as a general rule of thumb, I would say yes Chris. You come across as "Republican". Although the party is at risk (and has been in the past) of being hijacked by the extreme right.

The far left in the USA is falling on deaf ears. Our left shifted to the right, and the right shifted over the edge.

---

Janice

Excellent question, Chris. Excellent question.

Politics in the USA is extremely screwed up, to the point of there being no easy answers. It is very difficult to know what to believe.

In practice, the USA has a 2-party political system. The two current major parties, The Democrats and The Republicans have a virtual lock on political power. There exist a multitude of minor parties, but almost none of them have managed to gather enough support to get a seat in national government (the sole exception being the Libertarian Party and even they only have managed a couple of seats maximum out of 535). The two major parties have designed the system to prevent the minors from getting anywhere and to etch in stone the dominance of the two majors.

The problem is further compounded by not only the major parties flip-flopping positions over the course of US history, but also the meanings of the terminology itself changing for the most part.

In 1776, a position then known as liberal, would now be termed 'conservative', and a liberal position today would likely have been considered conservative then.

Back in the early 1960s, the Democrats were somewhat conservative by today's standards, and the Republicans were somewhat liberal. JFK was somewhat conservative, for instance cutting the maximum income tax bracket down from 98% to something much lower. His successor LBJ, while from a conservative background, went quite a bit liberal and took much of the Democrats with him. Prior to LBJ, the Democrats were the party of institutional racism and the Republicans the party of Civil Rights. A very prominent Democrat in the Senate who died recently (Byrd) was a former official in the KKK. In 1964 LBJ managed to convince enough people that his opponent (republican Barry Goldwater, a liberal) was a conservative that would dismantle the FDR social programs, and parleyed that electoral victory into passage of the Civil Rights act, and managed to get the rest of his Great Society passed. This flip-flopped the two major parties positions essentially overnight. And this is just one example of the craziness.


There are also regional differences in the two major parties. In the deep south, both parties tend to be more conservative, and in the north-east, both tend to be more liberal.

Both parties, however, really don't care about their principals. They both just want to 'win' over the other guys.

Now, it is true that you could consider the Republicans as 'right wing' due to their support of business (business leaders being the closest real analog to aristocracy left in the USA in modern times), and the Democrats as 'left wing' due to their maintenance of labor unions as one of their power bases. But these terms really don't carry much meaning. For instance, Clinton (a Democrat) put NAFTA through (a fairly bad blow to unions in the USA, something on the right wing agenda), while Bush (a Republican) did his share of things out of the Democrat playbook (NCLB, Medicare Part D, etc.). Even Obama has done some things out of the Republican playbook (bailouts of big business).

So it really doesn't matter what the Democrats or the Republicans say they stand for. Look at their actions, and you will see that both parties are really only out for advantage over each other, not their stated principles, or even the good of the country. The news media device of using colors (Red vs. Blue) makes as much sense in defining them with the exception that the color Red has some bad connotations due to its adoption by certain communistic nations. Perhaps a system of factions used by the ancient Romans would be better. The Greens vs. The Blues.

How then can one decide who to be for in the USA? A better scale to differentiate the parties might be 'libertarian vs. authoritarian'. Individual freedom and liberty with small government vs. big government control of every aspect of our lives. If you are at heart a libertarian, well, obviously there is the Libertarian Party. If you are an authoritarian at heart, well... Flip a coin. Either the Democrats or the Republicans will suit you nicely. Whether it is control by an elite of big businessmen, or an elite of liberal intellectuals, it is still control by an elite.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

I've thought of myself as a centrist. I've not really changed my views on Politics because I don't need the extremes and don't see either party holding my complete interest. In recent decades I too have seen both parties taking major shift to the right. This leaves me looking as what is now considered liberal but was previously thought of as pretty much middle of the road.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Politics in the USA is extremely screwed up, [...]
[snip]
If you are at heart a libertarian, well, obviously there is the Libertarian Party. If you are an authoritarian at heart, well... Flip a coin. Either the Democrats or the Republicans will suit you nicely. Whether it is control by an elite of big businessmen, or an elite of liberal intellectuals, it is still control by an elite.

