leader would be a gift that keeps giving, frankly.

I agree it was real and actually think he may turn out to be a good speaker.Pelosi just needs to fade away, she likes the limelight too much(even though she is horrible on camera) and is a true believer Leftist like Obama, she wants to be in on things, in her mind most people in America are with her LOL. True she will be a gift as minority leader BUT she just needs to retire and have no say so on national issues, she has proven what an idiot and ideologue she is, time for Nancy to go home to SF and argue with the voices in her head.

[mookiemookie]

and is a true believer

Oh lawdy the irony...

[Tribesman]

Oh lawdy the irony...
He just doesn't get it.

I am plenty of aware of how politics works BUT the Republicans learned from their losses and if they want to gain more seats and the Presidency, they will listen and have
Same rubbish as is spouted after every election which funnily enough is in tune with the same rubbish they spout during every election.

You say it was "just the mid terms" but congressional elections are a big deal.
Mid terms are mid terms , they are just the same deal as they are every cycle which is why they are just the mid terms which is why there is the expression "just the mid terms"

a far Left ideology
Bubble, if you think the D party are far left you really havn't the faintest idea what a far left ideology is.

[Sailor Steve]

It been almost two weeks from the mid terms and you still don't get that its just the mid terms, yet even if it was the main elections you still end up with just a bunch of muppets.
There is no "just" about it. Congressional elections are held every two years. Representatives only serve for two years. Senators serve for six, and 1/3 of them are elected every two years.

The only reason the term "mid-term" is used is that they don't coincide with the presidential election.

I am plenty of aware of how politics works BUT the Republicans learned from their losses and if they want to gain more seats and the Presidency, they will listen and have.
That is exactly what the hard-core right were saying in 1994. Those of us who really aren't indoctrinated say "we'll see".

[tater]

The current crop of dems are indeed "far left" by US standards. The moderates were only moderate because they were in more conservative districts, and they just got creamed, so there are almost none left.

How they rate compared to politics abroad... I could not possibly care less.

The midterms here were a referendum on the Obama administration, as they are on any administration. The results are typically negative. The reason is that Americans prefer the center. This election put things back in "normal" territory, no super majorities, separation of power.

As it should be. Sad we had a supermajority screw things up in the interim.

[Platapus]

To decode American Politics, use this key

When your side wins it is called a "referendum"
When you side loses it is "inconclusive"

:know:

[tater]

The W midterms were a referendum on his admin as well. That's how it works.

[Tribesman]

The results are typically negative.
Indeed, plus they are typically with a lower level of voter participation, which is another reason why they are just the mid terms.

The current crop of dems are indeed "far left" by US standards
So a dwarf would be a "giant" if he was quarter of an inch taller than his dwarf neighbours, but cetrtainly he wouldn't be a giant by any credible measures.

[tater]

So a dwarf would be a "giant" if he was quarter of an inch taller than his dwarf neighbours, but cetrtainly he wouldn't be a giant by any credible measures.

Dumb analogy. There is a fairly universal range of size for dwarfism and gigantism. This is not true in politics. In general, the "left vs right" paradigm is a poor one anyway, certainly for discussing politics globally. At the very least a 2-axis system like that politicalcompass.com website makes more sense. That said, in the 2-party US system, left and right make slightly more sense than comparisons with other political systems with their myriad parties.

So for US politics, the critical measurement is really distance from the US center. Nothing else matters, and other countries and where we land relative to them doesn't matter—not even a little.

If you're looking at analogies, you might want to compare, say, US NASCAR vehicles to European F1. The two never compete with each other, and are optimized for entirely different track types as well as arbitrary rules limitations. Saying one is faster is meaningless, since they'd never be allowed to race one another.

