I take all this back I am a social democrat.
Views of social democrats today
In general, contemporary social democrats support[citation needed]:

A mixed economy consisting mainly of private enterprise, but with government owned or subsidized programs of education, healthcare, child care and related services for all citizens.
Government bodies that regulate private enterprise in the interests of workers, consumers and fair competition.
Advocacy of fair trade over free trade.
An extensive system of social security (although usually not to the extent advocated by democratic socialists or other socialist groups), with the stated goal of counteracting the effects of poverty and insuring the citizens against loss of income following illness, unemployment or retirement.
Moderate to high levels of taxation (through a value-added and/or progressive taxation system) to fund government expenditure.
Social democrats also tend to support:

Environmental protection laws (although not always to the extent advocated by Greens), such as combating global warming and increasing alternative energy funding.
Support for (legal)immigration and multiculturalism.
A secular and progressive social policy, although this varies markedly in degree. Most social democrats now support gay marriage and abortion rights(I find this abhorrent so I am prolife however I do not agree that it is an issue to be decided by constitutional law which says nothing on abortion rights. This is between a woman, her dr. and God if she believes in one.).
A foreign policy supporting the promotion of democracy, the protection of human rights and where possible, effective multilateralism.
As well as human rights, social democrats also support social rights, civil rights and civil liberties.

If this makes me a liberal then so be it. Down with conservatives! They have wrecked this country. National debt out of control. Deficit out of control. Corporational greed out of control. Make them leave america and form their own religious right totalitarianism somewhere else.

I refuse to take on labels, considering people from all over the compass have condemend me.


I figure I believe and act according to those beliefs, and screw what other people think.


Sometimes I'm liberal, sometimes I'm conservative. But I always do it cause I think it's the right thing to do. I don't settle for the lesser or nesscary evil.

Why do you think so? And if what you think is true, what do you think should be done about it?
See above.
The reality is that you need to build up a goverment administration you feel you can rely on.

A thousand reasons, like spending massive amounts of money to get a job that makes less than they do in their "normal" job, the enormous access of the lobbyists, the enormous expense of running a campaign, the need for funding to meet that requirement, the fact that they are all very wealthy people and no one but wealthy people can run for office, etc, etc.

A line item veto and term limits on all federal office would be a good start.

For national defense, including securing the borders and maintaining peace and order, yes we do. But, the whole problem with our politicians is the fact that they control massive amounts of money they didn't earn and naturally seek to absorb and siphon as much of it off as they can. Government in the form of massive taxes is the problem. If they had a lot less money, they could do a lot less damage.

__________________
Qur'an:8:39 Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.
Qur'an:8:67 It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land.
Qur'an 8:12 I will terrorize the unbelievers...Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.
Qur'an 9:5 Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.

Please look at the question again.
Once again, why do you think the US is in the situation you describe.
No, that is not the problem. This is the prerogative of elected politicians.

The problem is that the US is handicapped and can only elect politicians from exactly 2 parties.

That simply isn't true. We have tons of political parties and they are free to run for elections. The fact is there isn't all that much difference of opinion among Americans though the differences are very spirited and entrenched. They seem bigger than they really are. Therefore, there is little difference between the political parties.

__________________
Qur'an:8:39 Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.
Qur'an:8:67 It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land.
Qur'an 8:12 I will terrorize the unbelievers...Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.
Qur'an 9:5 Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.

I suppose I should have said two "viable" parties. The fact remains. The US is just barely democratic. And the populace somehow accept this.

It's nothing more than a slur used on the left. Especially on politicalforum.com.

Got it. Thanks.

Part of the confusion, especially these days, has to do with disagreements over the very basics of what constitutes Freedom/Liberty.


For example take the idea of public schooling.

To a Libertarian public schooling is a vile thing. Simply Evil. The government is robbing them of their money. Their freedom is being directly restricted because they are not free to do with their money as they wish. Such as buying indentured servants.

To a Progressive the idea of denying a subset of the population any access to schooling would be an example of oppression and a limiting of their freedoms and Liberty. Certainly if these uneducated masses were bought as indentured servants they would consider that clearly as a case of restriction of freedom.

There are other ways to look at the issue as well. For example reducing the amount of people with an education means less competition in the educated workforce, and a smaller educated workforce at any rate. This likely weakens the nation as a whole, and may reduce the affluence of everyone.


As for the political parties they are more "democratic" than they seem because they shift and bend with the times. In other countries Neocons, "real conservatives", paleoconservatives, and a couple other groups might be separate entities. Instead they, along with Libertarians at the presidential level, fight it out within the Republican party. If one group, or any single issue, swings with the majority of different subgroups that's how the Republican party as a whole will realign itself.

Same with the Democrats.

In this way, over time, the parties have evolved greatly.

This is why third parties have such a hard time. If people who supported green party stances made up a majority the Democratic party would simply shift to match their political desires.

Similarily if Libertarians held a majority the Republican party would shift to them.

Therefore any splinter third party is going to be a minority and will generally only be good for spoiling the presidential election. Though they can hold other offices well enough.