And this shows you just how messed up some Americans (note, "some Americans" not specifically accusing MajorKong in the following) are about their own politics, they believe that both parties are the inheritors of Hitler, Franco, Stalin, Mao, Amin, &c. They'll say dumb things like the Nazi's were socialist because the word was in the party name, which in turn means it's fair to portray Obama with a Hitler 'tash on Faux News.

Some will say dumb things about the Founding Fathers, such as they would never advocate government mandates forcing the population to purchase something ("Obamacare" is unconstitutional!), when there's clear evidence to the contrary. They'll ignore data indicating that the pursuit of happiness correlates to a more even distribution of wealth amongst the citizens, because it's contrary to the thinking of Ayn Rand.

Yeah politics is messed up here, though not much more than it is back in blightey, though I would say the comment about the "Democratic Party is generally perceived to be a center-left coalition" is a little misleading from a European perspective. The center in the US is more to the right that in Europe (including the UK). Also the term coalition equally applies to the Republican Party. There's a significant overlap between the two parties (similar to Labour and the Conservatives), though, like the UK, much noise is made about the differences. Oh, and just like the UK, the US has a first past the post electoral system, with all the distortions of electoral will that implies.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Bureaucracy. The bane of any human. Left, right, center has it.

Tell me any citizen who does not complain of it, no matter who has power.

Can Bureaucracy be understood?

iWorm 'em.

Chris S
You can believe that whole speel posted by MajorKong or you can look at the reality of the facts.
The United States has one political party. It is the party of the super rich and the corporations.

The party of the super rich has two divisions, each of which fight for the right to form government and do so under the watchful eye of their super rich masters.

The super rich don't care which, republican or democrat, forms government because the policies and wants of the super rich will still be advanced.

This is why I laugh when anyone calls the democrats a pack of socialists.
The people who say this are either politically naive or they are part of the lie.

---

I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.

Chris S
You can believe that whole speel posted by MajorKong or you can look at the reality of the facts.
The United States has one political party. It is the party of the super rich and the corporations.

The party of the super rich has two divisions, each of which fight for the right to form government and do so under the watchful eye of their super rich masters.

The super rich don't care which, republican or democrat, forms government because the policies and wants of the super rich will still be advanced.

This is why I laugh when anyone calls the democrats a pack of socialists.
The people who say this are either politically naive or they are part of the lie.

Robert,

I see that you seem to agree with me for the most part. I don't see why you have to be so derogatory of my statement as a whole, calling it a spiel, making many of the same points, just in slightly different ways.

I said that both the Democrats and the Republicans are controlled by elites. What is the definition of 'elites' in the USA? People with LOTS of money, as you say the 'super rich'. I said that there is not much difference in the two parties. Furthermore, I implied ('flip a coin') that they were two sides of the same coin, therefore both are different aspects of the same object. It it perfectly acceptable to me to consider them as two cliques, both part of the same club.

As to '... the democrats a pack of socialists.' As far as socialism being, essentially in this context, 'Govt. control of the means of production, etc.', both the Democrats and the Republicans are socialist by nature. You have said that they both are, essentially, the same. I agree. And 'socialist' can be equally applied to both. Both are increasingly controlling of the means of production. And while both might have slightly different publicly stated aims, the policies and actions of both have the same end result. As you say, the benefit of the AotFR (Association of the Filthy Rich). Namely, the benefit being the closing of their ranks to new members, by keeping the rest of the American people down the economic sewer, either by keeping the People dependent on Social Programs the government is allowed to 'offer' (the Ds), or by essentially preventing competition in business by providing huge barriers to entering markets by new businesses, among many other things (the Rs).

