The closest thing in this thread that is relevant to the thread topic is
>>1 - the original question. The rest of you are incapable of staying on topic for more than a few seconds.
The US has two primary political parties and a variety of smaller political groups that were coaxed or co-opted to the label "Independent." In the past, the political groups were much less centralized and, based on region, had a variety of platform across the spectrum; in the past thirty years, they crystallized around positions and that variety is harder to come by. Whereas a decade ago the two were far closer to each other and appearances seemed vaguely cosmetic, "red" or "blue," if you will, their approaches have since shifted back towards being diametrically opposed. They spend forever promising to take on the "difficult challenges" that face their country and, regardless of the position, spend most of that time weaving through the mire of legalese and detraction of their critics. If they're lucky, it's only the other party; if they're lucky, the monumental burden that they've let the problem grow to will afford them an insufficient solution, but one that lets them save face, and the next sucker will have a go at it and face the same problems, and probably get no further.
As to their specific positions, I would actually say you'd have to read their claimed positions and decide that for yourself, because there's a lot of perspective and alternate interpretation involved. Media outlets perform a major disservice by catering to that exaggeration, but that's another story. In general, nothing the Democrats have ever done has ever lasted without controversy or costing a lot of money for little gain, and Republicans shoot their own feet by accidentally pursuing policies that reach the opposite goals of what they want; the aforementioned "Independent" parties have a variety of positions that only ever get anywhere on local levels, or when they are "adopted" by either of the other two groups, and are quite "independent" from each other.