liberalism in the USA

[Phatscotty]

Ron Paul is the definition of a everything a Progressive isn't, Gary Johnson too.

Which is almost certainly why you refused to vote for Gary Johnson.

If I had voted for Gary Johnson, WHAT WOULD THAT CHANGE? LMAO!!

Your credibility may have a changed a bit.

meh, pretty sure it had to do with recognizing nobody even knows who Gary Johnson is, as well as a lack of effort IMO.

Gosh, I wonder why nobody even knows who he is. Could it be because nobody will vote for him? You're a self-fulfilling prophecy against your own alleged interests, which tells me and anyone who is paying attention that either those really aren't your own interests (that's my bet) or that you're simply available to the highest bidder.

Ron Paul had a much better shot and made a much larger impact. In short, I couldn't add a vote to the 2% GJ got because I was too busy helping win an entire state for Ron Paul. He is way ahead of Gary.

Gary was still running when Ron Paul dropped out of the race, so that's a pretty ignorant set of statements.

I think the Ron Paul path is a much more realistic one, and I made that decision a long time ago.

The decision to be a sellout must have come fairly easily for you.

let me ask as question I know you will dodge.

What did your vote for Gary Johnson accomplish??

[Woodruff]

Ron Paul is the definition of a everything a Progressive isn't, Gary Johnson too.

Which is almost certainly why you refused to vote for Gary Johnson.

If I had voted for Gary Johnson, WHAT WOULD THAT CHANGE? LMAO!!

Your credibility may have a changed a bit.

meh, pretty sure it had to do with recognizing nobody even knows who Gary Johnson is, as well as a lack of effort IMO.

Gosh, I wonder why nobody even knows who he is. Could it be because nobody will vote for him? You're a self-fulfilling prophecy against your own alleged interests, which tells me and anyone who is paying attention that either those really aren't your own interests (that's my bet) or that you're simply available to the highest bidder.

Ron Paul had a much better shot and made a much larger impact. In short, I couldn't add a vote to the 2% GJ got because I was too busy helping win an entire state for Ron Paul. He is way ahead of Gary.

Gary was still running when Ron Paul dropped out of the race, so that's a pretty ignorant set of statements.

I think the Ron Paul path is a much more realistic one, and I made that decision a long time ago.

The decision to be a sellout must have come fairly easily for you.

let me ask as question I know you will dodge.

What did your vote for Gary Johnson accomplish??

It accomplished what it was meant to accomplish. I fulfilled my duty of voting for the candidate who I felt best supported my interests. You, on the other hand, subverted your duty for an expected payout.

I don't know why you think I would dodge. I don't believe I've ever dodged anything you have asked me. You are the one with the royal appellation, for obvious reasons.

You ask a lot of questions for someone who is so fearful of answering them.

[saxitoxin]

So, anyway ...

OP, which Belgian party does a liberal such as yourself support?

[Phatscotty]

Ron Paul is the definition of a everything a Progressive isn't, Gary Johnson too.

Which is almost certainly why you refused to vote for Gary Johnson.

If I had voted for Gary Johnson, WHAT WOULD THAT CHANGE? LMAO!!

Your credibility may have a changed a bit.

meh, pretty sure it had to do with recognizing nobody even knows who Gary Johnson is, as well as a lack of effort IMO.

Gosh, I wonder why nobody even knows who he is. Could it be because nobody will vote for him? You're a self-fulfilling prophecy against your own alleged interests, which tells me and anyone who is paying attention that either those really aren't your own interests (that's my bet) or that you're simply available to the highest bidder.

Ron Paul had a much better shot and made a much larger impact. In short, I couldn't add a vote to the 2% GJ got because I was too busy helping win an entire state for Ron Paul. He is way ahead of Gary.

Gary was still running when Ron Paul dropped out of the race, so that's a pretty ignorant set of statements.

I think the Ron Paul path is a much more realistic one, and I made that decision a long time ago.