We need a lot of reform in the USA, both in Govt. and in Corporations, before we should even begin to think about anything more specific. I find your signature very interesting.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
John F. Kennedy

Good one!

And this shows you just how messed up some Americans (note, "some Americans" not specifically accusing MajorKong in the following) are about their own politics, they believe that both parties are the inheritors of Hitler, Franco, Stalin, Mao, Amin, &c. They'll say dumb things like the Nazi's were socialist because the word was in the party name, which in turn means it's fair to portray Obama with a Hitler 'tash on Faux News.

Hmm... Its not so much that the parties inheritors *from* Hitler (and the rest of your list), but that both parties *and* those in your 'list of evil' inherited their stuff from common intellectual ancestors. Stalin got a lot from Lenin who got a lot from Marx. Marx also had some influence on the labor union movement, and the descendants of the labor union movement (today's labor unions) are a power bloc inside the Democrat party. So, its not so much that the Democrat party is the *son* of Stalin, as it is that the Democrat party and Stalin are somewhat cousins intellectually, with some of the same ideas in common.

Without getting into a debate about whether or not the National Socialist Worker's Party really was socialist, it is fair to portray a 'Hitler moustachioed' Obama by a member of the 'press' in the USA. Something about a couple of the clauses in the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. It might be in bad taste, and a distortion of the facts, but it is fair. All the 'press' in this nation engage in both bad taste, and factual distortion. I presume you refer to Fox 'News'. They all do it, to one degree or another. Fox is just a bit more obvious about it.

And for the record. I *HATE* Fox news. I get much of my news from the BBC. What Fox puts on is not news for the most part. It is editorial opinion. I prefer to get the news then make up my own mind. I don't need a bunch of blowhard entertainers (of ANY stripe) telling me what to think. Be it Beck-hole or O'Rly? on Fox, Rush (on his show), or any of the 'comedians' on the Comedy Channel. Sometimes some of them are entertaining to listen to (not including the first two I mentioned), but then I know that everything they say is just a buncha BS.

Some will say dumb things about the Founding Fathers, such as they would never advocate government mandates forcing the population to purchase something ("Obamacare" is unconstitutional!), when there's clear evidence to the contrary. They'll ignore data indicating that the pursuit of happiness correlates to a more even distribution of wealth amongst the citizens, because it's contrary to the thinking of Ayn Rand.

First, good find about the 1792 militia act. But there is (at least in degree, if not substance also) a bit of a difference between requiring members of the militia (a subset of the population) to purchase necessary goods for being functional as militia (which many already had anyway, and in any case were useful for things other than the militia, as well as being in the militia did involve some amount of pay), and requiring essentially everyone to purchase a service that is really useful only for the purpose for which it is assigned).

As far as your second link it is statistics. As the great philosopher from the USA once said

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics

-- Mark Twain.

You point out a 'correlation' in the statistics. However, as is often pointed out, Correlation does not equal causation. Perhaps you need to start searching for causation, and stop spending energy on finding correlation in statistical fluff.

Next, you invoke Ayn Rand, a writer turned philosopher. Many of them do, ya know. I even referred to one earlier (Twain). Yes, I've read some of her works. Yes, I consider them entertaining. No, I don't consider her work (though it seems some do) as any sort of holy writ of economic philosophy. How about this... I've read a novel by someone else. It dealt with economic philosophy. I considered it highly entertaining, and it did give me pause for quite a while as I considered its implications and potential applicability in our current circumstances. "For us, The Living: a Comedy of Customs", by Robert A. Heinlein (his first novel, by the way, from back in 1938).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Us,_The_Living:_A_Comedy_of_Customs

Just like that work of Rand (Atlas Shrugged) that has many people around here all stirred up, it has some good points, in my opinion, and some bad points too, in my opinion. But my advice in all of this is to learn as much as possible about all sides of a subject, then think for yourself. Don't just blindly follow what someone else says. Your capacity for reason is one of your (and everyone's) greatest gifts. Everyone, USE IT!

