Hardkill
Member-
Content count
3,778 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Hardkill
-
-
1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:I don't really have strong favorites.
FDR was good I guess. Other than him I don't know which Dem in the modern era really stands out. There were all pretty weak and centrist. And the Republicans are aweful.
32 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:Yeah, it's kinda mindboggling how the US made it so high with so many cretins around.
The Founding Fathers were geniuses though.
Woodrow Wilson was a strong center-left progressive for his time (1910s). He actually became the very first liberal Democratic president in US history whereas FDR was the 2nd liberal Democratic president in US history. Wilson's New Freedom major policy changes were undoubtedly on the order of Teddy Roosevelt's Square Deal policies (1900s decade) and his leadership was very heroic during WW1. That's why most experts rank him as one of the top ten presidents in US history along with TR.
JFK and his legacy has been widely credited for leading the left-wing in America towards success with the civil rights movement and other historic domestic polices that would eventually become LBJ's Great Society programs before he was assassinated. LBJ's major policy changes were on the order of the New Deal in his own way. Like FDR, he too was a progressive center-left populist and most progressives love to reference him as a badass left-wing activist president like FDR, despite his terrible handling of the War in Vietnam.
Truman has also been widely considered amongst experts to also have been a strong and decisive center-left president who fought hard for his party and the rest of the Truman. His policies dramatically expanded both our military defense and US Intelligence agencies. He was in fact responsible for the creation of the CIA. He also has been has usually been ranked as one of the top ten presidents in US history.
Those were all exceptionally strong liberal/progressive Democratic in their own ways. Teddy Roosevelt was actually the last liberal/progressive Republican president in US History. He was a real badass too.
FDR though has been considered by most to the greatest president since the early 1900s because of his incredible heroism as president during the dark days of the Great Depression and WWII. Also, because of how powerful and sustainable of an influence his New Deal policies had many decades later. His policies amounted to the greatest expansion of both the size and scope of the US government and government intervention compared to the policies of any other president in US history. Yet, even though many Americans have hated the idea of the government not minding its own business, FDR's policies still to this day are still alive. Since the 80s, Reagan and the Republicans have failed to eliminate practically any of the New Deal policies including Social Security. The Republicans have also failed to eliminate virtually any of the Great Society policies including Medicare, Medicaid, the landmark Civil Rights Acts, and the landmark Voting Rights Acts. Just like how Trump and the Republicans failed to repeal Obamacare and totally repeal Dodd-Frank.
-
15 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:I think he did a decent job given the opposition he faced.
Obama is very wise, but he is pretty centrist in his views. He doesn't believe in really shaking up the status quo. So you could fault him for that. But it's not like he would have been able to pass radical leftist policy even if he wanted to.
I would maybe rate him a B- or C+.
He was actually more to the left as president than Bill Clinton was for sure.
But when he first ran for president, he ran as a left-wing populist who would bring about "Hope and Change" in America like FDR did.
This is one big reason why Bernie Sander and the progressive began to rise in the mid 2010s. Many Democrats, liberals, and progressive, Independents thought that Obama let them by selling them out as another neoliberal corporate pro-establishment Democratic president.
By 2016, Americans were starving for an A-level to S-level president after being constantly disappointed by career politicians across the political spectrum who failed to put up such an exceptional leader for our country since 1988, particularly after Obama turned out to be a head-fake in many respects.
I am glad that Biden turned out to be an even more left-wing president than Obama. Even most progressives have been surprisingly pretty pleased by that as well.
-
11 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:Is this guy credible?
He seems to rate Regan A, I thought Regan was not that good?
Oh no, Allan Lichtman has been widely regarded as one of the most brilliant US Historians in the country. You should read and follow up on his 13 Keys system, which has been shockingly successful many times since 1984 in predicting the next POTUS. It's genius.
As for Reagan, Professor Lichtman, who is a left-wing Democrat, personally did not like Reagan's policies at all. However, he explained that as a professional US/presidential historian, he has to put aside his own personal biases and beliefs to objectively assess a president's record of success. I hate to say it, but whether or not you dislike Reagan's policies and the terrible long-term political influence he had in the country for decades, he was still undeniably successful as a president and in his goal in shifting the entire general electorate, including the whole GOP party, much more to the right. To be fair, Reagan was also much less divisive than Trump was and was a true anti-communist. Plus, Reagan never really bought into or even succumbed to the hard-right's extreme views.
The part where Lichtman explains his reasoning for ranking Reagan an A starts at around min 49:00:
-
5 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:@Leo Gura What do you think of Obama? I have heard you call Bush a buffon, Trump a corrupt buffon and Biden you seem to have a moderate opinion of.
Regarding Obama do you think he did a good job?
I have seen comments about him going from "worst" to "best" US president of recent times.
Professor Lichtman ranked him at about a B level in his presidency:
(starting at around min 58:00 in this vid)
-
5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:I wouldn't call it a mistake. It just wasn't his style. You can't really ask people to not be themselves because that would also not work.
I reckon that a lot of that may have to do with the fact that Obama knew he already shocked enough white Americans by becoming the very first black POTUS ever in US History, which already made him polarizing to some extent amongst his constituents, fairly or unfairly. So, he probably wanted to allay people's anxieties about how far he was willing to fight for African-Americans and the poor as the first black POTUS.
He probably thought it would be more prudent and safe if he didn't come as aggressive in his rhetoric and campaign style as someone like MLK or Malcolm X were. After all, both of them were assassinated as heroes. It's also just like Merrick Garland who has already been fucking up as the US Attorney General and with his sluggishness in the handling of the prosecution of Trump with his extreme centrism.
-
12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:Obama did not like the game of wrangling congresspeople. He was more of a lone wolf. A lot of this boils down to personality type and personal strengths and weaknesses.
Yeah, and that was a big mistake he made. TR, WW, FDR, LBJ, and even Truman and JFK all fought like hell against the establishment for the people and their efforts were rewarded by building a powerful sustainable coalition for their party. Even the third way neoliberal centrist Bill Clinton in the 90s was more confrontational and a better party builder than Obama was. Ronald Reagan was much more confrontational and a much better party builder for his party than Obama was for his party.
Biden has actually turned out to be even more confrontational and a more successful party builder than Obama was!
Allan Lichtman gave a very good insight/analysis here on how it was partly Obama's fault that Trump and the Republicans had amassed such political influence and power during his presidency:
*Lichtman didn't mean to say Biden twice in that response of his. He meant Obama had the problem of being afraid of being perceived as being too partisan.
-
Obama was undoubtedly a once in a generation broadly charismatic president. When he first ran for president in 2007-2008, his charisma had even surpassed that of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump as he was able to appeal to such a broad spectrum of voters including liberals, moderates, and even an unusual amount of conservatives for his time. When he won the presidency in a near landslide, he of course made history by becoming the very first African-American in the history of the country and did so in such a uniquely inspirational way.
Furthermore, a very significant number of Democratic congressmen were voted into office "on the coattails" of Obama, which lead the Democrats to not only win the government trifecta, but also essentially win a supermajority of Dems in both chambers of Congress.
Moreover, the presidential election of Obama, made him arguably the first liberal Democratic president since LBJ in the 60s and most Americans had such high expectations of Obama that they believed he had the potential to become a transformational president and enact a truly historic roster of progressive reforms to the degree that FDR or even TR, WW, or LBJ were as presidents. Under most Americans' optimistic scenario, Obama would end the era of conservative politics that had begun with the presidential election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. Obama therefore, gave American's the impression that he would restore the Democratic party as the dominant political party in the US and would continue to dominate for decades to come just like they did at the national level during the extended New Deal era (early 1930s to mid 1970s).
However, sadly, Obama turned out to be one of if not perhaps the worst party builder compared to any other president in US History. During his presidency, his party suffered such historic losses not just at the congressional level, but also at the state and local levels of government in every state in the country after the 2010 and midterm elections as well as after the 2016 general elections, particularly with the presidential election of Trump. Yes, his party made somewhat of a comeback when Obama won re-election in 2012, but that was the only time that Obama and the Dems redeemed themselves during his presidency. Also, even when did the results of the overall electoral victories in 2012 weren't nearly as great as they were in 2008. Obama, in fact, lost the exceptional level of "magic" he had in 2008 because he let himself get caught in the bubble of the pollsters, pundits, hucksters, campaign handlers, instead of speaking much more from the heart like he did in 2008 or instead of even doing as great of a job at acting incredibly presidential like Reagan did.
Plus, what's ironic is that even though the polices he enacted during his president were actually probably the boldest set of policies compared to any other president before him since LBJ, in terms of his rhetoric during his presidency Obama actually made the terrible mistake of trying to come off as non-partisan/bipartisan as possible. As a matter of fact, his leadership style turned out to be the least confrontational compared to any other president before him since Jimmy Carter or a mid 1900s normal moderate Republican president like Eisenhower or Gerald Ford. That certainly reaffirms the opinion of Noam Chomsky and many other experts out there who have stated before that while Obama became more liberal/progressive of a president than any other president since Nixon, Obama was still more like a moderate Republican from the mid 1900s in terms of policy changes. In office, Obama didn't give people the impression as much as they had hoped that he would be as much of a populist as FDR and LBJ were:
I'll admit that there also several factors outside of what Obama and the Democratic party did that cause his party to have much more difficulty in building and maintaining their party's coalition to the level that FDR was able to achieve:
1. Historical Context:
- The Great Depression was an unprecedented economic crisis that affected virtually every aspect of American life. Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal responded to immediate and urgent needs for relief, recovery, and reform, providing tangible assistance to millions of Americans who were suffering from unemployment, poverty, and homelessness. The severity of the crisis created a sense of urgency and solidarity among the public, which contributed to widespread support for Roosevelt's policies.
- In contrast, while the 2008 financial crisis was severe and led to significant economic hardship for many Americans, it was not of the same magnitude as the Great Depression. The economic challenges facing the nation during Obama's presidency were complex and multifaceted, requiring a nuanced and multifaceted policy response.
2. Policy Implementation and Communication:
- Franklin D. Roosevelt was known for his effective communication skills and ability to convey empathy and reassurance to the American people through his fireside chats and public speeches. His clear and direct communication helped build public confidence in his leadership and his New Deal agenda.
- While Barack Obama was also known for his oratorical skills and ability to inspire, the implementation and communication of his policy agenda faced challenges, including partisan polarization and opposition from political opponents. Despite efforts to explain the rationale behind his policies and engage the public in the policymaking process, Obama faced difficulties in garnering broad-based support for his agenda.
3. Political Landscape and Opposition:
- Franklin D. Roosevelt enjoyed significant political support and a broad coalition of allies, including labor unions, progressives, and Democrats in Congress, which helped facilitate the passage of his New Deal legislation. While Barack Obama had Democratic majorities in Congress during the early years of his presidency, he faced staunch opposition from Republicans and conservative groups, particularly in the later years of his presidency.
- Partisan polarization and gridlock in Congress limited Obama's ability to enact his policy agenda and may have contributed to public perceptions of ineffective governance and frustration with the political process.
4. The dynamics of business interests and corporate lobbying
New Deal Era (1930s):
- During the Great Depression, many businesses were struggling to survive, and the economic crisis created widespread public support for government intervention to address unemployment, poverty, and economic instability.
- While there were some business interests that opposed Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal policies, particularly those related to increased regulation and taxation, the overall influence of corporate lobbying and business interests was relatively limited compared to later periods.
- Roosevelt faced opposition from conservative business interests, such as the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, but these groups did not have the same level of influence over government policy as they would in later decades.
Obama Era (2009-2017):
- During Barack Obama's presidency, business interests and corporate lobbying exerted significant influence over government policy, particularly in areas such as financial regulation, healthcare reform, and environmental policy.
- The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in 2010 further amplified the role of corporate money in politics, allowing for increased spending by corporations and interest groups in elections and lobbying efforts.
- Lobbying expenditures by industries such as healthcare, finance, energy, and telecommunications reached record levels during the Obama administration, as businesses sought to influence legislation and regulatory decisions.
- The influence of corporate money in politics and the revolving door between government and industry became prominent issues during Obama's presidency, leading to debates over campaign finance reform and government transparency.
- Overall, while business interests and corporate lobbying existed during both the New Deal era and the Obama era, their influence and prominence were greater during Obama's presidency. The changing dynamics of money in politics, regulatory capture, and the expansion of industry influence over government policy have been ongoing challenges in American democracy, with implications for governance, accountability, and public trust in government.
5. The strength and cohesion of the conservative movement:
- The 1930s were marked by the Great Depression, which created a sense of crisis and urgency that demanded immediate government intervention and action. Roosevelt's New Deal policies, aimed at providing relief, recovery, and reform, were largely seen as necessary responses to the economic challenges of the time. While there were critics of the New Deal from conservative quarters, the level of organized opposition and mobilization was not as extensive as during Obama's presidency.
- The Republican Party during Roosevelt's presidency included a broader spectrum of ideological views, including both conservative and progressive elements. While there were conservative voices opposed to Roosevelt's policies, particularly his expansion of government intervention and social welfare programs, the conservative movement as a cohesive and organized force did not emerge until later decades.
- The media landscape during Roosevelt's presidency was different from today, with fewer channels for disseminating information and influencing public opinion. Conservative voices had less access to mass media platforms compared to the modern era, which may have limited the reach and influence of conservative viewpoints.
- The debate over the role of government and the appropriate level of government intervention in the economy was central to both Roosevelt's presidency and Obama's presidency, but the context and circumstances were different. Roosevelt's New Deal policies represented a significant expansion of the federal government's role in addressing economic challenges and providing social welfare programs, whereas Obama's policies were perceived by conservatives as further extending government reach into healthcare and other areas.
- The emergence of the Moral Majority and other conservative religious organizations in the 1980s mobilized religious conservatives around issues such as abortion, school prayer, and traditional family values. These groups played a significant role in shaping conservative politics and influencing elections at the local, state, and national levels.
- The rise of conservative media outlets, such as talk radio, cable news channels, and conservative-leaning publications, provided a platform for conservative voices and viewpoints to reach a wider audience. Figures like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Fox News became influential voices in conservative politics, shaping public discourse and mobilizing support for conservative causes.
- Grassroots conservative organizations and activists, including Tea Party groups, gun rights advocates, and anti-tax organizations, mobilized supporters through rallies, protests, and political campaigns. These grassroots efforts helped energize the conservative base and push back against perceived liberal overreach during the Obama administration.
- Republicans made significant gains in the 2010 midterm elections, winning control of the House of Representatives and making gains in the Senate and state legislatures. This Republican resurgence was fueled in part by opposition to Obama's policies, particularly the Affordable Care Act, and by a growing dissatisfaction with the direction of the country among conservative voters. The Rise of the Tea Party and rise in right-wing populism of course help conservatism in America come back with a vengeance and contribute to the rise of Trumpism.
-
14 hours ago, BlueOak said:1) Israel having that much influence over your country is not at all healthy and should be stopped right now.
2) Stopping weapons shipments takes 5 seconds.3) What am I doing? I am not the president of the United states. If you are insinuating I have some power over the American government overseas and I am not using it, by all means let me know and I'll go and do it. This is a strawman deflection, and you know it.
4) Nobody mentioned Trump. Another strawman in this conversation. - I am specifically speaking about:
A) Your analysis of the political spectrum is skewed a long way from the actual political spectrum.
B) Your annoyance with people name-calling a man with the most power in the face of this genocide is frankly mind-boggling.
Now we can add to it:
Stopping weapon shipments and leveraging power over a small country that relies on you to survive, does not take a long time. Biden is extremely pro-Israel and okay with what is going on; otherwise, this wouldn't be happening with American support. If you need me to say Trump is too for your election, yes, politically, your entire country is pro-genocide. (And so is mine)Did you watch that whole video with Professor Mearsheimer. He explains how and why Biden and the US government cannot just simply stop weapons shipments. Otherwise, the Israeli lobby will go after Biden and his party politically with campaign attack ads saying that they betrayed Israel.
Also, there are still to this day, A LOT more Democratic and Independents voters in this country who are Jewish/pro-Israeli than there are Democratic and Independent voters who are Muslim/pro-palestinian voters throughout all of America. Biden and his party cannot afford to lose too many Jewish/pro-Israeli voters in America as well for the upcoming election.
-
9 hours ago, BlueOak said:@Hardkill
Rhetoric means nothing without action. Calling Joe Biden Genocide Joe means about as much, it's the very least someone can do, for these radical far leftists that you are listing here.
If that is the radical far left? What's an organized socialist party, an anarchist commune, or a thousand-man street protest that won't move till their demands are met and they are willing to risk prison for it? Where does that fit on the scale here? And don't tell me it's alongside Secular talk, Kyle is interesting when he's not overly moralizing, but he's not anywhere near a far-left radical socialist in his policies.No action is being taken to stop the genocide or real pressure exerted to do so. So no change will happen. It'll be done when Israel decides its done.
America is nowhere near the center-left. It's closer to fascist than it is leftwing. Note it's not fascist, it's just closer. Remember a government is both parties or all parties involved in the process of it, representing the people, but even the Democrats alone are center-right.
Themes of Fascism (And your two parties embrace of them)Anti-communism (Both)
Anti-intellectualism (Republican)
Anti-Pacifism (Both)
Authoritarianism (Both taking steps here to avoid debates, silencing dissent where possible)
Corporatism (Both)
Conspiracism (Republican Mostly)
Chauvinism (Republican)
Class collaboration (Both)
Cult of personality (Republican)
Dictatorship (Neither)
Direct action (Republican)
Dirigisme (Neither)
Eugenics (Neither)
Heroic Capitalism (Both)
Heroic realism (Republican)
Imperialism (Both)
Indoctrination (Both)
Interventionism (Both)
Irrationalism (At this point Both)
Machismo/Heroic Masculinity (Republican)
Militarism (Both)
National syndicalism (Republican)
Nationalism (Both)
One-party state (Neither)
Perpetual war (Both though both deny it)
Populism (Republican)
Proletarian nation (Some not much)
Racism (Not touching this one)
Reactionary Modernism (Republican)
Social Darwinism (Both)
Social order (Both)
State capitalism (Neither)
Statolatry (Both given its corporations running things and their idolization)
Supercapitalism (America is in its heroic capitalism still, mostly)
Syncretic politics (Democrat)
Third Position (Neither)
Totalitarianism (Some of this in how your political system crushes anything but two parties)
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology
Is this screaming center left for you then?
Oh and if you are wondering, most of the far-left accounts were purged ten years ago and haven't been platformed since. Anyone that does hold a radical far-left view you'll never find on youtube, unless they can word things exceptionally well and someone gives you a link not buried in the algorithm. Michael Brooks was one such man.
The Israeli lobby obviously has way too powerful of an influence on the US government for even the President of the United States to disregard and the Israeli government has too many hardline extreme right-wingers who have too much of a hold over Netanyahu:
Furthermore, such big positive changes take a long while to happen.
Besides, what practical action are people like you taking to actually make such change possible?
Not to mention, can you imagine how much the war in Gaza will be if Trump became president?
-
3 hours ago, BlueOak said:@Hardkill
Genocide is too far when you respond with words and name-calling?
You'll have to break that one down for me, probably in a spin-off thread as we'll derail this one.
If they were firebombing the white house in a mass protest or causing riots in the streets, sure. That's what we used to call 'too far'.
20, 30 years ago protests would be huge, in an affected population, you'd see violence, you'd certainly see a lot of pressure groups that forced changed or recognition of a problem.
There is no bite back to funding and protecting a genocide. Really calling Joe Biden Genocide Joe shows how weak the left is. Your entire 'far left' apart from maybe Antifa are moderates. The majority report with Jamie and Michael used to be further left, now it's still moderate for me.The American government is closer to center-right on the political spectrum.
Here we go again....
Yes, his backdoor funding to Israel's military is still not good; however, there has already been a noticeable transition in both rhetoric and policy from the Biden administration and the rest of the US government. The US actually abstained from voting against the latest UN resolution vote on the demand for an immediate Gaza ceasefire. I know that's still not ideal or not good enough, but that already has been a big break from the norm in US military/foreign policy with Israel:
The American government and the general electorate as a whole are center-right culturally, but are still center-left in policy overall.
-
13 hours ago, Emerald said:A handful of people and ideas you put in the Far/Radical Left, I would say actually fall more in the Left Wing/Progressive category.
Like Rational National, Secular Talk, TYT, and Majority Report are not very radical because they tend to take a more incrementalist/reform the system stance on progressivism. And I haven't heard any of them express a desire for a total over-turning of the current economic system... even though they critique Capitalism.
I feel like, in order for people to fall into the far/radical left, there has to be a focus towards revolution... and specifically socialist/communist revolution... particularly of the authoritarian left variety.
So, I would call all of them progressives... as they are more for Social Democracy adjacent reforms to the current system.
But actual radical leftists would turn up their noses at all these figures because they would see them as not revolutionary enough.
Yeah, I thought about those ones for a long time. It was a tough call, but I decided to put them in both Left Wing/Progressive category and the Far/Radical Left.
I do believe that their policies and stances are bold, solid left-wing policies, but they are not radical or extreme left-wing to the point of wanting to completely replace capitalism with some form of Socialism/Communism. These individuals believe in having a mixed economy of some sort, while promoting as much social justice as possible. That's my reason for putting them in the Left Wing/Progressive.
However, their rhetoric has also has gotten to be increasingly toxic, too polarizing, and too vitriolic. They never used to sound this way before years ago. I am also getting really tired of the nonsensical long-shot ideas they keep coming with, such as Cenk's idea of running for President, trying to primary every Democrat out there including Biden who aren't left-wing enough, even in the most red areas of the country.
Cenk, Ana, Kyle, Krystal, David Dole, Sam Seder, Emma Vigeland, and others like them really don't have a clue as to how to really win many big elections, particularly when it comes to winning the presidency because none of them have ever won any elections themselves or even worked closely with any successful politicians on any big campaigns. Furthermore, none of them have any real experience in having worked in any part of Washington or in any part of the US government at all, which means they don't really understand the political reality of negotiations and policymaking.
Moreover, instead of complaining so much about how the whole system is rigged and how Democrats never do enough, why aren't they out there canvassing a lot more on the ground like the original progressive activists did in the early 2000s or the civil right movements, or like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, AOC, and Jamaal Bowman and all of those contemporary progressive have been doing everyday?
Lastly, I really don't like how they've been saying and have been influencing so many of their followers to say that AOC, John Fetterman, Bernie Sanders, Warren, and many other progressives in Congress have sold them out and calling Biden "Genocide Joe." They are taking this shit way too far.
-
Speaking of southerners, Beau of the Fifth Column (Justin King) and James Carville are southern liberal Democrats:
James Carville is a well known center-left Democratic strategist, who I've mentioned before became a brilliant campaign strategist for Bill Clinton's presidential campaigns and other Democrats in the 90s. After Clinton's presidency, he continued to be a well-respected campaign strategist and pundit for the party:
Beau is more left-wing than Carville, but he is still a sensible, pragmatic liberal/progressive Democrat:
-
On 3/26/2024 at 11:08 AM, Leo Gura said:Maybe the KKK were liberals. Who can tell?
Haha. Yeah sure.
Actually, maybe on some views like economic populism/nationalism. Many southerners and rural folk in America are actually socially conservative, but more economic liberal. A lot of more of them used to be that way during the extended New Deal Era (from the early 1930s to the mid to late 1970s) because they knew much help they desperately needed from not just the state and local levels of government, but also from the federal government starting officially with FDR's presidency and the Great Depression.
They of course have always never really liked any kind of big government intervention policies unless it only benefited white christian American citizens in their areas economically. The Deep South has especially always been the most opposed to any kind of big intervention ever since before the Civil War. but it was obvious to every southerner and rural America throughout the entire country, during the Great Depression, that like what happened in the aftermath of the Gilded age, they once again had absolutely no choice but receive as much emergency assistance from the federal government as possible from the federal government. As a matter fact, they were willing accept to FDR and the Democratic party's idea of taking big government intervention action to a much greater level than ever occurred before in US History, as long as it didn't disproportionately benefit people of color or challenge the racial hierarchy of the South.
Eventually, by end of LBJ's presidency, there became a growing number of southerners and rural Americans who no longer wanted anymore liberal/progressive economic reforms by federal government, especially because of the fact that the entire US government finally put an end to all Jim Crow laws in America by the mid to late 60s. This growing backlash among some Southern and rural Americans against anymore liberal and progressive economic reforms continued to grow as a decades long trend throughout the 70s, 80s, and 90s, early 2000s, and early to mid 2010s.
However, I think ever since the mid to late 2010s, that trend has been reverse amongst southerners and rural Americans, with rise in economic populism and economic nationalism along with Bidenomics. Hopefully this relatively new trend continues the way the Democrats have been steering it.
-
Thanks guys!
Even with the assistance of AI, it still took a lot of time and effort to put it altogether in the most accurate way possible.
I'd like to also have this thread continue on as a place for me or anyone else on here to add on any more points or examples about each of these specific categories the US political spectrum.
Another obvious example of an extreme-right/radical right/far-right/hard-right organization in America and has only existed in the USA:
- The KKK
They have always been a white Protestant terrorist hate group known for their extreme racism, antisemitism, violence, and white supremacist beliefs. Just as horrible as Neo-Nazis, White Skinheads, Aryan Nations and any other white supremacy groups in America are.
This group originated in the Southern United States after the Civil War and has historically been associated with the South due to its origins in the Reconstruction era. The organization has had chapters and members in various parts of the country, including the Midwest and even some in the Northeast. The size and influence of the group continued to occur primarily in the South during the late 19th century, early 20th century, and mid 20th century. However, after Jim Crow laws finally came to an end, the size and influence of the KKK went on a very significant decline for decades through the 70s, 80s, 90s, the aughts, and 2010s (even during Trump's presidency), and 2020s.
Over time, the Klan's influence and presence have fluctuated, and today it remains a fringe group with scattered activity rather than a dominant force in any particular region.
-
I worked with ChatGPT on coming up with a pretty detailed breakdown of the US political spectrum
1. Far-Left/Radical:
- This segment includes individuals and groups advocating for significant social, economic, and political change. They may support policies such as universal healthcare, free higher education, wealth redistribution through taxation, environmental regulations, and social justice initiatives. Some far-left groups may advocate for socialism or even more radical ideologies.
- Examples of Ideologies: Revolutionary socialism, anarchism, communism, libertarian socialism including hardline anarcho-syndicalism and hardline social anarchism, and extreme left-wing populism.
- Examples of Groups/Organizations: Socialist Alternative, Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, Antifa, TYT (after they became vitriolic), Secular Talk (after it became vitriolic), Majority Report (though a bit more reasonable than TYT, Secular Talk, and other progressive YT channels), Vaush (also a bit more reasonable than TYT, Secular Talk, and other progressive YT channels), and Rational National (before it became vitriolic).
- Examples of Individuals: Angela Davis (activist and former member of the Communist Party USA), Richard Wolff (Marxist economist and advocate for worker cooperatives), Jill Stein, Rashida Tlaib, Infrared (Haz), Eugene V. Debs., and Norman Thomas.
Left-wing/Progressive:
- Progressives advocate for social, economic, and political reform to address issues such as income inequality, healthcare access, environmental protection, and social justice. They support policies like Medicare for All, tuition-free public college, a Green New Deal, criminal justice reform, and LGBTQ+ rights. Progressives can vary in their positions from center-left to left-wing, depending on specific policy preferences.
- Examples of Ideologies: Democratic socialism, social democracy, progressivism, pragmatic variation of anarcho-syndicalism, left-wing libertarianism, left-wing populism, and left-wing Independents.
- Examples of Groups/Organizations: Abolitionist movement, civil rights movement, Knights of Labor, 19th century People's Party, People's Party (1971), People's Party (formed in 2017), Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), Center for American Progress, other left-wing think tanks, Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) Networks, Worker Cooperatives and Employee-Owned Businesses, Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs), Sustainable Business Networks, Social Enterprise Networks, and other left-wing business networks, Justice Democrats, Sunrise Movement, UAW, Rational National (before it became vitriolic), Democracy Now!, Jacobin, Current Affairs, The Intercept, TYT (before they became vitriolic), Secular Talk (before it became vitriolic), Majority Report, Vaush, Pod Save America, Michael Moore Podcast, Actualized.org.
- Examples of Individuals: Thaddeus Stevens, Frederick Douglass, Radical Republicans such as Ulysses S. Grant, William Jennings Bryan, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, MLK, Malcolm X, Lyndon B. Johnson, Bernie Sanders (U.S. Senator and democratic socialist), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (U.S. Representative and progressive advocate), Elizabeth Warren (U.S. Senator and progressive Democrat), Sherrod Brown, John Fetterman, Ruben Gallego, Jamaal Bowman, Ro Khanna, Katie Porter, Barbara Lee, Ilhan Omar, Pramila Jayapal, David Pakman, Brian Tyler Cohen, IRI, Destiny, Michael Moore, Leo Gura, Noam Chomsky, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, Mark Zandi, Ron Klain, and Shawn Fain.
Center-Left/Moderate Liberal/Liberal:
- This group occupies a more centrist position, advocating for pragmatic solutions that balance progressive goals with fiscal responsibility and market-based approaches. They may support policies like a public option for healthcare, moderate tax reforms, and incremental changes to address social issues. Centrist Democrats often emphasize bipartisanship and compromise.
- Liberals typically emphasize a balance between individual rights and the role of government in addressing social and economic issues. They often advocate for reforms within the existing political and economic systems, supporting policies such as expanding access to healthcare through private or public means, promoting incremental changes to address social inequalities, and favoring market-based solutions alongside government intervention.
- Examples of Ideologies: Liberalism, pragmatic progressivism, center-left populism, and left-leaning Independents.
- Examples of Groups/Organizations: Progressive Policy Institute, Center for American Progress, other center-left think tanks, more moderate factions within the Democratic Party, labor unions, the Kennedy family (except RFK jr.), the Warren Court, Keynesian economics, New Keynesian economics, Social Venture Network (SVN), B Lab, Conscious Capitalism, Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs (ANDE), Corporate Responsibility Association (CRA), and other center-left business networks, MSNBC.
- Examples of Individuals: Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Ulysses S. Grant, Samuel J. Tilden, James Garfield, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK, Lyndon B. Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden (President of the United States), Kamala Harris (Vice President of the United States), Pete Buttigieg (Secretary of Transportation and former presidential candidate), Al Gore, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Sherrod Brown, Raphael Warnock, Jon Ossoff, Nancy Pelosi (one of the greatest US Speakers of the US House in US history), Samuel Rayburn (also said to be one of the greatest Speakers of the US House in US history), Jim Clyburn, Adam Schiff, Alex Padilla, Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer, Josh Shapiro, Wes Moore, Tim Walz, J.B. Pritzker, Justice Elena Kegan, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Jack Smith, John Maynard Keynes, Jason Furman, Larry Summers, Paul Krugman, Nouriel Roubini, Mark Zandi, Claudia Sahm, Paul Volcker, Timothy Geithner, Janet Yellen, Rob Rubin, Gene Sperling, Steve Rattner, Brian Deese, Ron Klain, Lael Brainard, Jack Lew, Antony Blinken, and Eric Holder.
Centrist/Moderate:
- Centrists prioritize pragmatism and moderation, seeking to find common ground between left and right-wing perspectives. They may support a mix of progressive and conservative policies, depending on the issue, and generally prioritize compromise and cooperation over ideological purity. Centrists often value stability and incremental change over radical reforms.
- Example of Ideologies: Pragmatism, moderation, bipartisanship, political Independence, centrism-populism, and possibly extreme centrism.
- Examples of Groups/Organizations: New Democrat Coalition, Blue Dog Coalition, other conservative Democrats, Republican Main Street Partnership, Rockefeller Republican, other moderate and liberal Republicans left today, Independents, Third Way, Neoliberals, Bipartisan Policy Center, No Labels, Problem Solvers Caucus, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR, and the Stone Court.
- Examples of Individuals: George Washington, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, James K. Polk, Zachary Taylor, Abraham Lincoln, Rutherford B. Hayes, Eisenhower, Richard Nixon (was in many ways the last liberal president in policy before Obama), Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, Ross Perot, Doug Jones (former U.S. Senator known for bipartisan approach), Jon Tester, Susan Collins (U.S. Senator known for moderate positions), Larry Hogan, Joe Manchin (U.S. Senator known for his very bipartisan stance and very heavy influence from corporate donors) and Kyrsten Sinema (known for her extreme bipartisan stance, lack of transparency, and very heavy influence from corporate donors), Josh Gottheimer, Abigail Spanberger, Jerome Powell, Ben Bernanke, Olivier Blanchard, Rob Rubin, Gene Sperling, Steve Rattner, and Merrick Garland.
Center-Right/Moderate Conservative/Conservative:
- This segment of the spectrum advocates for limited government intervention in the economy, fiscal conservatism, and traditional social values. They may support policies such as lower taxes, deregulation, free-market healthcare solutions, and a strong national defense. Moderate conservatives may be more open to compromise on social issues like same-sex marriage and immigration reform.
- Examples of Ideologies: Conservatism, moderate Republicanism, center-right populism, right-leaning Independents
- Examples of Groups/Organizations: Republican Main Street Partnership, Rockefeller Republican, Blue Dog Coalition, other conservative Democrats, American Enterprise Institute, other center-right think thanks, US Chamber of Commerce, and other center-right business networks, The Ripon Society, the Vinson court, the Burger Court, the Rehnquist Court, the Roberts Court (before Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away and got replaced by Amy Coney Barrett), and some of the GOP Establishment.
- Examples of Individuals: John Adams, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, Chester A. Arthur, James Blaine, Benjamin Harrison, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, William Taft, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon (also began the War on Drugs and the Southern Strategy), Gerald Ford, Nelson Rockefeller, George H.W. Bush, Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema Ben Sasse, Colin Powell, John McCain, Adam Kinzinger, Mitt Romney (U.S. Senator known for moderate conservatism), Larry Hogan, Lisa Murkowski (U.S. Senator known for independent streak), Charlie Baker (Governor of Massachusetts and moderate Republican), Chris Christie, Josh Gottheimer, Hank Paulson, Jerome Powell, Jeremy Siegel (economist), Chief Justice Roberts, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Right-wing/Conservative/Traditionalist:
- Conservatives generally prioritize individual liberty, free-market principles, and traditional social values. They advocate for limited government, lower taxes, deregulation, and a strong national defense. They may oppose progressive policies like affirmative action, gun control, and government-run healthcare. Socially, they often support traditional family values, religious freedom, and stricter immigration policies.
- Examples of Ideologies: Conservatism, fiscal conservatism, free-market capitalism, traditional values, right-wing libertarianism, right-wing populism, and right-wing Independents.
- Examples of Groups/Organizations: Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, Hoover Institute, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Family Research Council, Club for Growth, other conservative think tanks, most of the GOP Establishment, the Roberts Court (currently), the Hughes Court, US Chamber of Commerce, and other center-right business networks.
- Examples of Individuals: James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump, John Bolton, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Mike Pence, Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley (former Governor of South Carolina and conservative Republican), Mitch McConnell, John Thune, Tim Scott, Lindsey Graham, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy, Mike Johnson, Pat Buchanan, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Clarence Thomas, Roger Ailes, Rush Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro (conservative commentator and author), Robert Mercer, and other right-wing mega-donors, T.S. Eliot, Russell Kirk, William Randolph Hearst, William F. Buckley Jr., Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Alan Greenspan, Steven Mnuchin, Donald Rumsfeld, Rex Tillerson, Mike Pompeo, and William Barr.
Far-Right/Reactionary:
- This segment encompasses individuals and groups with extreme right-wing views, often advocating for a return to traditional social hierarchies, nationalist policies, and authoritarianism. Far-right ideologies may include elements of racism, xenophobia, and white nationalism. They often oppose immigration, multiculturalism, and international cooperation in favor of a more isolationist or nationalist agenda.
- Examples of Ideologies: Nationalism, white supremacy, authoritarianism, extreme right-wing populism
- Examples of Groups/Organizations: Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Qanon, American Renaissance, FOX news, OANN, Newsmax, Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christians, and the Roberts Court (currently).
- Examples of Individuals: A majority of Republican/conservative elites in the US, right-wing mega-donors, Donald Trump, MAGA Republicans, Steve Bannon (former White House Chief Strategist and far-right nationalist), Ted Cruz (U.S. Senator and conservative Republican), Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, Marjorie Taylor Greene (U.S. Representative known for promoting conspiracy theories), Mike Johnson, Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz, Chip Roy, Jim Jordan, Vivek Ramaswamy, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Clarence Thomas, Richard Spencer (white nationalist and alt-right leader), Roger Ailes, Rush Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones, Charlie Kirk, Robert Mercer, and other right-wing mega-donors.
There is some overlap with examples of each of these Individuals, Ideologies, and Group/Organizations put in each of their respective categories, but I think this is a good start. Let me know what any of you have to add to this breakdown.
*Extreme/radical centrism actually hasn't been officially considered as being really within the center or anywhere else within the spectrum; however, one could argue that it would be at the very, very center of the spectrum, but it is just as dysfunctional as any kind of extreme/radical left-wing ideology or any sort of extreme/radical right-wing ideology, in its own way. I want to say that both Manchin and Sinema and other right-wing corporate Democrats like them have been contributing to the problems we have today that are usually attributed to radical centrism. No Labels definitely smells like a major contributor to extreme centrism and corporate extremism. Then again, populist movements can also emerge in the center of the political spectrum, advocating for reforms to address perceived government corruption, bureaucratic inefficiency, or political gridlock. Centrist populists may prioritize anti-establishment rhetoric and propose policies aimed at increasing transparency, accountability, and responsiveness in government.
**Given that the use of the terms far-left, left-wing, center-left, centrist, center-right, right-wing, and far-right/Reactionary officially didn't begin to be used until around the turn of the 20th century in the US, we (including the AI) can only make best guesses as to which political figures before around the year 1900 were in which category on the political spectrum. All of them before 1900 were probably either some kind of centrist or barely at the center-left or barely at the center-right, except for James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Thaddeus Stevens, and Frederick Douglass. James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson were staunch conservative presidents, right before and right after the Civil War respectively, both of whom strongly opposed civil rights for African Americans. Buchanan in particular was very pro-slavery, and was party responsible for the conditions that led to the outbreak of the Civil War. Thaddeus Stevens and Frederick Douglass, on the other hand, were probably firmly left-wing political leaders as they were fierce social justice warriors who fought like hell to abolish slavery and make the federal government grant all African-Americans American citizenship and every civil right/liberty.
***Nobody really knows what Trump is or what he truly stands for. However, he clearly is striving to be the dictator of the USA and is doing everything he can to escape justice for everything he has done.
-
We are living in a Gilded age 2.0 and it MUST be followed by a Progressive Era 2.0.....
Otherwise, it will be the end of all humanity....
-
7 hours ago, mmKay said:youre missing the obvious : any of them dropping dead from old age or health issues
Certainly, could happen, but I don't see any real sign of that happening with either Trump or Biden. At least not yet.
-
On 3/19/2024 at 2:12 PM, Merkabah Star said:Let’s hope not, that would be as step backwards. She is the biggest war monger of them all. Not surprised you would love her.
Yeah, with all due respect to Nivsch, idk what in the world he is talking about. I mean just because she's a woman of color doesn't at all mean that she would be a good president. She can't even compare himself anywhere close to Hillary Clinton, who before 2020, was arguably the most qualified woman or person in the country to be our country's next president as a liberal or center-left Democrat and is practically a political genius like her husband is. Hillary would've been a wonderful president along with having made history as the first woman US president and another liberal/semi-progressive POTUS right after and like Obama's presidency.
Hayley, on the other hand, is a corporate neocon conservative Republican. She's not even brilliant or inspirational at all and has nothing new, popular, or good to offer in terms of policy for the general electorate as a whole. She would've been as disastrous of a president of our country as Bush was. Plus, quite frankly why would the conservative/Republican voting base in America, which has for decades has becoming increasingly more of the party of angry white men and racism (particularly after the rise of Trump and MAGA), ever like the idea of a woman of color such as her becoming their party's presidential nominee, let alone become the next POTUS?
-
Jack Smith MUST find some way to switch judges or courts.
The courts in our country have become much more corrupt than I thought. The federal judges in our country don't seem to care that they have been contributing to letting our democracy and rule of law be at the brink!
-
David Pakman makes a very sensible point here as to why voting for Biden is a MUST:
He also has mentioned in other videos before how incredibly successful Biden has been as president:
-
15 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:What I'm saying will hold true across major cities in the US and the developed world.
If you live in a village in Pakistan then obviously things work different there.
Not every hot girl is playing the social status game. Some can be very introverted or not interested in such games. But I was speaking to what strategy you need to get hot girls consistently.
Why would a hot girl have to choose between one or the other when she can have both?
Well yeah of course she a guy with both if one is available, but it seems like hot girls most of the time either hook up or get into a serious relationship with guys who either have sex appeal, game, and strong character or have just social status and money with no backbone.
Besides if I don't have a lot of money or an elite level social circle, then am I supposed to expect to just settle for average looking women as being the best that I can possibly get? Or just wish upon a star that maybe one day I might be lucky enough to find a beautiful attractive woman who will be attracted to me if I play the numbers game long enough until I am an old man?
-
3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:It is, but I assume you don't got that, otherwise you won't be complaining about hot women.
But even if you got that, hot women have so many options that you will still struggle to sleep with any particular one just off your looks and game. Plenty of guys around who have good looks and game. It's not hard for hot women to meet such men.
Most men look unattractive or average and have don't have good game, especially given the continuing decline in masculine men in the west.
Besides, why would any hot girl be sexually turned on more so by a guy or have more respect for a guy with money and status, but has poor game, looks unattractive or homely, and is a wimp, easily fooled than a guy with looks, game, strength, and shrewdness?
-
1 minute ago, Princess Arabia said:@HardkillYou're sending mixed messages. First you have a problem with women looking for status etc, then you post a video about a man talking about how 50cent says ride or die with me (50 has status). You think 50 is getting those women with looks and personality? No. So which is it. Should women look for the men with status and $$ to submit to or submit to the ordinary guy with nothing going on.
That wasn't 50 cent. Those video were from dating coaches Miles Cunningham and Mr. Locario.
-
7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:Hot women are looking for value, just like you are. The only reason you are talking about hot women is because you want to grab some value from them.
Imagine is a woman came here and started a thread: How To Find Men With The Biggest Dicks? This would be equivalent to you trying to pick up "hot women".
5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:Lol.
There is no such country. You are just blind to all the ugly girls in your country.
Why isn't being an alpha male who oozes sex appeal and charisma enough to stand out as a top 1-3% man with very high value that all women are appealed to?
in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
Posted · Edited by Hardkill
I know...
We all have been so cynical and jaded by the last 30 years of leadership.
Yet, this is one big reason why I decided to make this thread. Most people, including my past self, have not been able to understand why our country hasn't had the kind of leadership it deserves. It's because of all of these specific problems I mentioned in my OP, which we have had for decades.
Of course, you've already made similar points on many of these issues before on this forum and on your blog. The Left made the mistake of playing into the hands of both the far-right and business interests/corporate lobbying for far TOO LONG.
The good news is that I actually believe now that the Democratic party including Obama himself began to understand this starting around 2018 to 2020. The Democratic party and liberals/progressive throughout have been working very seriously on building a brand new party infrastructure, growing a liberal/progressive media ecosystem, getting more confrontational towards Trump and the MAGA Republicans, amassing a large left-wing grassroots movement on the ground, garnering support from many more big donors who genuinely want to save this country, etc.