[Sailor Steve]

In general, the "left vs right" paradigm is a poor one anyway, certainly for discussing politics globally.
Well said. I find it amusing that only two hundred years ago, 'Liberal' represented the ideal that self-described 'Conservatives' aspire to today.
http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/glossary/ClassicalLiberalism.html

I just stumbled upon a speech delivered fourteen years ago which sums up perfectly what I think America should be.
http://mises.org/etexts/classical.asp

[Tribesman]

Dumb analogy.
Perfect anology, you are talking about two very similar parties that are both part of the interchangable mainstream establishhment. If you want "far left" you have to look at one of the many fringe parties you have over there which end up with a miniscule vote in elections.

That said, in the 2-party US system, left and right make slightly more sense than comparisons with other political systems with their myriad parties.

errrrrr....I hate to break it to ya but in the US you have hundreds of political parties, wouldn't hundreds of parties equal a myriad:yeah:

So for US politics, the critical measurement is really distance from the US center. Nothing else matters, and other countries and where we land relative to them doesn't matter—not even a little.

Perfect, yet you are choosing to ignore US politics and US political parties to get that measure which is why the "far left" claim is pure nonsense.

[tater]

Perfect anology, you are talking about two very similar parties that are both part of the interchangable mainstream establishhment. If you want "far left" you have to look at one of the many fringe parties you have over there which end up with a miniscule vote in elections.

No, you cannot even compare parties that do not compete with each other in different systems (US vs everywhere else on earth). They are not the same, play in different arenas, and more importantly, no american cares.

errrrrr....I hate to break it to ya but in the US you have hundreds of political parties, wouldn't hundreds of parties equal a myriad:yeah:

We have 2 parties that win in national elections in any meaningful way. the rest combined are statistically insignificant. If your voting record is on the left extreme of the democrats, you are "far left" in US politics, period. Ditto, "far right" if you vote far right relative to Rs. All americans will understand this continuum, and we don't care what you think about it. There is no "real" right/left metric, so any attribution is subjective. Given this, the one that US voters (no one else) understand is the only meaningful metric.

So any 3d parties are define solely (in the US) based on their position relative to the 2 "real" parties. Democrats that are left enough of center in the US are "far left." Anyone at or past that displacement from center is also far left. Mirror on the right.


Perfect, yet you are choosing to ignore US politics and US political parties to get that measure which is why the "far left" claim is pure nonsense.

Why don't you post some irish political threads? US politics is US politics. You can pretend that 3d parties are meaningful, or that the position of US pols vs world parties matter all you like. It's just not meaningful in the US. Yammer away, by all means, in 300,000,000 americans, maybe you'll find a handful that agree with you.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

"Its not my fault we lost..." :har:

Astroturfing is at fault.

[mookiemookie]

So any 3d parties are define solely (in the US) based on their position relative to the 2 "real" parties. Democrats that are left enough of center in the US are "far left." Anyone at or past that displacement from center is also far left. Mirror on the right.

You're moving the bar so as to make yourself look correct. The CPUSA is far left by any standards. The Green party is far left, but not as far left as CPUSA. They are both United States political parties. Therefore when you say the Democrats are "far left" you're wrong, even when you stick to your original benchmark of the realm of United States political parties.

[Tribesman]

No, you cannot even compare parties that do not compete with each other in different systems (US vs everywhere else on earth). They are not the same, play in different arenas, and more importantly, no american cares.


What is your comprehension problem today?
Where have I said about parties in other countries?
These are american parties in american politics.

We have 2 parties that win in national elections in any meaningful way.
Neither of which is far left.

the rest combined are statistically insignificant.
The far left and far right are usually statisticlally insignificant, it doesn't change the fact that they are the far left and far right and the central parties are not them.

So any 3d parties are define solely (in the US) based on their position relative to the 2 "real" parties.
Which is why you make no sense, if the democrats really were far left then where the hell would that put the real far left?
If what you are saying was a proper measure then the Republicans would automaticly be the neo nazi party. Are you saying McCain is a neo-nazi?

You can pretend that 3d parties are meaningful,
Tell that to all those who claim to be Libertarians:har::har::har:

or that the position of US pols vs world parties matter all you like
Again with your comprehension problem...this is US parties vs. US parties . If the reality of that doesn't sit comfortably with your views then it speaks volumes about your views and your inability to face the reality of it.