Yeah politics is messed up here, though not much more than it is back in blightey, though I would say the comment about the "Democratic Party is generally perceived to be a center-left coalition" is a little misleading from a European perspective. The center in the US is more to the right that in Europe (including the UK). Also the term coalition equally applies to the Republican Party. There's a significant overlap between the two parties (similar to Labour and the Conservatives), though, like the UK, much noise is made about the differences. Oh, and just like the UK, the US has a first past the post electoral system, with all the distortions of electoral will that implies.

You are right. The 'center' in the USA is a bit to the right of the 'center' in Britain and most all of Europe. At the moment. But then, the Center-point changes. Over the last decade, I have seen the center in several European nations drift a bit to the right. Also, in others, I have seen it drift a bit to the left. The position of the center depends a great deal on not only exactly where you where, but also on exactly when.

Also, undoubtedly, the USA could use some reform in its electoral procedures, especially in the state legislatures, and the federal House of Representatives.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Chris S
You can believe that whole speel posted by MajorKong or you can look at the reality of the facts.
The United States has one political party. It is the party of the super rich and the corporations.

The party of the super rich has two divisions, each of which fight for the right to form government and do so under the watchful eye of their super rich masters.

The super rich don't care which, republican or democrat, forms government because the policies and wants of the super rich will still be advanced.
But, Robert, I think you do it much more. Much.
This is why I laugh when anyone calls the democrats a pack of socialists.
The people who say this are either politically naive or they are part of the lie.

Though MajorKong has already responded to this, Robert I am sorry to say this post of yours does a disservice to your attempts to explain your points of view and argue against those viewpoints you disagree with. I suspect you read in one of MajorKong's recent posts that he considers himself closest to Libertarian, and you probably shut down after that. Yet, I completely agree with MajorKong that your post has major points of agreement with his, while you act, through your post, as if his post is diametrically opposed to your view (and "the truth").
Unfortunately, I also see evidence that MajorKong will also misread posts and shut down further communication with certain posters.

Unfortunately, I also see evidence that MajorKong will also misread posts and shut down further communication with certain posters.

Nobody is perfect. I sometimes misread things. As does everyone. As far as shutting down communications with certain posters, it is usually just temporary. Usually due to myself getting angry at them for some unjustified reason involving things they said. Better to take a break from communicating with certain posters than to try to keep going and end up flaming the fark out of them.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Understanding USA Politics.....





http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

AT&T.. on the fence.. seriously... you are joking right??

/Facepalm

Pretty chart. Obviously based in fantasy. I presume the linked website is as well.

Edit: "After being broken up in the mid-1980s in a landmark antitrust case, this telecommunications icon re-formed in 2005, and became the nation’s largest phone company when SBC Communications bought AT&T Corp. for $16 billion. As SBC, the company led the fight to allow the Baby Bells to enter the long-distance market, where they hope to offer profitable broadband Internet services. Cingular, which bought AT&T Wireless for $14 billion in 2004 and was part of SBC, is now in AT&T’s fold. Cingular -- ultimately renamed AT&T again -- is the leading U.S. wireless carrier, with more than 54 million subscribers. And AT&T’s growth continues. In 2006, AT&T agreed to buy southern Baby Bell BellSouth in a deal valued at more than $65 billion. Although the company has historically favored Republicans in its political giving, people and political action committees associated with AT&T have generally split their contributions between Democrats and the GOP since the 2008 election cycle"

Now considering that most of the democratic leaning employee's are represented by CWA.. The source of the mis-understanding is clear. The company itself supports almost without fail a republican agenda.

---

Janice

lets also not forget that Republicans have created a multitude of "concerned Citizen" groups that last for a few years then disappear. Only to have even more pop up. This last election was a farce. Think back when Gore Supposedly took money from foreign Buddhist monks. With the system now set in place CHina could spend its GDP on a candidate and nobody would know that they did it. Thank you Supreme Court for making sure corruption stays where it belongs. In office

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

AT&T.. on the fence.. seriously... you are joking right??