The decision to be a sellout must have come fairly easily for you.

let me ask as question I know you will dodge.

What did your vote for Gary Johnson accomplish??

It accomplished what it was meant to accomplish. I fulfilled my duty of voting for the candidate who I felt best supported my interests.

but what was the result? what was the impact?

[Woodruff]

Which is almost certainly why you refused to vote for Gary Johnson.

If I had voted for Gary Johnson, WHAT WOULD THAT CHANGE? LMAO!!

Your credibility may have a changed a bit.

meh, pretty sure it had to do with recognizing nobody even knows who Gary Johnson is, as well as a lack of effort IMO.

Gosh, I wonder why nobody even knows who he is. Could it be because nobody will vote for him? You're a self-fulfilling prophecy against your own alleged interests, which tells me and anyone who is paying attention that either those really aren't your own interests (that's my bet) or that you're simply available to the highest bidder.

Ron Paul had a much better shot and made a much larger impact. In short, I couldn't add a vote to the 2% GJ got because I was too busy helping win an entire state for Ron Paul. He is way ahead of Gary.

Gary was still running when Ron Paul dropped out of the race, so that's a pretty ignorant set of statements.

I think the Ron Paul path is a much more realistic one, and I made that decision a long time ago.

The decision to be a sellout must have come fairly easily for you.

let me ask as question I know you will dodge.

What did your vote for Gary Johnson accomplish??

It accomplished what it was meant to accomplish. I fulfilled my duty of voting for the candidate who I felt best supported my interests.

but what was the result? what was the impact?

I already stated the result. That's what "accomplish" means in the context that you used it. What do you believe was the result of your voting for Mitt Romney?

[patrickaa317]

Both parties have moved to the right since Reagan, in my opinion, rather than any back-and-forth.

Interesting, I've never seen nor heard anyone else make this claim. Care to elaborate on how you've come to this view? It's off topic in this thread so if you want to shoot me a PM to discuss, that'd work for me.

[chang50]

Both parties have moved to the right since Reagan, in my opinion, rather than any back-and-forth.

Interesting, I've never seen nor heard anyone else make this claim. Care to elaborate on how you've come to this view? It's off topic in this thread so if you want to shoot me a PM to discuss, that'd work for me.

Same thing happened in the UK since the time of Reagan's contemporary Thatcher although the main parties began much to the left of the US ones.Commentators have ascribed this to a reaction against Union power and the progressive social reforms of the 60's and 70's.

[Woodruff]

Both parties have moved to the right since Reagan, in my opinion, rather than any back-and-forth.

Interesting, I've never seen nor heard anyone else make this claim. Care to elaborate on how you've come to this view? It's off topic in this thread so if you want to shoot me a PM to discuss, that'd work for me.

For an easy "for instance", look at the NDAA. It has passed with better than overwhelming support (98-0 in 2013), despite the fact that it contains serious civil liberty problems, for instance the idea of indefinite detention without due process. Hell, it's one of the very few things that seems to get complete bi-partisan support. I hardly think that's a move to the left.

[patrickaa317]

Both parties have moved to the right since Reagan, in my opinion, rather than any back-and-forth.

Interesting, I've never seen nor heard anyone else make this claim. Care to elaborate on how you've come to this view? It's off topic in this thread so if you want to shoot me a PM to discuss, that'd work for me.

For an easy "for instance", look at the NDAA. It has passed with better than overwhelming support (98-0 in 2013), despite the fact that it contains serious civil liberty problems, for instance the idea of indefinite detention without due process. Hell, it's one of the very few things that seems to get complete bi-partisan support. I hardly think that's a move to the left.

I'd agree that's not a move to the left but not sure I'd agree that it indicates a move to the right, more a move upwards if using the Lovian political spectrum. Plus other things like more progressive tax rate, obamacare are definitely not showing a move to the right in my opinion.

[Woodruff]

Both parties have moved to the right since Reagan, in my opinion, rather than any back-and-forth.