Why don't you post some irish political threads?
Because you would get very confused by the republican party, the republican party, the republican party, the republican party and the republican party.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Because you would get very confused by the republican party, the republican party, the republican party, the republican party and the republican party.

I guess that's like the GOP, Libertarians, and Tea Partiers, here!!!
:har::har::har::har::har::har::har:

And oh, the "Independents (tm)"!!!

[tater]

You're moving the bar so as to make yourself look correct. The CPUSA is far left by any standards. The Green party is far left, but not as far left as CPUSA. They are both United States political parties. Therefore when you say the Democrats are "far left" you're wrong, even when you stick to your original benchmark of the realm of United States political parties.

I said that some democrats are far left. After the election, MORE are far left, since the "moderates" were obliterated in the midterms. (it's interesting that the press describves them as "blue doigs" or "moderates" when in fact they voted with the leadership virtually all the time, even on the bills that form the very definition of moderate (ie: have to vote "no" to be a moderate, yet they voted "yea."). So they were moderates in name only).

Again, the metrics used to assign "left" vs "far left" are vague. Senators Kerry and Obama were as far left as was possible as measured by voting record. That limits that particular ranking by what bills are actually available to vote on. Given the centrist nature of the US, it slants the far left of the dems to the right vs their personal beliefs, and the far right left based on theirs for the most part. There are many places of overlap with 3d parties. There is also overlap in the "wrong" direction. Republicans in favor of prayer in school, for example are being anti-conservative in that case, with "libertarians" as the "more" conservative ones.

While there are parties like the CPUSA in existence, they are not any more significant than the Mickey Mouse party (as a write-in). They don't win.

There is also the issue of fairness in description. You can do a lexis/nexis search on "far right" vs "far left" and I guarantee that "far right" gets used far more by the media. Heck, they assign "far" or "extreme" right to neo nazis. What overlap is there exactly between pro-market, smaller federal government, devolution of power to the States and otherwise a-political (or socialist if real nazis) morons who hate "inferior" races (hard to imagine anyone moire inferior than a nazi, lol)? Exactly nothing. They have no policy goals in common. So if XX Republicans are gonna be called "right wing" or "hard right" or "far right" because they vote a certain way in congress, then the same "far," "extreme," "hard" descriptors are required for those who vote the same way on the other side. Fair is fair.

[tater]

What is your comprehension problem today?
Where have I said about parties in other countries?
These are american parties in american politics.


Neither of which is far left.

Some US democrats are far left in the US spectrum. If your voting record is to the extreme left, then you are far left.


The far left and far right are usually statisticlally insignificant, it doesn't change the fact that they are the far left and far right and the central parties are not them.

It's entirely relative to the national average. The media constantly calls various republicans "far right" but they don't do the same for Obama and Kerry, even though by the only objective metric—how they voted in congress—they are just as far left as the various reps are right.

Which is why you make no sense, if the democrats really were far left then where the hell would that put the real far left?
If what you are saying was a proper measure then the Republicans would automaticly be the neo nazi party. Are you saying McCain is a neo-nazi?

Nazis are left, not right. A perfect example, actually. The very spectrum you suggest places a party that never elected anyone in the US on the "right" for no objective reason. National Socialist Party. Not seeing devolution of power, or free markets, or anything else "right" in there. The extreme right in the US would be libertarians—or perhaps anarchists (by definition any anarchist organized enough to run for office (or that thinks holding office is good in the first place) is not really an anarchist, though :) ). Nazis were first described as "right" by... Stalin. Being right of Stalin doesn't make you right in US politics (unless the dems are commies).

Tell that to all those who claim to be Libertarians:har::har::har:


They don't matter, they are spoilers as a party. Some become republicans, then they are "far right" republicans (oddly, many would likely be described by the media as centrists).


Because you would get very confused by the republican party, the republican party, the republican party, the republican party and the republican party.

No, because I wouldn't read the thread, why would I possibly care about Irish politics? I care about US politics because it matters to me, I live here, and I participate.

[mookiemookie]

Nazis are left, not right.

