Do you think the Democratic Party is a Leftist Party?[W:30]

[Unrepresented]

Re: Do you think the Democratic Party is a Leftist Party?

Where is the axis for RACE on your diagram?

It is missing.... well then, you have completely missed the most prevalent defining characteristic of the Obama Led Democratic Party!

-

Your analysis of American politics is as savvy as your understanding of our certain, impending, apocalyptic deaths from Ebola.

 

[Kobie]

Re: Do you think the Democratic Party is a Leftist Party?

Yet, ironically, I see him complaining about the "race card" considerably often.

Apparently it's not the "race card" if you're white.

To hear Kurmugeon tell it, Obama's about to start herding caucasians into labor camps.

 

[Kobie]

Re: Do you think the Democratic Party is a Leftist Party?

Your analysis of American politics is as savvy as your understanding of our certain, impending, apocalyptic deaths from Ebola.

Lol +1

 

[Jerry]

Re: Do you think the Democratic Party is a Leftist Party?

Here in Italy a lot of people says that USA have not a Left and a Right.

We have only a left and right.

 

[Gina]

Re: Do you think the Democratic Party is a Leftist Party?

Moderator's Warning:

Yikes people! 29 posts in and a fist fight has broken out. Leave each other out of it and focus on the topic.

 

[kjwins]

Re: Do you think the Democratic Party is a Leftist Party?

Bill Clinton turned the Democratic Party into the Republican Party, causing the Republican party to go insane. You got it right. No left party here.

 

[kjwins]

Re: Do you think the Democratic Party is a Leftist Party?

If you can watch CPAC you will see what i mean by the, Republican party being insane. Its a bunch of plastic people, who are nuts.

 

[Kurmugeon]

Re: Do you think the Democratic Party is a Leftist Party?

The core issue being...how oppressed white people are? Right, forgive me for not giving legitimacy to that. :roll:

The core issue is that in 2014, the difference and delineation of the American Political Parties are not Right vs. Left, but rather, racial pandering and preference vs. race blindness and true equal treatment.

The OP asks if the Democratic Party is really representing the Left view point, and the answer is a very clear NO, it represents first and foremost the Anti-White, racial preferences view point, and secondary to that is the corporatist crony view point.

In a great many ways, the 2014 Republican Party is allot closer the the ideas of the 1960s JFK Classic Liberalism, and the 2014 Democratic Party has come to represent ethnocentric, Anti-White, Fascism.

Louis Lerner is an example of the Dems Fascism.

Eric Holder, and his "My People", while turning a blind eye to the wave of Black on White Racially Motivate crimes, while spewing vile, unconstitutional, illegal support for the Ferguson Rioters is another.

The seizure of AP press phone records is yet another.

The Obama EO amnesty circumventing the Legislature and the rules of American Governance is yet another.

The List goes on and on and on.

The Democratic Party is acting much more like a fascist party than a Classic Left of center Liberal party. The Dems hardline, vindictive approach to the Obama Era is anything but "Liberal" and you damn well know it!

You can call the 2014 Democratic Party allot of things, but LEFT doesn't fit anymore!

At the same time, the Republicans are acting wishy washy enough in the face of these abuses to be seen as a milk-toast weak Liberal Party, by any objective observer, is acting like a Luke-warm Liberal Party.

At this point in time, the Republicans have replaced the Democrats as Americas most "Classically Liberal" Political Party.

-

 

[Kurmugeon]

Re: Do you think the Democratic Party is a Leftist Party?

Yet, ironically, I see him complaining about the "race card" considerably often.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...ot-its-too-hard-bring-civil-rights-cases.html

I have reason, so do many over age 40 White Males, who where systematically discriminated against by the Obama Administration.

There is a Reckoning coming to the Democratic Party, and it cannot come too soon, or be too harsh!

-

 

[Carjosse]

Re: Do you think the Democratic Party is a Leftist Party?

The democratic party is not traditionally left when you look at what the first true lefties were (John Locke and such).

The democratic party is a new version of left.

A liberal, by its very core definition, is someone whose goal is to protect and advocate LIBERTY (hence LIBERals). Nowadays, liberal has been perverted to mean one who wishes to expand federal power and institute more socialist-leaning policies.

Dictionaries and experts have (and rightly so) now put a huge divider between modern and older liberals.

True liberals are classified as "Classical liberals" and socialistic modern liberals are regarded to as "Social liberals."