Interesting, I've never seen nor heard anyone else make this claim. Care to elaborate on how you've come to this view? It's off topic in this thread so if you want to shoot me a PM to discuss, that'd work for me.

For an easy "for instance", look at the NDAA. It has passed with better than overwhelming support (98-0 in 2013), despite the fact that it contains serious civil liberty problems, for instance the idea of indefinite detention without due process. Hell, it's one of the very few things that seems to get complete bi-partisan support. I hardly think that's a move to the left.

I'd agree that's not a move to the left but not sure I'd agree that it indicates a move to the right, more a move upwards if using the Lovian political spectrum. Plus other things like more progressive tax rate, obamacare are definitely not showing a move to the right in my opinion.

I could agree regarding Obamacare, but I'm not sure I agree regarding the tax rate. Has it really gotten that much more progressive as compared to what it was in the past?

I look at the policies that were coming about during Reagan's time, and they just don't seem like they'd fly. Hell, I suspect Reagan might be considered a marginal liberal these days.

[ooge]

Jimmy Carter deregulated trucking,airlines and rail during his presidency

[thegreekdog]

I think the back and forth in this thread gives the OP a good example of the "bad" connotations liberalism has in the United States.

[GreecePwns]

American political labels make no sense.

In America, the term "liberal" refers to what the rest of the world would call social democrats.

The actual liberals in America, now without a term to describe themselves, chose to label themselves with a word that sounds similar.

So they chose Libertarian, a word that has meant left-wing anarchism since the days of Proudhon.

Very confusing.

[thegreekdog]

American political labels make no sense.

In America, the term "liberal" refers to what the rest of the world would call social democrats.

The actual liberals in America, now without a term to describe themselves, chose to label themselves with a word that sounds similar.

So they chose Libertarian, a word that throughout history has meant anything but what they believe in.

To be fair, most Libertarians don't choose to call themselves that. I mean, I would love to call myself a classical liberal but then no one would know what the f*ck I was talking about. Half the regulars in this thread don't even understand the Libertarian Party platform. I get accused often of wanting total anarchy or a total free market.

[waauw]

American political labels make no sense.

In America, the term "liberal" refers to what the rest of the world would call social democrats.

The actual liberals in America, now without a term to describe themselves, chose to label themselves with a word that sounds similar.

So they chose Libertarian, a word that throughout history has meant anything but what they believe in.

To be fair, most Libertarians don't choose to call themselves that. I mean, I would love to call myself a classical liberal but then no one would know what the f*ck I was talking about. Half the regulars in this thread don't even understand the Libertarian Party platform. I get accused often of wanting total anarchy or a total free market.

That's because people often think liberalism(in the european sense, in america apparently libertarianism) is the same thing as "laissez-faire", while that's not entirely true.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

American political labels make no sense.

In America, the term "liberal" refers to what the rest of the world would call social democrats.

The actual liberals in America, now without a term to describe themselves, chose to label themselves with a word that sounds similar.

So they chose Libertarian, a word that has meant left-wing anarchism since the days of Proudhon.

Very confusing.

'Muricah.



-TG

[thegreekdog]

American political labels make no sense.

In America, the term "liberal" refers to what the rest of the world would call social democrats.

The actual liberals in America, now without a term to describe themselves, chose to label themselves with a word that sounds similar.

So they chose Libertarian, a word that throughout history has meant anything but what they believe in.

To be fair, most Libertarians don't choose to call themselves that. I mean, I would love to call myself a classical liberal but then no one would know what the f*ck I was talking about. Half the regulars in this thread don't even understand the Libertarian Party platform. I get accused often of wanting total anarchy or a total free market.

That's because people often think liberalism(in the european sense, in america apparently libertarianism) is the same thing as "laissez-faire", while that's not entirely true.