/Facepalm

Pretty chart. Obviously based in fantasy. I presume the linked website is as well.

Edit: "After being broken up in the mid-1980s in a landmark antitrust case, this telecommunications icon re-formed in 2005, and became the nation’s largest phone company when SBC Communications bought AT&T Corp. for $16 billion. As SBC, the company led the fight to allow the Baby Bells to enter the long-distance market, where they hope to offer profitable broadband Internet services. Cingular, which bought AT&T Wireless for $14 billion in 2004 and was part of SBC, is now in AT&T’s fold. Cingular -- ultimately renamed AT&T again -- is the leading U.S. wireless carrier, with more than 54 million subscribers. And AT&T’s growth continues. In 2006, AT&T agreed to buy southern Baby Bell BellSouth in a deal valued at more than $65 billion. Although the company has historically favored Republicans in its political giving, people and political action committees associated with AT&T have generally split their contributions between Democrats and the GOP since the 2008 election cycle"

Now considering that most of the democratic leaning employee's are represented by CWA.. The source of the mis-understanding is clear. The company itself supports almost without fail a republican agenda.

No misunderstanding on my end.

Furthermore, yoonyens confiscate member dues and then the union leadership decides where to spend it. It's not like the worker has much choice in the matter, but he earns it before it's confiscated.

If a company decides to spend towards a candidate or party, the consumer can steer clear of them. There's a choice.

lets also not forget that Republicans have created a multitude of "concerned Citizen" groups that last for a few years then disappear. Only to have even more pop up. This last election was a farce. Think back when Gore Supposedly took money from foreign Buddhist monks. With the system now set in place CHina could spend its GDP on a candidate and nobody would know that they did it. Thank you Supreme Court for making sure corruption stays where it belongs. In office

System "now" set in place?

ho-hum. Sorry the last election didn't turn out the way you would have liked. grin

Speaking of foreign influence in elections, looks like Obama has that down pat (and in 2008, no less)!

All from Federal Election Commission records:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/08/obama-shipped-t.html

Actually, many large corporations give lesser amounts to the opposing (to their interests) side. If their horse doesn't win the race, at least the contributions to the other one might get them at least some influence.

Also, since many of their employees are CWA, it is highly possible that AT&T management gives at least some of their donations to the Democrats (the CWA's horse in the race) in an attempt to soften the CWA's leadership to management's position come contract negotiation time.

Plenty of reasons that explain it.

Of course, it shouldn't be happening. Corruption is Corruption. NO organization should be making any sort of political donations. At all. Ever. Be it a corporation, a labor union, a PAC, or any other sort of organization such as PETA or the Sierra Club. All political donations should be directly from individuals directly to candidates, be limited in amount, and be totally voluntary. Also, no mass direct solicitation of donations. No phone banks, robocalling, etc. This includes, of course, contributions 'in kind'... goods and services, as opposed to cash. Also, contributions should be restricted to being only to candidates in races in which the contributing individual is eligible to vote in. In other words, if the contributor is living in Florida, no contributing to a candidate in a race in California. Before we can have a chance to fix anything else, we need to eliminate political corruption first.

keep quoting from ann rand sites keith.. you are heading right towards the ignore list. Quite an honor really, only one preceded you.

Afterthought: then again, you still have another user ID or two to fall back on, don't you....(rhetorical question)

---

Janice

I have one user ID.

I'm not sure why you're in a political forum.
You bring nothing to the table except cute one liners.

Now stop being a drama queen and hit your ignore button.

KTHXBYE!

I see that you seem to agree with me for the most part. I don't see why you have to be so derogatory of my statement as a whole, calling it a spiel, making many of the same points, just in slightly different ways.