Uhh, no. Fascism is not a left ideology. It's a far right ideology.

[Takeda Shingen]

Nazis are left, not right. A perfect example, actually. The very spectrum you suggest places a party that never elected anyone in the US on the "right" for no objective reason. National Socialist Party. Not seeing devolution of power, or free markets, or anything else "right" in there. The extreme right in the US would be libertarians—or perhaps anarchists (by definition any anarchist organized enough to run for office (or that thinks holding office is good in the first place) is not really an anarchist, though :) ). Nazis were first described as "right" by... Stalin. Being right of Stalin doesn't make you right in US politics (unless the dems are commies).

I may be a moron, but even I know that fascism stands in opposition to both liberalism and conservatism, as it opposes the state controls of socialism, the deregulation of free market capitalism, individualism and collectivism. Oddly, what follows is ususally a strange amalgamation of both. Therefore, the National Socialists were neither 'right' nor 'left'. Attempting to label them as such is usually reserved as the domain of idealogues, pundits and those that wave foam fingers.

[tater]

BTW, the whole "left/right" thing is, as I said well above, silly. There is no really objective way to characterize people on the scale in general (based on ideas).

There are many possible linear scales we could invent, but again, ranking people is hard. Exactly how far "left" or "right" is a certain bill?

[tater]

Uhh, no. Fascism is not a left ideology. It's a far right ideology.

Huh? How? Be specific.

Because you say so? Because Stalin said so? In the US, conservatism includes "States' Rights." How can you have a conservative government with central control? The nazis also had a command economy. It was "private" but only to the extent specific companies were allowed to play based on nazi control. It was not a free market.

Calling nazis "right" shows everything that is wrong with the idiotic linear "left/right" paradigm.

[tater]

I may be a moron, but even I know that fascism stands in opposition to both liberalism and conservatism, as it opposes the state controls of socialism, the deregulation of free market capitalism, individualism and collectivism. Oddly, what follows is ususally a strange amalgamation of both. Therefore, the National Socialists were neither 'right' nor 'left'. Attempting to label them as such is usually reserved as the domain of idealogues, pundits and those that wave foam fingers.

I agree, actually.

It';s not that they are not right or left, but that right and left are such a terrible metric that it doesn't work outside the narrowest confines politically.

Literally the sides of a legislature in a 2-party system. If the politics get much more complicated, it's wrong to even use left/right. That was my point about not being able to compare US and foreign parties, or to a large extent, even US 3d parties.

If people insist on using the left/right thing outside of legislative reality (2 parties), then I'm gonna put the national socialist party with the other socialist parties.

I'd argue that "a "conservative" is a proponent of classical liberalism. Totalitarianism is impossible for a classically liberal state. They are mutually exclusive. Totalitarianism requires strong, central government control over all aspects of life. Onbly political movements that favor strong, central government control over people, their thoughts and education, health, markets, etc can be totalitarian. Not all socialist states are totalitarian by any means. Only a few. But a socialist mindset is a necessary condition for totalitarianism (but not a sufficient condition).

[Tribesman]

Some US democrats are far left in the US spectrum.
No, because if they are far left in the US spectrum they would be in the US far left parties.

It';s not that they are not right or left, but that right and left are such a terrible metric that it doesn't work outside the narrowest confines politically.


Which is why you are ever trying to increasingly narrow the confines to try and make your claims somehow "right" instead of facing up to them being incorrect.

Nazis are left, not right.
Bloody hell:doh:
where would you like to begin learning some basic history?
Do you want to start with the Italian fascists of the NSDAP?

[DarkFish]

Bloody hell:doh:
where would you like to begin learning some basic history?
Do you want to start with the Italian fascists of the NSDAP?I'm terribly sorry to merge into this discussion, but Tribesman is as right here as could be possible. How the hell are the Nazis left?!
Left or right, neither does say anything about government control. You can be a far left party with almost no government, or a totalitarian rightist state. Both are possible. Totalitarianism doesn't say anything about being left or right.

