Democratic Socialists surge sparks dissent on left over electoral strategy - Polidicks

Just saying, based on this descripiton, I'd call you a social democrat, perhaps a moderate social democrat based on you caring about keeping taxes low. So not conservative by European standards, although social democratic parties in Europe nowadays appears to be morphing more towards neoliberalism as the status quo political situation is moving further right.

Well that's what the Democratic party platform calls for, so they're social democrats then?

Not really. The Democratic Party is a big-tent liberal party, with the bulk of it leaning towards center-right neoliberalism and only a small social democrat faction.

I mean if you read their party platform it's for all the stuff I said

And this platform was only recently written, with the input of Sanders and his wing, which is the only reason it was dragged slightly to the left. Their platform is mostly pandering, full of half-measures, and even then they still can't bring themselves to say certain things. For instance, they don't call for eliminating private money in politics altogether, they call for the elimination of super PACs and greater transparency. They don't call for single-payer healthcare, they call for a public option. On foreign policy, they're pro-war, pro-defense spending, and pro-Israel. There's a huge difference between saying shit and taking action. How many democrats are actually out there getting this message out there? Democrats are terrible at marketing themselves to the voters. They're not left-wing social democrats. Do five minutes of googling left-wing parties in Europe and Scandinavia and compare their platforms and politicians to the Democrats.

Things I agree with the democrats on: ----- And in response to: It really depends on the admin on what war they're for, I'm pro-defense spending, and I'll concede that they're pro-israel but that's honestly not something I care too much about Okay, once again I really don't care about what label you give it, I agree with most of their platform. If you want to call me a conservative, fine. I vote for the democrats because I agree with their platform

I'd rather have runoff voting and a 9 party government than this 2 party trash tbh

It's kind of hilarious but the two party system started right after the US started using the Constitution (Washington was officially nonpartisan but leaned Federalist)

How can you agree with keeping money in politics?

I think a $2500 per person limit is fine.

Complete elimination of private donation is a surefire way to ensure that only the extremely rich and well-connected can participate in politics. Sanders is pretty wealthy by American standards but his campaign was overwhelmingly funded with private money.

wait what? The democrats call for elimination of super pacs?

And our right wing is more left wing than a lot of contries' left wings. This is why doing things like using global politics to frame a single country's politics is stupid.

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#campaign-finance Democrats support a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decisions in Citizens United and Buckley v. Valeo. We need to end secret, unaccountable money in politics by requiring, through executive order or legislation, significantly more disclosure and transparency—by outside groups, federal contractors, and public corporations to their shareholders. We need to amplify the voices of the American people through a small donor matching public financing system. We need to overhaul and strengthen the Federal Election Commission so that there is real enforcement of campaign finance laws. And we need to fight to eliminate super PACs and outside spending abuses.

You forget the man they ignored was fucking Andrew Jackson, of Trail of Tears fame.

Can you elaborate on this with some examples? I can't think of many countries with a right wing further to the right than America. Maybe Saudi Arabia.

There are many countries around the world, especially in places like asia/the middle east, africa, and south america. In fact, you just named one right there. The point being that looking at a country's politics through a global context only really applies when you're talking about global politics, not local politics.

Russia

Or just public funding?

I think that whole point is dumb anyway because nobody was denying that left and right options are relative within a country. That doesn't mean the 'left' party follows a leftist philosophy. These 'more left than our right' countries still operate under an objectively conservative philosophy. People are clearly talking about ideology by the books.

Explicitly disallowed by Buckley v. Valeo, a case which had unanimous consensus among the Supreme Court Justices who oversaw the case. We could sooner overthrow the government than convince the Supreme Court that it's Constitutional to outright bar people from giving money to political causes they wish to support. On a state level, several states have optional public funding for elections. It's had some positive effects, but the problem is that these systems are constructed, by the rules they use to determine who deserves funding, to heavily favor the established parties over third-parties. And they've all been purely voluntarily programs (candidates announce that they're only going to take 'clean money', and so forego private contribution voluntarily) because the state has no legal authority to prevent private campaign contributions. The effects of those programs have been marginal at best. 'Get money out of politics' is a great boilerplate principle that doesn't translate to actionable policy. It's easy to get people to agree that major corporations shouldn't be able to buy out politicians (Citizens United was a mistake), it's another thing to get them agree that local teachers shouldn't be allowed to buy a newspaper ad against a politician seeking to gut their funding. That's private money in politics right there, and it's an inevitable consequence of hosting democratic elections within a capitalist society. More transparency and gutting PACs is a great idea. Trying to get rid of money in politics altogether is outright impossible.

Ideology still shows that we have a clear left and a clear right by the books. Unless you think that gun control, increased social safety nets, social progressivism, and a whole load of other things aren't by the book "left wing". In that case, I want to know what book you're reading.