Why do Americans think the Democrats are left wing?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Because compared to the Republicans they are left wing.

They are farther to the left the the GOP, doen't make them "left wing"

Warren Buffett is rich. Bill Gates is rich. Gates is poorer then Buffett, but hat doesn't make him poor

But why let truth get in the way of your posting history now?
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
No mainstream politician in the US is truly "left wing"



usprimaries_2008.png
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,382
7,445
136
No mainstream politician in the US is truly "left wing"

Now I know that's full o'!@#$ cause Ron Paul isn't pegged to the bottom.

How does a man who wants to eliminate most government functions not even halfway towards Libertarian there?
 

tm37

Lifer
Jan 24, 2001
12,436
1
0
Clueless. First, the civil rights movement is overwhelmingly about removing discrimination - something you don't say a word about. Not convenient for your bias. and making things equal to each other not "more equal"

Second, the little bit that could be called 'special treatment', almost entirely affirmative action, is based on the lingering inequality of past discrimination. please explain what i and my children have done to wrong those given protection and more "equal" treatment. I was afforded some opportunity because of what my parents had yes but it is not a racial issue it is economics

It's like having one ball team beating the crap out of the other team's pitcher all game, and then in the 6th inning saying 'ok, now that wrong is ended, you go pitch'. Gee, think the injuries might make the 'equal' new situation less than equal? Affirmative action is something people like you have no idea about - it's based on equality not happening because of the contiuning effects of generations of discrimination. It brings equality. your analogy is flawed or you think that someone deserves something because of a wrong many years ago to someone else that may have looked like you. looking at the team down 15 runs and giving them 20 in the 6th inning to ensure they have a chance is not the answer. The issue is to look at why they are down 15 runs in the first place. The issue is that they did poorly in elementary and secondary schools even though the opportunities are there for them to get a early childhood programs that are not available to the non protected. So if one group does better then we need to take from them and prop up the nonperforming group? My father grew up dirt poor and i will say that what I have today is not because of what he looked like but because of what he did. Having said that there are people that look differently that did better than he did and i have no ill will to those who overcame their particular lot in life and then succeeded. To say that because you can take someones opportunities or property for something that an ancestor may have done is wrong.

You don't see affirmative action where the identified groups are doing better than the 'white males'. So you are a shameless whiner, wanting to keep your stolen loot.

I am a shameless whiner? What I am in a person that sees that the much of the injustice of the past in gone and replaced with new injustices put on people that had no part nor did they gain any advantage from said injustices. What we have is an economic problem and a culture problem and a system that tell many Americans that it is my fault for your lot in life. I am 37 years old and have not received anything I have not earned. I joined the Navy to get an education and took that and made my way into the civilian world and have done pretty well for myself but have made MANY sacrifices along the way. I could have gotten into college (SDSU) with my low GPA and NOT TAKING the SAT had I been Black. Why should anyone expect that I got what I got simply because I am a white male I would have had better economic opportunities had I been something else.

And for my sacrifices what do I gain. If the affirmative action was based on parental income I would be just fine with that but it bothers me that the child sitting next to my son in school does not need to do as well to achieve the same as him simply on how he looks even though from a economic level his parents make more money. It bothers me that in the Military they use quotas to determine who will make rank. It bothers me that a police department gave points to minorities on a rank exam to ensure that the picture of the newly promoted more resembled a barney episode than those who have the best proficiency.

There is equal and not equal there is no such thing as "more equal"

We need to move forward and give opportunities on MERIT and what you bring to the table and not what you like like in a picture.
 

Rangoric

Senior member
Apr 5, 2006
532
0
71
Now I know that's full o'!@#$ cause Ron Paul isn't pegged to the bottom.

How does a man who wants to eliminate most government functions not even halfway towards Libertarian there?

What's his stance on "Gay Marriage"? I'd get into more detail, but to sum up, you are looking at what he wants to get rid of and not what he still wants it to do.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
30,337
7,988
136
I cant be arsed to read this whole thread cos I preety much know how its going to play out.

Things I'd like to point out.

Left wing =/= Liberalism how the fuck you mix those two up I don't know.

Also why do Americans hate each other so much? Seriously you guys would spend so much time and effort trying to prove "the other guy" wrong you forget about making things better for everyone.
 

