The US elections in November, 2010.

[Warren Dew]

You see, this I don't see in the same way you do. I don't see the Democrats having been in "the middle." I think the Democrats did play to their base - the unions, the raise the minimum wagers, the environmentalists, the national healthcare folks. Those are the base. But, the Democrat base is not what put Obama in office in 2008. What put Obama in office were the Independents and the "Reagan Democrats." Those folks voted Obama in huge numbers. Yesterday, however, they voted against Democrats in just as huge numbers.

Yes, exactly - not to mention Reagan Republicans who were fed up with Bush, didn't like McCain, and stayed home in droves.

[Trolldor]

Actually, the democrats are still right of centre. You're just so far right you fell off the damn graph in to an abyss.

[eXcommunicate]

Actually, the democrats are still right of centre. You're just so far right you fell off the damn graph in to an abyss.

Actually, a tack toward the center for the Dems would make them more Progressive. I'd dig that.

[Coito ergo sum]

Actually, the democrats are still right of centre. You're just so far right you fell off the damn graph in to an abyss.

Yawn.

This fucking bullshit again.

Who gives a flying fuck where on this fantastical "spectrum" you sods want to put the Democrats. Okay - have it the fuck your way - "Democrats are right of center" - that doesn't change what they did and who they appealed to one bit. You Australians may be right wing compared to the Communist Party of Scotland, but that doesn't change a damn thing.

...the Democrats are NOT "center right" except perhaps in relation to socialism - but socialism is on the left, so since the US is (for the time being) predominantly capitalist (a mixed economy, to be sure, but more capitalist than most), then OF COURSE it's going to seem "right wing" to those of you who have primarily social-democratic parliamentary republics leaning economically socialist.

The entire Democrat platform fits quite well with the center parties of Britain. They don't get everything they want in the US, but in terms of what they do want and what they strive for, they are left of center.

[Trolldor]

No, they're not left-of-centre at all.
You just fail to see how far right you are, how dogmatically, religiously right you fall.

[eXcommunicate]

The Democrats did exactly what their base wanted: bailed out unionized UAW workers, passed an oppressive and economically damaging health care bill, snuck tax increases into said health care bill. That's exactly what they're being punished for.

This made me shoot peach tea out my nose. Thanks a lot!

"bailed out unionized UAW workers" -- Interesting spin. If you are talking about the GM and Chrysler buyouts you are off your rocker if you think any president in history would just let those two go under.

"passed an oppressive and economically damaging health care bill" -- Spare us. It was modeled after the Republican HC proposal of the early 90s. This was not what the Democratic base wanted at all. And going by the polls, most people think the HC plan as passed was not Progressive enough.

"snuck tax increases into said health care bill" -- Minor increases more than offset by the TAX CUTS enacted the previous year by the Democrats.

Or did you mean they should have focused on social issues instead of tanking the economy?

I seriously wonder if you are just trolling here. You can't be that ignorant of the facts.

[Coito ergo sum]

No, they're not left-of-centre at all.
You just fail to see how far right you are, how dogmatically, religiously right you fall.

Your just on your talking points again.

Here is where I fall on the spectrum: Anytime I've taken these tests I invariably fall either right on the center vertical line, or one square to the left. Most often I am a little bit more toward the center dot along the vertical line, but only by a square or two. This is right about normal.

So stop calling me "right wing." It's just your bias and preconceived notions showing.

I am exactly as I always describe myself. I am a moderate, with leanings toward classical American republicanism (small "r" - Jeffersonian style).

So, please, spare me all this "you're so far right you don't even know..." blah blah bullshit. It's tiresome. It's pointless. And, it's born of the smug desire of folks to make themselves feel superior.

[Trolldor]

lol.

[sandinista]

No, they're not left-of-centre at all.
You just fail to see how far right you are, how dogmatically, religiously right you fall.

correct...as usual. I personally do not believe AT ALL in the right/center/left concept. It falls apart on all occasions. Right of what, centre...of what...left of what? None of it means anything. Some people say obama is "left", others, "right". Meaningless. That little graph is just as useless btw.

[Coito ergo sum]

No, they're not left-of-centre at all.
You just fail to see how far right you are, how dogmatically, religiously right you fall.

correct...as usual. I personally do not believe AT ALL in the right/center/left concept. It falls apart on all occasions. Right of what, centre...of what...left of what? None of it means anything. Some people say obama is "left", others, "right". Meaningless. That little graph is just as useless btw.

One, I agree with you about the right/center/left concept being meaningless. That's what I said above. I'm sick of folks from social democracies based with socialist leaning economies suggesting that they are entitled to choose where the fucking center is. Compared to the Communist Party, mainstream australian parties are ultra-right wing. So fucking what?

And, two, the above chart does give you an idea where I come down on issues. And, I would appreciate it in these discussions if the ad hominems would stop - who the fuck cares if someone is "right wing" or "left wing" or "liberal" or "conservative?" Doesn't it matter what one's opinion is on an issue? Am I "right wing" because I am pro choice on abortion, pro morning after pill, pro gay rights, pro gay marriage, pro legalization of marijuana, pro imposition of tariffs on countries that do not maintain minimum environmental and workers' rights/safety minimums, etc.? Or, am I on the left? What does it even matter?

[Trolldor]

Not 'compared' to at all. Centre parties act according to the circumstances. Right parties are socially conservative and resistant to change. left parties advocate change.
Australian politics is fairly right-dominated, but most of them are slightly to moderately right. Our extreme right rest in the Abbott's and Niles'.
Finally, sandy is as far to the left as you are to the right.

[Warren Dew]

"bailed out unionized UAW workers" -- Interesting spin. If you are talking about the GM and Chrysler buyouts you are off your rocker if you think any president in history would just let those two go under.

Reagan almost certainly would have let them go bankrupt. Probably Bush (father) would have too; he certainly didn't have a problem with airline bankruptcies.

The fact is, bankruptcy under preexisting bankruptcy law would not have disrupted these companies' operations much at all. It would just have wiped out the stockholders, who were wiped out anyway, and have allowed the companies to renegotiate their union contracts to market levels similar to what smarter companies like Toyota were and are already paying their unionized U.S. workers.

The only thing Obama's interference did was give the UAW an unreasonably large share of the company by screwing over the holders of GM's secured debt - incidentally throwing sand in the gears of the entire economy by making a sham of the entire idea of secured debt.

Your other points I've addressed before.

[sandinista]

Not 'compared' to at all. Centre parties act according to the circumstances. Right parties are socially conservative and resistant to change. left parties advocate change.
Australian politics is fairly right-dominated, but most of them are slightly to moderately right. Our extreme right rest in the Abbott's and Niles'.
Finally, sandy is as far to the left as you are to the right.

So...by far left all that means is I advocate "change"? Coito is resistant to change? What kind of change? If US "liberals" are "left" I am in no way politically aligned with them. In the same way, if US republicans are "right" Coito seems to be saying he is in no way aligned to them. How does that make any sense?

[eXcommunicate]

The problem lies in that a lot of these terms are relative.

A "conservative" in the USSR would have been a Left-Authoritarian. A modern "conservative" in the U.S. tends to be a Right-Authoritarian.

Another problem lies in the way we use terms to have different meanings from their historical meanings. A "liberal" is just someone who promotes liberty, both words having the same Latin root. A "progressive" just means someone who promotes change. A "traditionalist" resists change. And today in America we tend to enjoy tarring people with one-word descriptors, when in reality they usually need multiple to describe their views accurately, yet succinctly. That's why I like the Political Compass. Using it, I would be a Left-Libertarian, which seems a more accurate descriptor for my views than "Democrat" or our bastardization of the word "liberal."

[Alan C]

The loss that hurts me the most is Russ Feingold. The one Senator to vote against the patriot act. Was a champion of civil liberties, rebuking both the Bush and Obama administrations. Integral to campaign finance reform, reaching across party lines with John McCain time and time again. Voted against the Iraq War. One of the 10 poorest Senators. A fiscal moderate, he refused all raises in his salary, even giving $3.5 million back to the U.S. Treasury in the form of salary and office budget. He was ranked number 7 in the Senate for bi-partisan voting. Voted against DOMA and supported gay marriage legalization. Graduated from University of Wisconsin-Madison with honors, went to University of Oxford on the Rhodes Scholarship, attended Harvard Law School and got his J.D. with honors. He refused to run a negative campaign and asked outside Progressive groups not to run negative ads in his state. Feingold shined during the debates without going negative. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel endorsed him, citing his independence, bipartisanship, and courage to stand up to special interests. He then picked up dozens of other paper endorsements, including his opponent's hometown newspaper, the Oshkosh Northwestern.

He was defeated by Ron Johnson, a millionaire Tea Party candidate who spent $8M of his own money on his negative campaign, a campaign largely funded by groups from outside Wisconsin. He cited a Dick Armey appearance on Fox News as his inspiration for running. After a couple of disastrous media interviews and getting trounced by Feingold in the debates, he refused to speak to the press until the end of the election. No major policy positions beyond less taxes and more jobs. Global warming denier, calling climatologists "crazy," he also campaigned against gay rights, a woman's right to an abortion, and stem cell research--of the latter saying that ending funding would "help balance the budget." During a debate, Johnson stated that he is "disappointed that the Obama administration is launching an assault on BP" after the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Johnson disclosed that he once owned more than $100,000 worth of stock in BP.

Idiocracy ascendant.

Man, that is seriously fucked up.