I'll try to help some more. Let's ignore party designations. Here is my analysis of U.S. political views:

Government control over economy + government control over social aspects = statist; neo-con
Government control over economy + limited government with respect to social aspects = liberal
Limited government with respect to economy + government control over social aspects = conservative; Tea Party
Limited government with respect to economy + limited government with respect to social aspects = libertarian

There are obviously flavors to all of these.

For example, I self-identify as a libertarian but I am in favor of a strong public education system paid for by taxpayers, which is antithetical to limited government with respect to the economy and limited government with respect to social aspects.

As another example, some self-identified conservatives are in favor of permitting gay marriage and permitting abortions which are antithetical to government control over social aspects.

I think most Democratic and Republican politicians fall into either the statist/neocon designation or the liberal designation. I therefore call the amalgamation of those two parties Repocrats. Essentially, the Repocrats are in favor of political control over the economy and over social issues, generally. The control over the economy generally involves tax breaks and helpful laws and regulations for favored corporate sponsors and is more troubling to Americans than any social issues (in my humble opinion).

[waauw]

I'll try to help some more. Let's ignore party designations. Here is my analysis of U.S. political views:

Government control over economy + government control over social aspects = statist; neo-con
Government control over economy + limited government with respect to social aspects = liberal
Limited government with respect to economy + government control over social aspects = conservative; Tea Party
Limited government with respect to economy + limited government with respect to social aspects = libertarian

There are obviously flavors to all of these.

For example, I self-identify as a libertarian but I am in favor of a strong public education system paid for by taxpayers, which is antithetical to limited government with respect to the economy and limited government with respect to social aspects.

As another example, some self-identified conservatives are in favor of permitting gay marriage and permitting abortions which are antithetical to government control over social aspects.

I think most Democratic and Republican politicians fall into either the statist/neocon designation or the liberal designation. I therefore call the amalgamation of those two parties Repocrats. Essentially, the Repocrats are in favor of political control over the economy and over social issues, generally. The control over the economy generally involves tax breaks and helpful laws and regulations for favored corporate sponsors and is more troubling to Americans than any social issues (in my humble opinion).

that actually helped me a lot! thx!

[Lootifer]

Personally I always use liberal in the context of being at the other end of the scale to conservative.

I dont usually associate liberal with left or right at all (i.e. I use the political compass with Liberal meaning south).

[PLAYER57832]

Both parties have moved to the right since Reagan, in my opinion, rather than any back-and-forth.

Interesting, I've never seen nor heard anyone else make this claim. Care to elaborate on how you've come to this view? It's off topic in this thread so if you want to shoot me a PM to discuss, that'd work for me.

Seriously? I have said this many times, but also, it is pretty much a matter of historical fact.
Few old enough to remember can dispute that this has happened. About the only real exception is views on homosexuality and marijuana, but that is because the right wingers too often just flat lied on those issues.

[Phatscotty]

Ron Paul is the definition of a everything a Progressive isn't, Gary Johnson too.

Which is almost certainly why you refused to vote for Gary Johnson.

If I had voted for Gary Johnson, WHAT WOULD THAT CHANGE? LMAO!!

Your credibility may have a changed a bit.

okay, well this isn't about me, it's about Gary Johnson and asking you what would change. Since you provided no answer and just made it a statement about me, you are just wasting time. Let's go further, see if you actually have any interest in the discussion, or if it's still just about me.

meh, pretty sure it had to do with recognizing nobody even knows who Gary Johnson is, as well as a lack of effort IMO.

Gosh, I wonder why nobody even knows who he is. Could it be because nobody will vote for him? You're a self-fulfilling prophecy against your own alleged interests, which tells me and anyone who is paying attention that either those really aren't your own interests (that's my bet) or that you're simply available to the highest bidder.

Again, it's all about me? It's impossible to talk to you about anything, but I am finishing this post. If nobody knows the candidate, and the candidate doesn't do anything to make themself known, or flat out nobody will vote for him, those are all great reasons not to vote for that person. It sounds like your only reason for voting for Gary Johnson is to boost your own self esteem. That is not at all why I vote. I vote for what best for my country (not for me), and if you want to go through life thinking all votes are 100% about the person and how you feel, with not a chance that sometimes votes are cast on the situation, such as trying to get a president that can work with a Congress, rather than a president who refuses to work with a Congress, and a thousand other possibilities.

Ron Paul had a much better shot and made a much larger impact. In short, I couldn't add a vote to the 2% GJ got because I was too busy helping win an entire state for Ron Paul. He is way ahead of Gary.

Gary was still running when Ron Paul dropped out of the race, so that's a pretty ignorant set of statements.

Like that proves anything other than who stayed in the race the longest.....Either way, Gary Johnson still only got 2% of the vote, so that reality actually hurts your case, in that your candidate was even weaker when you would expect a bump from something like that. Ron Paul, hands down, undisputedly, had a larger impact than Gary Johnson. I'm not gonna argue with you about that, but I will say Ron Paul won more than 10 states delegate wise, Gary Johnson didn't come close to winning a single state, or even double digits in any state. But you can come to whatever conclusion you like.

I think the Ron Paul path is a much more realistic one, and I made that decision a long time ago.

The decision to be a sellout must have come fairly easily for you.

as was your decision to completely waste your vote on a guy that can't get more than 2% and allow Obama 4 more years of absolute corruption. You can't ignore where you are coming from, and that is you are trying to harass me for not voting for someone nobody fucking voted for. LMFAO!

[Woodruff]

Ron Paul is the definition of a everything a Progressive isn't, Gary Johnson too.

Which is almost certainly why you refused to vote for Gary Johnson.

If I had voted for Gary Johnson, WHAT WOULD THAT CHANGE? LMAO!!

Your credibility may have a changed a bit.

okay, well this isn't about me, it's about Gary Johnson and asking you what would change. Since you provided no answer and just made it a statement about me, you are just wasting time.

You asked me what would have changed. I did provide an answer. You just don't like that answer.

Let's go further, see if you actually have any interest in the discussion, or if it's still just about me.

I notice you didn't answer my question. Par for the course, I guess...

meh, pretty sure it had to do with recognizing nobody even knows who Gary Johnson is, as well as a lack of effort IMO.

Gosh, I wonder why nobody even knows who he is. Could it be because nobody will vote for him? You're a self-fulfilling prophecy against your own alleged interests, which tells me and anyone who is paying attention that either those really aren't your own interests (that's my bet) or that you're simply available to the highest bidder.

Again, it's all about me? It's impossible to talk to you about anything, but I am finishing this post.

It's not "about you", but you certainly did assist in causing your own complaint. That's unavoidable.

If nobody knows the candidate, and the candidate doesn't do anything to make themself known, or flat out nobody will vote for him, those are all great reasons not to vote for that person.

The candidate didn't do anything to make himself known? Why weren't YOU trying to help make the candidate known, instead of campaigning for second-choice Romney? I was trying to make my candidate known.

It sounds like your only reason for voting for Gary Johnson is to boost your own self esteem.

It's fascinating how you can make statements that have zero basis in any evidence or actual statements.

That is not at all why I vote. I vote for what best for my country (not for me)

But you kept claiming that Ron Paul was what was best for your country. So why didn't you vote for the candidate who was, by FAR, most like Ron Paul?

and if you want to go through life thinking all votes are 100% about the person and how you feel, with not a chance that sometimes votes are cast on the situation, such as trying to get a president that can work with a Congress, rather than a president who refuses to work with a Congress, and a thousand other possibilities.

A vote for Not-Obama was actually a vote for Obama...well done.

Ron Paul had a much better shot and made a much larger impact. In short, I couldn't add a vote to the 2% GJ got because I was too busy helping win an entire state for Ron Paul. He is way ahead of Gary.

Gary was still running when Ron Paul dropped out of the race, so that's a pretty ignorant set of statements.

Like that proves anything other than who stayed in the race the longest...[/quote]

It proves the lie of your statement, actually.