HamburgerBoy

Lifer
Apr 12, 2004
27,112
318
126
No mainstream politician in the US is truly "left wing"



usprimaries_2008.png

Shows you how fucked up left-wing politics are when Ralph Nader is merely in the middle of the left.

EDIT: Now I think that chart is just shens; I answered as accurately as possible regarding Kucinich's politics according to this and got...

pcgraphpng.php


There were quite a few ambiguous questions about trusting authority and such, and I gave him the benefit of the doubt that his position on such would be "disagree". Overall nothing that explains for the massive difference. But then again, a lot of the questions on that page are pretty ridiculous anyways.
 
Last edited:

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
Couldn't really agree more with this. Capitalism has its pros and cons, and by putting more regulation (but not too much so) we still have innovation and competition, plus we eliminate the problems of corporations abusing of their power.


This is a pretty naive view.

To think that government regulation won't end up stifling markets by going overboard and building off itself to create a stifling situation for investment and growth is to ignore the realities of human nature in the political arena of life. Furthermore the perceptual need for big government to continue pumping out laws in order to continue its viewed usefulness amongst the public as a entity of authority that is "getting something done" for the sake of doing something (i.e. passing laws) is also a given.

In addition with regulations you end up with government creating artificial shortages and rationing where they are none along with government determining winners and losers based on who can most influence government officials. Which means you end up with the largest business entities dominating markets because they have the capital to enter or/and survive regulated markets over the little guy along with the deepest pockets to influence government officials.
 
Last edited:

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
No mainstream politician in the US is truly "left wing"



usprimaries_2008.png
Actually the chart proves that Democrats ARE left wing since every Democrats but one is to the left of every Republican.

Remember that left and right are not absolutes but are comparative.

ie. I am a right winger, but I am probably to the left of spidey.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,382
7,445
136
No, ProfJohn, we must use the European / world model to frame the 'debate' so we can vilify those evil capitalists.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Actually the chart proves that Democrats ARE left wing since every Democrats but one is to the left of every Republican.

Remember that left and right are not absolutes but are comparative.

ie. I am a right winger, but I am probably to the left of spidey.

Right of center is now left in your world? Really? Does that make McCain a left-wing liberal now? LOL

2 is less then 3, but 2 isn't a negative number.

You're just mad that it shows that Obama isn't a muslim socialist communist left-wing liberal.

What really would be funny and blow your mind is if someone plotted all recent GOP presidents with Obama, to see how Obama would be further to the right then most of them. The Bachmanns Perrys, and Cains have moved the far right so far right they are about to fall over.
 

LOL_Wut_Axel

Diamond Member
Mar 26, 2011
4,310
8
81
This is a pretty naive view.

To think that government regulation won't end up stifling markets by going overboard and building off itself to create a stifling situation for investment and growth is to ignore the realities of human nature in the political arena of life. Furthermore the perceptual need for big government to continue pumping out laws in order to continue its viewed usefulness amongst the public as a entity of authority that is "getting something done" for the sake of doing something (i.e. passing laws) is also a given.

In addition with regulations you end up with government creating artificial shortages and rationing where they are none along with government determining winners and losers based on who can most influence government officials. Which means you end up with the largest business entities dominating markets because they have the capital to enter or/and survive regulated markets over the little guy along with the deepest pockets to influence government officials.

What you described is the problem with having no regulation, not with having it. As of right now it's businesses that are using their money as a bargaining chip to create monopolies.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Clueless. First, the civil rights movement is overwhelmingly about removing discrimination - something you don't say a word about. Not convenient for your bias.

Second, the little bit that could be called 'special treatment', almost entirely affirmative action, is based on the lingering inequality of past discrimination.

It's like having one ball team beating the crap out of the other team's pitcher all game, and then in the 6th inning saying 'ok, now that wrong is ended, you go pitch'. Gee, think the injuries might make the 'equal' new situation less than equal? Affirmative action is something people like you have no idea about - it's based on equality not happening because of the contiuning effects of generations of discrimination. It brings equality.

You don't see affirmative action where the identified groups are doing better than the 'white males'. So you are a shameless whiner, wanting to keep your stolen loot.