The Liberalism we have in North America is called reform liberalism or welfare state liberalism was created by John Stuart Mill. It added onto and reformed the main tenants of liberalism mainly by adding positive freedoms as well as negative freedoms, having a larger emphasis on equality of opportunity, and making the case that government has a place in the economy. This also later blended with ideas of democratic socialism.

 

[beerftw]

Hi to everyone. I am an italian guy interested in politics.

Here in Italy a lot of people says that USA have not a Left and a Right. It is said that you have a Far Right and a Right Party (Reps and Dems respectively). The ones who says this often also says it about our own Left Parties when they have to run a government and they fail to satisfy what this persons want. They are usually against capitalism and free market, so I think they are just biased, but I would like to think what do you think about it.

Do you feel the Democratic Party as a sincerely Leftist Party?

Doesn't it strive with the fact that you still have no public health and no gun control? (Despite I am a supporter of the free market and personal freedom, the lack of free health and of gun control is incomprehensible to me - this are more or less the only two big things that make me sympathize with the other italian who says you have not a "real left").

the democrat party is slightly right of center,while republicans are right of center.

many democrat politicians have socialist backgrounds,but their beliefs and actions seem to be two different things.liberals are minority in america,conservatives are the largest ideology followed by moderates,so if democrats catered to liberals only,and pissed off conservatives and moderates,they would never win an election.what they do is talk a big game to get the liberal base fired up,then when campaign time comes they play moderates and conservatives.


eck obama has alot of socialism in his background,yet his policies excluding gun control make bush look like a tree hugging hippie,to which i respond obama broke all records for campaign unding,and a hippie drum circle didnt fund him,so guess who he owes him loyalty to like any other politician???anwer the ones who paid for his election.

 

[LowDown]

Hi to everyone. I am an italian guy interested in politics.

Here in Italy a lot of people says that USA have not a Left and a Right. It is said that you have a Far Right and a Right Party (Reps and Dems respectively). The ones who says this often also says it about our own Left Parties when they have to run a government and they fail to satisfy what this persons want. They are usually against capitalism and free market, so I think they are just biased, but I would like to think what do you think about it.

Do you feel the Democratic Party as a sincerely Leftist Party?

Doesn't it strive with the fact that you still have no public health and no gun control? (Despite I am a supporter of the free market and personal freedom, the lack of free health and of gun control is incomprehensible to me - this are more or less the only two big things that make me sympathize with the other italian who says you have not a "real left").

Let's see where the parties stand on the issues:

Issue	Reps	Dems
Health Care	Less Government Control/Welfare	More Government Control/Welfare
Gun Control	Less	More
Death Penalty	Yes	No
Abortion	More restrictions	Less restrictions
Race	No racial spoils	Racial spoils
Climate	To hell with the climate	To hell with our economy
IRS	Abolish it	Love it
Taxes	Less	More
Government Spending	Less	More
Regulations	Less	More
Welfare	Less/Maintain welfare reform	More/Abolish welfare reform
Income/Weath Gap	Not a problem	A problem
Gay Marriage	Eew!	Umm...

There are some differences in terms of policy. Politics is all about which policies will be enacted.

It seems that some in this thread aren't happy with the Democratic Party because it's not filled with politicians who get elected, cop a full blown socialist agenda, and then go down in flames in the next election. I hate to break it to ya, guys, but the country is right of center. Those guys have to survive in that political climate. And you're damned right they are courting corporations ever since Citizens United.

 

[Kurmugeon]

Classic Liberalism meant Tolerance, and a freedom to act, as long as you did not greatly impact others, without constraint of Government or Authority.

Lets look at your list from a Classic Liberal, or free to act POV.

Underlined is the Classic Liberal, Freedom choice.

Issue	Reps	Dems
Health Care	Less Government Control/Welfare	More Government Control/Welfare
Gun Control	Less	More
Death Penalty	Yes	No	(Note: Freedom to give a verdict of the death penalty, when warranted and proscribed by a guilty verdict from a jury of peers, IS more free)
Abortion	More restrictions	Less restrictions
Race	No racial spoils	Racial spoils	(Note, forcibly taking money from one person, and giving it to another, based on RACE, if restricting freedom in a very large way, racial slavery by government means)
Climate	To hell with the climate	To hell with our economy	Note: if Government isn't forcing you to save the planet by... whatever loonie theory, nothing stops you from following your ideals, you just can't force everyone around you to follow your method.
IRS	Abolish it	Love it	After Louis Lerner, is there any question about the IRS being a source of great abuse of the American Public?
Taxes	Less	More	The citizen gets to choose how his money is spent, you can still give it to charities, or even the Government, if you want to...
Government Spending	Less	More	Government doesn't ASK, it TELLS how the money gets spent
Regulations	Less	More
Welfare	Less/Maintain welfare reform	More/Abolish welfare reform	Welfare reform was all about giving people a hand up into self-sufficiency, rather than enabling a dependent, unproductive life.
Income/Weath Gap	Not a problem	A problem
Gay Marriage	Eew!	Umm...

So, other than Abortion and Gay Marriage, every single item on your list, the Republicans are more in line with CLASSIC LIBERALISM, the type that Thomas Jefferson and JFK would have supported, than the positions of the 2014 Democratic Party.

The Dems are NO LONGER a party of Classic Liberalism, but rather have morphed into a party of Authoritarian Ethnocentric Fascism!

-

 

[AlbqOwl]

Classic Liberalism meant Tolerance, and a freedom to act, as long as you did not greatly impact others, without constraint of Government or Authority.

Lets look at your list from a Classic Liberal, or free to act POV.

Underlined is the Classic Liberal, Freedom choice.



So, other than Abortion and Gay Marriage, every single item on your list, the Republicans are more in line with CLASSIC LIBERALISM, the type that Thomas Jefferson and JFK would have supported, than the positions of the 2014 Democratic Party.

The Dems are NO LONGER a party of Classic Liberalism, but rather have morphed into a party of Authoritarian Ethnocentric Fascism!

-

Just an observation here. Under classical liberalism, there would be no issues of health care, gun control, abortion, welfare, wealth gap, or gay marriage at all at the federal level because all would be left up to the states and local communities. So that would leave us with issues of equality--defined as unalienable rights--along with what taxes, spending, and regulation would be necessary to provide the common defense, promote the general welfare--meaning everybody's welfare and not any special interest group--and sufficient regulation to allow the 50 states to function as one nation and keep them from doing violence to each other.

 

[Kurmugeon]

Just an observation here. Under classical liberalism, there would be no issues of health care, gun control, abortion, welfare, wealth gap, or gay marriage at all at the federal level because all would be left up to the states and local communities. So that would leave us with issues of equality--defined as unalienable rights--along with what taxes, spending, and regulation would be necessary to provide the common defense, promote the general welfare--meaning everybody's welfare and not any special interest group--and sufficient regulation to allow the 50 states to function as one nation and keep them from doing violence to each other.

In this statement, you seem to conflate Federalism, with Liberalism.

I don't.

You could have nothing BUT a Central, Federal level Government, without state and local Governments at all, and the concepts of:
* Tolerance,
* Egalitarian Support and Assistance for the Down Trodden,
* Race and Gender Blindness,
* Personal FREEDOM and RESPONSIBILITY,
* self-sufficiency, and
*Open Mindedness,

all of the Precepts of Classic Liberalism, can still apply.

I do not believe that: Big Centralized Government = Classic Liberalism at all!

Similarly, if we had NOTHING but local Government, all of the values of Classic Liberalism could be implemented.

-

 

[AlbqOwl]

In this statement, you seem to conflate Federalism, with Liberalism.

I don't.

You could have nothing BUT a Central, Federal level Government, without state and local Governments at all, and the concepts of:
* Tolerance,
* Egalitarian Support and Assistance for the Down Trodden,
* Race and Gender Blindness,
* Personal FREEDOM and RESPONSIBILITY,
* self-sufficiency, and
*Open Mindedness,

all of the Precepts of Classic Liberalism, can still apply.

I do not believe that: Big Centralized Government = Classic Liberalism at all!

Similarly, if we had NOTHING but local Government, all of the values of Classic Liberalism could be implemented.

-

No, I am not confusing classical liberalism with federalism at all. And I agree big, expensive, bloated, over reaching authoritarian central government is precisely what the classical liberals who founded this country wanted to prohibit at all costs.

But if we had no central government at all, each of the 50 states would be its own country. And there would be nothing to prevent those 50 states from imposing tariffs, embargos, or declaring war on each other. The function and purpose of the federal government was intended to secure our rights and provide what law and regulation was necessary in order for those 50 states to function as one nation. But there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to be involved with health care, gun control, abortion, welfare, wealth gap, or gay marriage or any other such issues that were intended to be the prerogative of the various states.

 

[Master PO]

No, I am not confusing classical liberalism with federalism at all. And I agree big, expensive, bloated, over reaching authoritarian central government is precisely what the classical liberals who founded this country wanted to prohibit at all costs.

But if we had no central government at all, each of the 50 states would be its own country. And there would be nothing to prevent those 50 states from imposing tariffs, embargos, or declaring war on each other. The function and purpose of the federal government was intended to secure our rights and provide what law and regulation was necessary in order for those 50 states to function as one nation. But there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to be involved with health care, gun control, abortion, welfare, wealth gap, or gay marriage or any other such issues that were intended to be the prerogative of the various states.

did he say liberalism or classical liberalism?

 

[Master PO]

No, I am not confusing classical liberalism with federalism at all. And I agree big, expensive, bloated, over reaching authoritarian central government is precisely what the classical liberals who founded this country wanted to prohibit at all costs.

But if we had no central government at all, each of the 50 states would be its own country. And there would be nothing to prevent those 50 states from imposing tariffs, embargos, or declaring war on each other. The function and purpose of the federal government was intended to secure our rights and provide what law and regulation was necessary in order for those 50 states to function as one nation. But there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to be involved with health care, gun control, abortion, welfare, wealth gap, or gay marriage or any other such issues that were intended to be the prerogative of the various states.

agree with this, but i have only one thing to point out when you say this:


" But there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to be involved with health care, gun control, abortion, welfare, wealth gap, or gay marriage or any other such issues that were intended to be the prerogative of the various states"

you should change the word "federal government" to .."congress"...because federal courts can rule on such matters.

 

[AlbqOwl]

did he say liberalism or classical liberalism?

Yes, I misread it. He did say liberalism.

 

[AlbqOwl]

agree with this, but i have only one thing to point out when you say this:


" But there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to be involved with health care, gun control, abortion, welfare, wealth gap, or gay marriage or any other such issues that were intended to be the prerogative of the various states"

you should change the word "federal government" to .."congress"...because federal courts can rule on such matters.

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress or the courts such powers either.

 

[Kurmugeon]

Yes, I misread it. He did say liberalism.

What percentage of the current Democratic Party Voter Base are Classic Liberals, vs. Obama-Neo-Progressives?

Doesn't the answer to that question, also answer the OP's Question?

-

 

[Master PO]

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress or the courts such powers either.

yes, there is and i will show you.

health care, gun control, abortion, welfare, wealth gap, or gay marriage are not part of the business of congress, so you are correct here, however these issues which are of states governments can enter the federal court arena, when these things and people come into conflict, the first course of action would be to seek justice in a state court, however the federal courts can be petitioned to hear such cases.

the powers of the federal courts, do encompasses these things"


The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

What is different between congress and the courts is ....with powers of the court a case must be brought before it, without that happening the courts can do noting the render a decision, .........but congress acts on it own without anything.... against constitutional law.

to explain it a little better, today when issues of rights violations happen in America, congress thinks it their job to write laws to prevent these violations from happening again, however that is not correct congress has no such authority, when violations of rights take place, it is for the courts to act not congress.

 

[274ina]

Re: Do you think the Democratic Party is a Leftist Party?

you nailed it.

from a guy with no healthcare for 23 years of my adult life.

Democrats are at best a Center Right party.

 

[AlbqOwl]

What percentage of the current Democratic Party Voter Base are Classic Liberals, vs. Obama-Neo-Progressives?

Doesn't the answer to that question, also answer the OP's Question?

-

I going to guess that for all practical purposes, zero classical liberals would register Democrat in modern day America. As for how many embrace Obama's neo-progressivism, I don't know, but I know the number is not a plurality in many places in the country and the number is dropping as people become aware of how much they have been lied to and the promises to them were so grossly misrepresented.

 

[AlbqOwl]

yes, there is and i will show you.

health care, gun control, abortion, welfare, wealth gap, or gay marriage are not part of the business of congress, so you are correct here, however these issues which are of states governments can enter the federal court arena, when these things and people come into conflict, the first course of action would be to seek justice in a state court, however the federal courts can be petitioned to hear such cases.

the powers of the federal courts, do encompasses these things"


The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

What is different between congress and the courts is ....with powers of the court a case must be brought before it, without that happening the courts can do noting the render a decision, .........but congress acts on it own without anything.... against constitutional law.

to explain it a little better, today when issues of rights violations happen in America, congress thinks it their job to write laws to prevent these violations from happening again, however that is not correct congress has no such authority, when violations of rights take place, it is for the courts to act not congress.

The fact that the President, the U.S. Congress, and the courts all overstep their constitutional authority does not mean that they were intended to have such powers.