Clarrify this then for me......do you equate Democrat with Left and Republican with Right? If so, then (for your benefit), the Leftish Democrats more closely correlate with our Leftish Labor party and the Rightish Republicans correspond with our conservative Liberal Party (sorry, also the conservative National Party which forms the coalition). Not so black and white but near enough I think. This clarrification is helpful (for your understanding) if your going to discuss Ron Paul, "Liberal", "conservative", "left" and "right" with a largely Australian (though not exclusively) forum. Other wise we will be talking "apples" and "oranges" which may inadvertantly cause insult to those of us (not pointing to anyone in particular) who may be thin skinned. We wouldn't want that in our current desire for a harmonious forum environment.
If discussing an American politician participating in an American election then one should have the most basic understanding of the political system here; Two Party System Democratic party is made up of mostly socialist and is considered Left-Wing Republican party is made up mostly with neo-conservitives and is considered Right-Wing Every Presidential election is decided by people like me, who call themselves moderate and don't like associating ourselves with any one party, though some, myself included consider ourselves Libertarians, which is a party, but not a viable one on the national level. When a Democrat wins, like Obama, it's because a majority of moderates voted Left. When a Republican wins, like in 2012, it's because most Mods vote Right. The Democrats never vote for Republicans and vice versa. It's the middle 20% that swings every election in America.
The question was simple. Do democrats (and their supporters) correspond more with "left" end of the political spectrum and republicans (and their supporters) correspond more with the "right" end of the political spectrum? The short answer I believe is "yes". If not, then the labelling of Dems as closet "commies" and our labelling in Australia of the labor party similarly as communists based largely on their approach to such things as the provision of Health, education, unemployment support, "blue collar" workers rights would seem at odds with what is occurring in reality. Discussion on Ron Paul, who previously identified himself as an Independant and who now is trying to seek presidential nomination with (I assume) the right wing party of the USA, is crucial to a clear and simply issue. Is Ron Paul not seeking candidacy with the right wing republican party of the USA? I believe you confirmed that the answer was yes, ensuring we will not be comparing "apples and oranges" in future so I thank you "with all due respect".
Something is seriously wrong with you. First you either failed or refused to read my response before you responded. Besides clearly stating who was Left/Right over here, I never used the word "commies" You're beginning to hurt my feelings, don't make me call the feelings police onya Lucky LMAO Democratic party is made up of mostly socialist and is considered Left-Wing Republican party is made up mostly with neo-conservitives and is considered Right-Wing
I will take your personal comments for what they are worth. And should it pop up in related discussion on this thread or another, I hope you won't confuse our Liberal party with your Democrat party because I can assure you my American friend, that they stand for two VERY different things. Liberal here is the name of a political party but NOT associated with what Amercians generally think of as liberal ie associated with what the US democrat party stands for. That is the point I am being sure you understand. From now on, I will use the term "left" and "right" as opposed to "liberal" and "conservative" when referring to discussion on Ron Paul.........for your ease of understanding.
I don't see how anything but our definition would be relevant in discussing our politicians. Yeah, people participating need to now how it relates to your political parties, but that's it IMO
I think that is a little bit of a harsh assessment of Stewart. He is openly what you guys call liberal (left). But no where in his commentary have i seen him show any real bias. Unless of cours you are a died in the wool Fox News watcher in which case you are already indoctrinated and brainwashed to the radical right. Pauls views cross so many boundaries on either side of the fence. Being a Libertarian means that he automatically ticks many boxes that the left fight for one rights of choice etc and his constitutional beliefs make him a strict fiscal conservative. With Americans waking up even on the left to how urgent Americas fiscal problems are, surely they are trying to find a middle ground on where they get to be "liberal" with out breaking the bank. That puts Paul smack bang in the middle while technically being so far right by today's standards that a Democrat wouldn't vote for him on principle. A stict fiscal conservative, that wants to let the states do what they want if they so chose and get the federal government out of everything, including closing the dept of Education which both side have realized is a joke. Not limiting the states if they chose to legalize marijuana and gay marriage is the smartest thing anyone could ever vote for. Could you ever imagine people in the south going of their heads when a candidate tells them that drugs and marriage are a person choice that the federal government has no business in? But when Paul put it across they ate it up and with enough air time and the backing of someone like Stewart who while being an Obama supporter and lefty is disappointed in Obamas performance would instantly reach out to the left. Die hard Democrats would at least take notice of Paul and listen to what he has to say, they could make up their own minds them selves then. Actually get them thinking and taking and having them actually listen to him is all that Paul needs IMO.
With all due respect, your opinion is noted and taken for what it is worth. When communicating and debating on a predominantly Australian forum, it does however help if you both speak and understand issues from an Australian viewpoint irrespective of the topic of conversation (your politicians or any one elses) IMO. That way you won't be talking apples and oranges.
Hey I'm right there with ya, problem is only about 20% of us are in the middle, moderates. The Dems and Pubs are so partisan, so dogmatic in their beliefs there is little room for compromise and common sense. Oh and news flash, I know plenty of people who wouldn't watch Fox or Jon. His audience is overwhelming young and liberal, so don't tell me he doesn't have a bias. Bias doesn't mean he is totally one-sided it just means BIAS
We need to be careful about our definitions of what constitutes "right wing". The leftist media and establishment likes to refer to libertarians as "right wing" - which is of course utter cr@p. Wanting freedoms of individuals protected (including from government) is in fact a LIBERAL ideal, yet this is often labelled by the (insane) left as being "right wing". I believe that a fairly large part of the Republican Party fall under this category of being TRUE LIBERALS/libertarians and therefore support the Tea Party movement - which stands for mimimalist government and protection of individuals rights - as contained in the US constitution. Labelling this large proportion of Republicans as "right wing" is just plain ridiculous and is simply misinformation by the socialist left who of course love big government and government meddling and couldn't give a stuff about the rights of individuals.
I largely agree with you....on this point. In fact, there are many aspects of US culture that neither Left"ish" democrats and Right"ish" liberals claim a monopoloy on. Interventionism in foreign nations being one. Patriotism (or at least the outward chest thumping brand of patriotism) being another. It is amusing however to watch the mainstream Republican party try to reconcile the smaller Teaparty ideas/aims/views/values/opinions within its larger organisation.
The big difference I find re the US is that the gap between major parties is much bigger, party I suspect because we have block voting, and little differentiation within our parties, where as they have quite a spread of internal opinion and vote more individually.
i agree with that. the "Libs" here are actually quite socialist which simply means that Australia's politics is skewed completely to the left. This is easy to understand if one considers that no matter what issue comes up - the first thing out of peoples' mouths is inevitably "THE GOVERMENT NEEDS TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!" A logical result of living in a nanny state from the cradle to the grave...
tony abbott a socialist , com'n yippe maybe turnbul but not abbott, the coalition is a centre party combining nationals and liberals, and labor traditionally a left party is totally lost in the spectrum, with the left and right factions at war.
This has been discussed before, though more recent members like YKY probably never saw the thread. One of my pet peeves though is the way many people try and fit every possible political point of view into a single left vs right spectrum. Anyway, the questionnaire was pretty good I thought. http://forums.silverstackers.com/topic-6816-political-compass.html
well he did introduce a policy of paid parental leave for women - which is hardly what i'd call a traditional liberal (or Lib Party) value... i've heard it said often before and i totally agree with it that the Liberal Party are socialists dressed up in free market clothing... and i vote for them simply because they're less socialist than Labor. it truly is a case of choosing the lesser of two evils! however on the senate level i'd choose to vote for a truly libertarian party - like the Liberal Democtatic Party.