[yubba]

I can't tell my right from my left :doh: all I want too know who's going too be driving Miss Nancy:har:and why she is spending our money, making up some political position, so some dem goof ball can have a car, and driver, after all this governmental crap I can't afford a car.:damn: After they got hosed they still don't get it.

[Sailor Steve]

If you really feel that way you should be complaining about all Congressional salaries and perks, not just those of one side. I know I am.

[Buddahaid]

Why don't the Dems get it?

Because we already have it.
And if your a have? You've probably HAD it, and are planning to give it away at sometime in the future......

[SteamWake]

Why don't the Dems get it?

Because we already have it.
And if your a have? You've probably HAD it, and are planning to give it away at sometime in the future......

Yes that makes perfect sense see he gets it :doh:

[tater]

I'm terribly sorry to merge into this discussion, but Tribesman is as right here as could be possible. How the hell are the Nazis left?!
Left or right, neither does say anything about government control. You can be a far left party with almost no government, or a totalitarian rightist state. Both are possible. Totalitarianism doesn't say anything about being left or right.

Define right. Make it so that I can name a politician or party, and b y knowing their "right" status, I can predict their view on a policy issue, regardless of country. If I can name a policy, and it doesn't match... then the definition is wrong, try again.

Go ahead.

So how would a nazi decide on an issue of central control by their federal government vs local control. Say a province (whatever they are in Germany) that in 1938 was against Hitler's policies. How would nazis decide? In favor of "state's rights?" No, don't think so. How about free markets? Jewish owned aircraft company... can they submit a bid for a new fighter? Can they exist as a business? Hmm, nope. "Natural Rights?" Big no there. Lower taxation? Less government regulation or control over industry?

Again, the left-right scale simply does not work for comparisons between countries, and barely within countries. By the US left right scale (have to pick ONE to use since we've established it is useless otherwise), the nazis are LEFT, not right. Strong central control over all aspects of life. That's extreme left in the US. Extreme right would be minimalist government (libertarians, etc).

The nazis share almost nothing in common with libertarians (upper or lower case versions).

[tater]

No, because if they are far left in the US spectrum they would be in the US far left parties.

Which is why you are ever trying to increasingly narrow the confines to try and make your claims somehow "right" instead of facing up to them being incorrect.


No, far left needs to be used in the exact same way far right is used. In the US media, some Republicans are routinely described as far right. The left of the democrat spectrum is therefore far left.

Crazy fringe parties are crazy fringe parties. meaningless in the grand scheme, and US politics is not defined by outliers. Get a certain distance from center, and you are "far" right or left. Doesn't matter which party you are in.

This seems to stem from the wrong-headed notion that there is a line with a continuum of parties on it. That the dems sit on a certain range of the line, then to the left there is some other party. Aside from the bad linear model, the parties are in fact "clouds" on the line that overlap. Dems and Reps overlap in the middle (not really even the middle, since the issues don't actually lie on a line, either—the linear model stinks). The Greens share almost everything with the democrats, for example, their principal selling point seems to be that they are judged to actually want to work on certain issues in the range more seriously. The CPUSA and the main US socialist parties will endorse democrat candidates. That's because they have some overlap on specific issues.

The overlaps are important, because they are all you can really do to even assign parties to "left/right."

It's more than just lining up issues, presumably for complex arrays of parties you'd need to weight them as well.

[The Third Man]

They get it...but like any addict, addmission of the problem is the first step. They just haven't hit bottom yet, but with only 26% of Americans believing Obama will be a two term prez, it may change.

[tater]

Left/right needs to be rigorously defined to have a meaningful conversation that parses policies and party platforms and places them in the continuum. In the US spectrum, I'd say a sort of constitutional literalism marks conservative thought. What would the founders think? In other words. Libertarians are the extreme right, discarding with pragmatism in many cases in the name of constitutional purity. If it ain't explicitly granted as a federal power, then it shouldn't happen. The left, OTOH, clearly wants much larger government control. Take more of your money, and give it to other people (for various reasons, many well-meaning, even if I disagree with it). Educate you, feed you, kiss your boo boos, regulate everything for the "public good." The extreme left of that would be a communist/socialist aspect to the US (within constitutional limits—though not being literalists, they feel free to "interpret" the constitution to allow such changes). This literalism results in a "less government" right, and "more government" left, since the far right says "no" to federal powers not specifically enumerated in favor of State/local control.

