America, prepare to be liberated.

[Xyrael]

Has anyone noticed a general trend with American politics that political party shifts swing like a pendulum, taking 20-25 years to change.
1890-~1905 Progressive
1905-1925 Republican
1925-1945 Democrat
1945-1965 Republican
1965-1980 Democrat
1980-Present Republican (Clinton, though nominally democratic, advocated deregulation of banking and business, argueably a very right-winged stance on economics)

The dates above are rough, I'm not going to say what president came when because I don't really care about precise dates. Looking at the shifts it appears as though a change from Republican to Democrat now would not be a surprising change of events. Indeed, I have seen members of this forum attack single party-states, yet should the republican party lose it's mantle they would cry. Democracy is about variety and compromise, not manhandling people to submit to your POV. Granted, I like none of the candidates, but that's not a concern. As far as I can tell no candidate stresses America enough, I'm not electing the President of Iraq I'm electing the President of America, and he should be concerned with JUST America.

Also, Guiliani was under massive investigation for extreme corruption of office prior to 9/11, but no one dares point this out now because of the efforts he took to make NYC a better place after 9/11. I wouldn't want a man who's been corrupt in the past to ever be elected president. Also, I'd much rather vote for Barack Obama than Clinton, I have seen Clinton flip flop on the Iraq war issue, and I'm tired of the same old stuff. Her experience is the same old stuff. I want new stuff, so I want Barack.

[Khem]

thanks for the stats garth. i know i'm pulling for ron paul and spreading the word here in RI. its amazing how many new englanders consider themselves libertarians..... maybe it is we who should succeed instead of the southerners eh?

[Delfos]

European-Scandanavia socialist.

it's center sometimes to the left, sometimes to the right, Hilary's and many other running are all right. Are you against it just because you believe it's socialist/left wing?

[Peter Darkness]

Conservative today = Whatever the press wants it to be

[The Empire]

And Hillary would be decidely-right wing on the European/Scandinavina political scale. Our politicial parties with seats in the general assembly range from mid-left through centre to mid-right. The Swedish communist party has never reached above the 4% floor and never will. Usually, they get around 0-1% of the popular vote while the national democrats (as close to a neo-nazi party it could be and still get votes) was up there sniffing the floor in the most recent election.

Don't pull the communist card anymore myro, it just makes you look stupid and ignorant even when that isn't the case.

[Myroria]

I like how that implies communism isn't stupid and ignorant.

[Ryazania]

I have donated 500 hard earned dollars to Congressman Paul's campaign. While he probably won't win, I am sure he will make a big enough splash to allow for another true conservative/libertarian to be elected. Hell, he'd probably win if the press wasn't out to get him.

[Gulliver]

Clinton is not a "centre-leaning right winger". Have you SEEN her economic policies? They are literally, totally, European-Scandanavia socialist. I'm not joking around here. And this is a fact, so don't give me the "Well, what's so bad about socialism" because I'm not trying to say it's bad here. I'm telling you that Clinton's economic policies are completely socialist.

If memory serves, Hillary's health care proposals are not for the sort of single payer system you'll find in Scandinavia.

As our resident communist G-C so kindly pointed out in the past, if memory once again serves, Clinton is far from communist. And I'd trust him on that; whether or not you like communism G-C has a very firm grasp on what it is.

[Anniane]

Indeed. Clinton's Health Care policy is more similar to Romney's health care system for Massachusetts (requiring insurance, then making insurance available at a "reasonable" cost), than it is any single payer system.

However, Clinton's general economic policy does involve quite a bit of government control over the economy. I'm not sure if I would call it "socialist", but it's fairly to the left in the American political spectrum. Her health care plan is a bit more centrist than her economic policy.

(NYTimes Article on the subject)

[Delfos]

wouldn't hurt you, everyone else due south is socialist :]

[Gulliver]

I fail to see how that's an argument for socialism at all; indeed, considering the numerous problems of some parts of Latin America, one might interpret it as an argument against socialism if said southern neighbors truly are such. Prevalence of a policy does not in anyway automatically make it a good one.

[Delfos]

problems? sorry but I think they have less problems than US.

[Bender1968]

3rd world countries have a lot more problems than 1st world.

[Myroria]

Hmm, here's some problems with the "socialist, great countries" in South/Latin America:

Highest murder rates in the world (Columbia)
Dictators-in-disguise (Chavez)
Worst GINI Coeffecients (Mexico and Brazil are the top two; AFRICA has better GINI Coeffecients than the Socialist Paradise that is South America. Do you have any idea how hard you have to work to be that sucky? In a good socialist nation, the GINI coeffecient would be slightly above zero)
Corrupt governments (i.e., like The Jungle or political machine-esque corrupt)
Every nation having lower HDI than the United States

Well, to look at it now...I think I'd rather be an American. I got all of these from HDI-esque statistics, most of which, by the way, are European.

[The Empire]

You do know that the US is the nation with the most murders annually right? (though not in murders per capita)