Either way, Gary Johnson still only got 2% of the vote, so that reality actually hurts your case, in that your candidate was even weaker when you would expect a bump from something like that.

Gary Johnson received only 2% of the vote because cowards who could only talk the talk wouldn't walk the walk and vote for him. You know...like you.

Ron Paul, hands down, undisputedly, had a larger impact than Gary Johnson.

Ron Paul wasn't available on the ballots when Gary Johnson was so no...he was not going to have a larger impact as far as the election goes.

I'm not gonna argue with you about that

That's a wise move, because your position holds no water.

but I will say Ron Paul won more than 10 states delegate wise, Gary Johnson didn't come close to winning a single state, or even double digits in any state. But you can come to whatever conclusion you like.

The conclusion I come to is that Gary Johnson could have received your vote after Ron Paul dropped out of the race, and he did not receive that vote. A further conclusion I come to is that you're not actually that much of a Ron Paul fan or you would have voted for Gary Johnson, the candidate who was by far the most like Ron Paul. Instead, you voted for Mitt Romney, a candidate who was vastly different from Ron Paul.

I think the Ron Paul path is a much more realistic one, and I made that decision a long time ago.

The decision to be a sellout must have come fairly easily for you.

as was your decision to completely waste your vote on a guy that can't get more than 2% and allow Obama 4 more years of absolute corruption.

My vote for Gary Johnson certainly didn't impact whether Obama became President or not. If I were FORCED UNDER THREAT OF DEATH to vote for either Obama or Romney, I would have held my nose and voted for Obama. As far as I'm concerned, there were at least three candidates better than either one of them.

You can't ignore where you are coming from, and that is you are trying to harass me for not voting for someone nobody fucking voted for. LMFAO!

I am simply pointing out that you didn't vote for the candidate that you truly felt would be the best President, based on your own statements regarding Ron Paul.

[PLAYER57832]

Not to detract from your back and forth Phattscotty and Woodruff, but there really is a much bigger issue here.

The US is largely still dependent upon use of natural and mineral resources at very high, unsustainable rates. Europe mostly does not have that luxury. They don't have vast swaths of land that they can destroy by turning them into landfills, nor huge areas of forest. They have some minerals still, but nothing like the US or areas we and Europe essentially colonize.. namely Africa and to some extent Latin America.

Beyond that, Europe came from a monarchy very recently. Our country was formed upon the idea of "throwing off" the "oppressors" and "individual work/ability". Europeans are much more likely to accept the ideas of status being somewhat set. Most Americans try to pretend that their success is basically all on their own. For example, if you look at how most people get their jobs, it turns out that most people rely upon contacts, friends, etc. People without those inbuilt contacts have a much, much, MUCH harder time cracking even lower end jobs, but particularly the "good" jobs, with very few exceptions. Yet, if you ask people what most contributed to their success, they inevitably say "my hard work". The real truth is that women and minorities have fewer contacts. Women also tend to not be as effective at using the contacts they have in general. There are, of course exceptions.

All of this means that those in the US are much more likely to believe rhetoric that touts to make people "individually responsible" and "living right and responsibly" (that last can be read "living by majority mores"). That is precisely what the Republicans first, but now Democrats and almost anyone other than the Green Party (even they are not totally immune) have done.

The truth is that all this "individual responsibility" means that millions are left holding debt that they cannot afford... but that was put forward to them as fully affordable and reasonable, even "patriotic" (remember Bush telling people to spend their tax returns instead of saving??? ). Its perfectly "OK" by this mindset to cut education funding, and all social services.. never mind that these are the things that really do hold our society up and that ensure that future generations will be able to sustain or build upon what we have now, instead of going deeper into a hole. None of that matters to the top few, because they benefit.

If you are in the top 7%, you have done well... everyone else has not. Yet, the 93% still seem to think that listening to the "wisdom" of the top makes sense.

In Europe, they just have not had that luxury.

[waauw]

Not to detract from your back and forth Phattscotty and Woodruff, but there really is a much bigger issue here.

The US is largely still dependent upon use of natural and mineral resources at very high, unsustainable rates. Europe mostly does not have that luxury. They don't have vast swaths of land that they can destroy by turning them into landfills, nor huge areas of forest. They have some minerals still, but nothing like the US or areas we and Europe essentially colonize.. namely Africa and to some extent Latin America.

Beyond that, Europe came from a monarchy very recently. Our country was formed upon the idea of "throwing off" the "oppressors" and "individual work/ability". Europeans are much more likely to accept the ideas of status being somewhat set. Most Americans try to pretend that their success is basically all on their own. For example, if you look at how most people get their jobs, it turns out that most people rely upon contacts, friends, etc. People without those inbuilt contacts have a much, much, MUCH harder time cracking even lower end jobs, but particularly the "good" jobs, with very few exceptions. Yet, if you ask people what most contributed to their success, they inevitably say "my hard work". The real truth is that women and minorities have fewer contacts. Women also tend to not be as effective at using the contacts they have in general. There are, of course exceptions.

All of this means that those in the US are much more likely to believe rhetoric that touts to make people "individually responsible" and "living right and responsibly" (that last can be read "living by majority mores"). That is precisely what the Republicans first, but now Democrats and almost anyone other than the Green Party (even they are not totally immune) have done.

The truth is that all this "individual responsibility" means that millions are left holding debt that they cannot afford... but that was put forward to them as fully affordable and reasonable, even "patriotic" (remember Bush telling people to spend their tax returns instead of saving??? ). Its perfectly "OK" by this mindset to cut education funding, and all social services.. never mind that these are the things that really do hold our society up and that ensure that future generations will be able to sustain or build upon what we have now, instead of going deeper into a hole. None of that matters to the top few, because they benefit.

If you are in the top 7%, you have done well... everyone else has not. Yet, the 93% still seem to think that listening to the "wisdom" of the top makes sense.

In Europe, they just have not had that luxury.

Actually the reason europe is more leftist and america more rightist has even more reasons than just that. Europe throughout it's history has been a continent continuesly terrorized by wars. These wars have often led to nations bankruptcies and financial-economic crises. And as always once the people become deadpoor, they start to hate the rich, which drives them towards socialism.

The USA has had an entirely different situation. You guys have been very wealthy and have been advancing your economic strength for most of your history(mostly because europe was already all built up when the US was only just founded). It is only recently, in the past few decades, that the US has become more aggressive in it's policy by going to war more often. And it's only recently that the US has become poorer and poorer.

The fact that the US has had so much less periods of economic turmoil has prevented the US from becoming more socialist. However nowadays this trend has completely reversed and this I fear will inevitably lead it on the road to serfdom.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'll try to help some more. Let's ignore party designations. Here is my analysis of U.S. political views:

Government control over economy + government control over social aspects = statist; neo-con
Government control over economy + limited government with respect to social aspects = liberal
Limited government with respect to economy + government control over social aspects = conservative; Tea Party
Limited government with respect to economy + limited government with respect to social aspects = libertarian

There are obviously flavors to all of these.

For example, I self-identify as a libertarian but I am in favor of a strong public education system paid for by taxpayers, which is antithetical to limited government with respect to the economy and limited government with respect to social aspects.

As another example, some self-identified conservatives are in favor of permitting gay marriage and permitting abortions which are antithetical to government control over social aspects.

I think most Democratic and Republican politicians fall into either the statist/neocon designation or the liberal designation. I therefore call the amalgamation of those two parties Repocrats. Essentially, the Repocrats are in favor of political control over the economy and over social issues, generally. The control over the economy generally involves tax breaks and helpful laws and regulations for favored corporate sponsors and is more troubling to Americans than any social issues (in my humble opinion).

that actually helped me a lot! thx!

Yeah, when viewing the US, it's good to keep the "Repocrat" aspect in mind.