So my axis is:

strong, central control by government ————> Weak central control by government

The 2 parties that matter overlap in the middle, primarily because elements want strong central control—but over different things.

This is the historical difference, too, and dates back to the Democratic-Republicans (Jefferson, Madison, et al) vs the Federalists.

This has been the split in many ways since, how big should government be?

Any attribution of "foreign" or even 3d parties to this continuum (which is not real anyway) needs to at least use this as the primary metric. More government is "left" less government is "right."

[Tribesman]

No, far left needs to be used in the exact same way far right is used. In the US media, some Republicans are routinely described as far right. The left of the democrat spectrum is therefore far left.

So your "logic" is based on acting just like what some muppet in the media does. :rotfl2:

Crazy fringe parties are crazy fringe parties. meaningless in the grand scheme, and US politics is not defined by outliers.

US politics is defined by US politics, you tried dodging the fact that you were not making any sense earlier by going off on some irrelevant nonsense about people measuring against other countries political parties, this was always about measuring US political parties and now you are trying to dodge that too.
When you are talking about far left/right then of course the extreme fringe are meaningfull as it is they who are the far left/right.
Thats why its nonsense to talk of the far left/right as the mainstream parties as that only makes some sort of sense if you totally ignore reality.


If you have to totally ignore reality to be making some sort of sense then you ain't really making any sense


So my axis is:

Once again in a topic you are showing that for your arguements to make sense you have to redifine everything just to fit your views.
If you have to redefine things to make your views seem correct then by definition your views are not correct.

But for the fun of it your new definition doesn't work either as less government=more government so your new right has instantly become your new left

[tater]

No, the only objective measure of left/right in the US is voting record in congress.

Everything else is subjective, and the whole linear scale is silly anyway.

Kerry and Obama were both on the extreme left of democratic politics based on their voting record.

The CPUSA... has no voting record in congress. They're clearly "left" but how far left of Obama? 17.34% left? 58% left? 190% left? What is it? What metric do you use?

At least with voting record you can rank votes, then instantly place pols relative to each other.

And what of your ranking scheme? You call National Socialists "extreme right" when they share virtually nothing with the "right" not even the same ideas with different magnitude.

A majority of Americans would call nationalizing healthcare (even via trojan horse) as "far left." An entire party voted for that.

[tater]

But for the fun of it your new definition doesn't work either as less government=more government so your new right has instantly become your new left

What was wrong with the republicans before was that they were too LEFT. Exactly.

Doesn't matter for the relative position, because as far as they may have moved left, the left was already well left of that point.

Again, this shows how poor the metric is. The right starts getting big government in the name of, say, defense, and that certainly moves them left. the left wants big government, but not on defense, they want a nanny state. Both spend too much, but on different crap.

You cannot be right of libertarianism in the pure form of it in US politics. The far left would probably be European socialism, which has adherents among democrats without question. The far right are libertarians, which have overlap with a number of republicans (almost all libertarians that actually win elections are republicans).

[Tribesman]

No, the only objective measure of left/right in the US is voting record in congress.

Not at all since bills get riders added which means that bills which someone would vote for on the issue for are not voted for because of additions that have nothing to do with the issue in question.

Everything else is subjective, and the whole linear scale is silly anyway.

So you have been trying to show how the linear scale means your views made sense by shifting and narrowing the lines yet say its silly?:rotfl2:

You cannot be right of libertarianism in the pure form of it in US politics.
US politics is not much different from any other politics, there are no pure forms so your libertarian measure is rubbish.

A majority of Americans would call nationalizing healthcare (even via trojan horse) as "far left." An entire party voted for that.
Would those be the same Americans that want the evil government to stay away from their medicare?
An ignorant measure is not a valid measure