MajorKong
It would seem I do owe an apology to you in this instance. My response was unduly harsh and in going over your post once more, I see that I must have skimmed through without really reading it.
In future, I will try to be more attentive while reading through these threads.

One point I would like to clarify about your statement that both parties are becoming more socialist in nature is the form of socialism you use in this explanation.
True socialism in it's basic form means the benefits and profits of production are redistributed within the society for the betterment of all, not simply the enrichment of a select few.
As Noam Chomsky asks, “Why shouldn't the workers own the factory they work in?”

The only “socialism” I see happening in the US going unquestioned is the socializing of financial risk. The system is built on the premise that the super rich can never really lose. They are protected from loss by favorable tax deductions on losses and direct handouts in hard times.

These recipients of governments policies geared toward protecting private wealth are the same lifeforms who constantly bombard the population with the idea of survival of the fittest.
Their Darwinian view of life seems to apply only to those who are not part of the elite class and live outside the privileged “Too big to fail” status.

---

I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.

I see that you seem to agree with me for the most part. I don't see why you have to be so derogatory of my statement as a whole, calling it a spiel, making many of the same points, just in slightly different ways.

MajorKong
It would seem I do owe an apology to you in this instance. My response was unduly harsh and in going over your post once more, I see that I must have skimmed through without really reading it.
In future, I will try to be more attentive while reading through these threads.

Thank you.

One point I would like to clarify about your statement that both parties are becoming more socialist in nature is the form of socialism you use in this explanation.
True socialism in it's basic form means the benefits and profits of production are redistributed within the society for the betterment of all, not simply the enrichment of a select few.

As far as 'true socialism' goes, there has never been a successful example of it on any sort of a large scale beyond just a few people. Human nature gets in the way. And that won't change, any time in the near future. Greed, power, control...

True socialism fails in the presence of these. At least market capitalism, while it may not be a totally perfect system, works better the more widespread these are.

As Noam Chomsky asks, “Why shouldn't the workers own the factory they work in?”

Not a dang thing wrong with that at all, as long as they pool their wealth and either purchase the factory they work in from its current owners, or build their own. I recall an airline in the US (don't remember the name, though). The employees pooled their wealth and bought it from its then-owners. Nothing at all wrong with that. However, merely working somewhere should not and does not confer any ownership rights.

The only “socialism” I see happening in the US going unquestioned is the socializing of financial risk. The system is built on the premise that the super rich can never really lose. They are protected from loss by favorable tax deductions on losses and direct handouts in hard times.

These recipients of governments policies geared toward protecting private wealth are the same lifeforms who constantly bombard the population with the idea of survival of the fittest.
Their Darwinian view of life seems to apply only to those who are not part of the elite class and live outside the privileged “Too big to fail” status.

As I have said before, I don't believe there should be any such thing as 'too big to fail'. Nor am I in favor of any sort of government bailouts.

As far as tax deductions go, as a nation we have decided that the primary tax at the federal level will be on profit, not wealth. Profit = Income - (expenses + losses). It is not just the super rich or large corporations that get to deduct losses. Individuals do too. The government is even nice enough to have a pre-determined level of losses for individuals. The 'Standard Deduction'. No matter how little your losses, you get to deduct that amount. If your losses exceed that amount, well... You get to list them individually, that is 'itemize deductions'. They also pre-estimate your expenses too. 'Personal exemption'. If this system is fair to individuals, so then it is fair to businesses, both small and large. I fail to understand why you complain about tax deductions on losses and expenses. Every individual taxpayer gets them, furthermore the many individuals that don't pay this misnamed 'income tax' but still have income, don't pay precisely BECAUSE of this deduction for losses and expenses.

Government should be in the 'business' of protecting the property rights of everyone, person or organization. Government should not be in the 'business' of guaranteeing the current fortunes of any person or organization. By guaranteeing the wealth or income of one person or business, government must negate the property rights of others. This is wrong in all cases.