Thread: Democrat Primaries A Microcosm Of Socialist Thinking

Nicie - Yep, that's true. There's no problem and I'm not picking on you - honest.

I just throw out the disclaimer just to let you know (and many other onlookers - as I often do), that there is a range of opinions and perspectives here.


Actually, here, let me give you a quick synopsis about that stuff here (going off topic a tad, but it fits in the current context):

If we are able to break down all politics into:

1. Social Issues, and 2. Economic Issues

We can make a wild 'guesstimate' as to how our posting members breakdown (again, it's just a guess, and by my own observation - I actually like to do a formal survey here somehow to better understand our own internal demographics/attitudes...):

a. Social Conservative/Economic Conservative= about 80% (of all posters)

b. Social Conservative/Economic Progressive= about 15% (I am here)
Arguably, most closely characterized as a 'Blue Dog Democrat', say.

c. Social Progressive/Economic Conservative= about %5
Say, arguably, more closely associated with being a RINO

d. Social Progressive/Economic Progressive= 0% (well, probably a 1% to represent certain trolls that show up - to be more accurate)

Obviously, the greatest 'gray area' in the categories above, lie in the mix of 'b' and 'c'. The terms and definitions can matter a great deal in lumping people into one of those categories.

Just FYI - for those following the thread.

Thanks WorriedAmerican - I'll add the link into the OP above.

Thanks WorriedAmerican

I'm a little distracted and missed that post.....have house guests coming.

Actually, I'm sorry I made that post this morning. I meant no offence. Constructive criticism accepted.

Here's why I think "liberal" candidates like Hillary Clinton still have considerable pull with many Americans who are socially conservative.

1. US corporations, that at one time employed skilled American craftsmen, now are trending to outsourcing jobs, moving production overseas and seeking offshore tax havens as well. But if they are going to maximize profit and seek the financial interests of their shareholders, this is probably the reasonable thing to do. Acting strictly in their own self interst provides very little if any incentive to create any new jobs for US citizens.

2. Many start up entrepreneurs, who actually have some capital to begin businesses, have been raised in a politically liberal environment. Case in point: Silicon Valley and tech start ups or alternative energy inventors.

3. The US has relied upon world quality exports to bring us to a powerful financial position. And in reality we have barely beat out other competitors: Europe, Japan, Soviet Union. Now, in trying to sell products that continue to bring the rest of the world into the modern era, we have nor only those older competitors--who were held back by devastating wars--we also will compete against the new economic giants of China and India.

4. The Democrats, particularly Clinton, are trying to put together a coalition that includes the start-up small and the midsize entrepreneurs and the underemployed, skilled blue-collar and professional Americans. This is why she has focused so much attention on the "Rust belt" states.

There will be a worldwide demand for alternative energy technologies as fossil fuels become more expensive and because of pollution concerns and as the cost of alternatives come down. Right now other countries have the jump on us. Many basic population demographics point to alternative energies: people moving from rural areas to windy ocean ports for jobs and to sunnier climates for retirement. I think Romney got it in terms of helping the industrialized sector of the US economy--which has been on the skids. I don't think the others do, and Liberals seem to own this issue.

I realize that is only a slice of the issues, but jobs are very important. I'm sorry to see that Romney (probably because of evangelicals opting for McCain) did not get farther in the Republican primaries.

I don't know what I am!!!

What's a RINO? Doesn't sound good. LOL

I'm not a troll so that leaves three choices. I'm split.

Don't tell anyone but I like gays as i worked with many. I'm for choice when it comes to my body(and others.) I like helping the needy, but welfare fraud P*ss*s me off.
The rest of me seems to be Conservative...... I'm confused.

WorriedAmerican - You crack me up!

Here's the operative part I wrote in that section above that I should probably repeat with a big IMHO attached as well:

Obviously, the greatest 'gray area' in the categories above, lie in the mix of 'b' and 'c'. The terms and definitions can matter a great deal in lumping people into one of those categories.

Some people think RINO's are one thing (of course, not all people agree on what the definition is, not to mention, that people who are RINO's don't always think they are RINOs...)

And, with 'Blue Dog Dems'... the same idea applies.

Here's my alternate explanation:
Think of a 2 dimensional x-y graph, with Social Issues along one axis, and Economic Issues along the other. Imagine also that the range of data points run from "Conservative" on one (say lowest) to "Progressive" or "Liberal" on the opposite end.

You can basically identify which type of politics a person adheres to based upon where they drop into such a graph. It's been a couple decades since I've delved into this particular topic (the political part, not the math/graph part), but it still is done and applies. The trick is: what label do you assign to each quadrant or even other space within the graph?

The point wasn't to focus much at all on the labels or characterizations attached to people in certain parts of the politics spectrum(s), so much as it was to just note that there is lots of gray area (some people are moderate or progressive on some issues, while being fairly conservative on others..) and that the labels really don't mean very much.

Thanks for that PhredE. When I take those political tests, I fall into the Centrist area... phew!

I just like to know what I am...

Nice breakdown Phred. I agree, but I think that most people here are not exactly economically conservative -- although they may think they are I used to consider myself an economic conservative, but was enlightened by some REAL economic conservatives and libertarians on another site. They called me a SOCIALIST for opposing outsourcing. I started to realise that not being an economic conservative is not such a bad thing afterall.

I think this site is composed of social conservatives who grew tired of the Republican hierarchy not representing them on immigration. And perhaps some have come to the understanding that the Republican Party is in the main a pro-outsourcing party. The Republican talk on social issues is the main draw for the people at this site IMO. And they went along with the economic stuff because the social rhetoric rang so beautifully and identification with the party that represented so many of their views. But that same laisse faire capitalist approach is exaclty why we are enduring an invasion, and why our jobs are being moved overseas.

IMO most people here are populists and nationalists. The figures that represent this site the most would be Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs. And I really would not consider Lou Dobbs an economic conservative, he is definitely in favor of regulation and government programs if they benefit the American middle-class. This is mainly a populist/nationalist site in my view.

I've been told I would make a good SOCIALIST.

I LOVE Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs! I could listen to Buchanan all day. That laugh of his makes me laugh.