AA is kinda BS way it's implemented. Class rather than race should be the leg up. Is a black investment bankers son with a stay at home mom disadvantaged compared to a white trailer park resident who was raised by a minimum wagish single mother when both are applying to medical school? Under current system they say he is.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
AA is kinda BS way it's implemented. Class rather than race should be the leg up. Is a black investment bankers son with a stay at home mom disadvantaged compared to a white trailer park resident who was raised by a minimum wagish single mother when both are applying to medical school? Under current system they say he is.

Here's what AA is mainly about:

An organization is examined, has a large number of people, and a group is found to be at a large disadvantage. It can't be a small organization, too many individual factors would enter.

Ideally, the source of the inequality can be traced to the continuing effects of past discrimination.

In that case, it's recognized that when generation after generation of the majority have been able to improve each generation, while the other group has not, that leaves that other group at a disadvantage now - and it will not be 'fair' to suddenly say 'ok, now it's merit' as if the previous generations of advantage didn't happen and aren't affecting people.

In this case, the idea is that if the group at a disadvantage has members who *are qualified*, not not the MOST qualified, then a way to help some of the past wrongs and push things towards equality is to give them an advantage temporarily towards the groups being more equal.

The people who got the advantages are often oblivious about it, and only pay attention to any disadvantage they suffer.

Not all AA is implemented according to this, and I suspect sometimes it's done poorly.
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
What's his stance on "Gay Marriage"? I'd get into more detail, but to sum up, you are looking at what he wants to get rid of and not what he still wants it to do.

His stance on gay marriage is that with all marriages in general it should not be decided on or dealt with at a federal level. Moreover the concept of marriage should not be a governmental function other then say the legal contract that is created and formed from a marriage at a state level. In addition he has gone on the record as stating that its none of his business or that of anyone else if gays want to get married even though he may personally disagree with the act itself. In the end he concedes that the personal freedoms of individuals trumps all other arguments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9yMxIldwCc
 
Last edited:

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
This is a pretty naive view.

To think that government regulation won't end up stifling markets by going overboard and building off itself to create a stifling situation for investment and growth is to ignore the realities of human nature in the political arena of life. Furthermore the perceptual need for big government to continue pumping out laws in order to continue its viewed usefulness amongst the public as a entity of authority that is "getting something done" for the sake of doing something (i.e. passing laws) is also a given.

In addition with regulations you end up with government creating artificial shortages and rationing where they are none along with government determining winners and losers based on who can most influence government officials. Which means you end up with the largest business entities dominating markets because they have the capital to enter or/and survive regulated markets over the little guy along with the deepest pockets to influence government officials.

What you described is the problem with having no regulation, not with having it. As of right now it's businesses that are using their money as a bargaining chip to create monopolies.


No the problem lays in governments who insist on interfering in the market place via regulations or mandates. Which then in turns forces larger businesses to preempt future government action by offering up regulation that they can have a hand in crafting. In addition this creates an environment were smaller or weaker businesses entities are easier to acquire by those who are in a better position to weather government decreed changes in the market place and then in turn this leads to monopolies forming where they would not of naturally occurred. Thus this results in government's own policy picking winners and losers in the marketplace either intentionally or unintentionally and limiting the number of players to the biggest fish in the pond.

Furthermore the additional effect of unintended consequences of regulations and/or mandates on the market can also wreak havoc on the availability and supply of resources in a industry. This occurs when politicians fail to take into account how the marketplace will react and function in relation to supposedly "well intentioned" regulations/mandates issued government itself. The shifting of limited resources (many of which have multiple uses in other industries) via categorical priorities based on any regulation and/or mandates set by politicians rather then natural incremental substitution created by real demand found in a free market occurs when businesses are artificially forced to adapt to the changing and shifting marketplace rules of operation and associated access to resources (along with their now altered costs) which is all effected by governmental meddling.

Thus this is how meddling by government via regulations or mandates in turn can create shortages and/or rationing where there once was none, over abundance of goods in areas of the market where there is very little demand, significantly effect prices when they would not have gone up or down if they were based on natural market demands and in addition also masks the true cost of resources so that in many cases you end up with more waste rather then less.
 
Last edited: