there are actually 4 major political parties in the US under the guise of the 2 current ones:
Progressive: Super left-leaning like Bernie Sanders
Establishment: moderate status quo like Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio, John Kasich
Tea Party: ultra-conservative like Ted Cruz
Nationalist: semi-fascist like Donald Trump
Not saying I agree 100%, but found it interesting none-the-less. Thoughts?
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
As a woman, I would not put Hillary Clinton in the same party with Rubio and Kasich. Ever.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Yeah, I can't see that at all. I could maybe see Hillary and George W. Bush in the same party.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
In the sense that you mean it, sure, they're in the same rubric. But definitely not the same parties.
What you're saying is really 5 parties.
Democrats are actually split into Progressives and Center-Left Establishment Dems.
Republicans are split into Conservative, Ultra Conservatives and Nationalists.
That's a good way of viewing the state of the party system. It's really more of a venn diagram, as the Tea Party initially did pull in some Democrats fed up with the establishment, and now Trump's Nationalist front has done the same.
But in reality I'm not sure we're due for a realignment. Parties have had sub-factions and wings for centuries. I think Trump's faction is an honest to goodness 30-40% of the Republican Party. I think the ultra conservative wing is in actuality only like 15%, and the other 45-55% are relatively normal people who certainly lean conservative but don't see themselves as heavily ideological.
On the Dem side I think it's probably more of a 60/40 split between Center-Left and Far Left.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah anyone who thinks Clinton is an equivalent "establishment to someone like kasich ... Who wants to turn America into a soft theocracy?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
What ... Happened
Posted by zlogdan (Member # 13358) on :
In 1964 the Military had to intervene in Brazil because a communist president was elected. They conducted Brazil until 1985 when they allowed the election of a non military president. Since then Fabian socialists, disguised as new liberals, have been manipulating the political machine in Brazil. They were the head party ( PMDB or PSDB ) until 2002 when a real socialist president was elected.
Since then we have been living under the administration of a leftist government. In 2002 I would call myself a leftist, but today there is nothing I regret more of saying after all these years. Not just I am a conservative Right guy as I have come to loathe the idea of being ruled by people that were inspired by communism, socialism, fabian and gramscian socialism. The left put Brazil down and have spread socialist ideals among the most numerous portion of our population - the poorest.
I see with a lot of fear that American politics and society are moving towards left in , but I really hope this can be avoided. I do not support Trump, I have not means to know what is best to USA of course.
Our latest president is woman, which is the only good thing I can say about her and the idea of having her as a president.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I think someone needs to check JanitorBlade's wiring.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I had that trouble too. I had to go and delete all the extra posts.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Huh, I had the opposite problem. I haven't been able to post for the past few days. (Forum was returning an error message every time I tried)
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Ancient UBB has the most entertainingly random bugs.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I think someone needs to check JanitorBlade's wiring.
Probably, I'm still surprised I wrote that.
But in some ways, particularly foreign policy they are very similar.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: In the sense that you mean it, sure, they're in the same rubric. But definitely not the same parties.
What you're saying is really 5 parties.
Democrats are actually split into Progressives and Center-Left Establishment Dems.
Republicans are split into Conservative, Ultra Conservatives and Nationalists.
That's a good way of viewing the state of the party system. It's really more of a venn diagram, as the Tea Party initially did pull in some Democrats fed up with the establishment, and now Trump's Nationalist front has done the same.
But in reality I'm not sure we're due for a realignment. Parties have had sub-factions and wings for centuries. I think Trump's faction is an honest to goodness 30-40% of the Republican Party. I think the ultra conservative wing is in actuality only like 15%, and the other 45-55% are relatively normal people who certainly lean conservative but don't see themselves as heavily ideological.
On the Dem side I think it's probably more of a 60/40 split between Center-Left and Far Left.
The 60/40 is suggestive of the Clinton/Sanders divide, but I think you're ignoring a significant coalition within Clinton's support. Black (and, to a lesser extent, Latino) voters don't really look much like the 'socially-liberal, fiscally-conservative' Wall Street support that usually is seen as Hillary's base.
If the political wing of the Democratic Party usually associated with black voters were it's own party, I don't think it would look very 'center-left'. So, really, I think in the Democratic Party you have an 'Establishment' group (represented by Hillary), a 'Progressive' group (represented by Warren/Sanders), and a 'Populist' group (represented by ? who ? Al Sharpton?). Which isn't all that different than the Republicans, who have an 'Establishment' group (represented by Romney, I'd say), a 'Conservative' group (Cruz), and a 'Populist' group (Palin/Trump).
Looked at a different way, the Establishment groups are busy fighting yesterday's political fights, the Progressive/Conservative groups are trying to start new political fights, and the Populist groups are fighting just to be heard.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I think someone needs to check JanitorBlade's wiring.
Probably, I'm still surprised I wrote that.
But in some ways, particularly foreign policy they are very similar.
I was actually just surprised you wrote it so many times. Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I think someone needs to check JanitorBlade's wiring.
Probably, I'm still surprised I wrote that.
But in some ways, particularly foreign policy they are very similar.
I was actually just surprised you wrote it so many times.
It wasn't until this post that I realized there was something wrong. None of you goobers whistled me. And because I'm outside now I had to fix Lyrhawn and my posts by phone! Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
We need to stop pretending that janitorblade doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: We need to stop pretending that janitorblade doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing.
I think you mean dispel once and for all this fiction that I don't know what I'm doing.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)