USA Politics

[Todd]

Yes, but that doesn't mean there are no fanatics and useful idiots on the left also. There's just a lot more on the right so that almost all domestic terrorism in the US is done by right wing extremists. Part of intellectual honesty is to admit YOUR side has problems too. That's how you can try to fix those issues. For example the left could be less "woke", less "SJW" and less anarchist and instead come together and concentrate on how to achieve things. How to get medicare for all implemented? How to get $15 minimum wage? How to get UBI? How to get tuition free education? How to end the drug war? How to end the wars? How to get the Green New Deal implemented? That stuff is million times more important than the logo of Uncle Ben's or Ghostbusters movies with dark skinned lesbians in the major roles. The left should be more strategic and focused in the most important things and be effective in "selling" those ideas to other people. Lefty ideas are already very popular so this should not be too hard, but something has to happen so that this popularity of lefty ideas shows in the politicians elected. 80-90 % of Democratic voters support medicare for all, but their are "forced" to vote for a candidate is strongly against it. Something has to change. The left need to be wiser.

You should contact the DNC stat.  Here you go: https://democrats.org/contact-us/

[71 dB]

Not clear to me why a Finn who largely identifies with the far left offers an explanation to this question from a non-American, which is a request for information not mere opinion.

I don't identify with the far left. I identify with the left. If you look at me through the US Overton window, I am "far left", but that's because the Overton Window has moved so far right. If the Overton Window were where it should be "centered", I would appear somewhere between the center and the left end of the window. People like Biden who don't support medicare for all are actually quite right, because the idea that not 100 % of people needs to be covered is very radical. The REAL far left (socialists and communists) don't believe in capitalism at all. I do believe in capitalism in many things. Capitalism makes better cars than communism for example, but I am not a fool who thinks capitalism works best in everything. That's why you need to mix capitalism and socialism in a smart way to optimaze the result and that mixture is called social democracy. I don't care if Karl "brainwashed by corporate media" Henning thinks I am too non-American or too left to answer.

[drogulus]

     A rap sheet for a former president


In his report, Mueller avoided accusing Trump of a crime because Justice Department policy prohibited him from filing charges against a sitting president. Mueller reasoned that making the accusation when no trial could occur would deprive Trump of the opportunity to defend himself in court. He made clear, however, that his report was intended to "preserve the evidence" obtained in his investigation because "a President does not have immunity after he leaves office."

Biden has said he would leave the business of the Justice Department to his attorney general. So it would fall to a future attorney general to decide whether to accept Mueller's invitation to investigate and charge the 45th president with crimes. Charging a former president is fraught. We do not want to become a country where presidents are routinely charged after they leave office with crimes stemming from policy decisions, but we also do not want to be a country where a president can commit crimes with impunity, knowing he will not be held accountable.

Yes, but that doesn't mean there are no fanatics and useful idiots on the left also. There's just a lot more on the right so that almost all domestic terrorism in the US is done by right wing extremists. Part of intellectual honesty is to admit YOUR side has problems too. That's how you can try to fix those issues. For example the left could be less "woke", less "SJW" and less anarchist and instead come together and concentrate on how to achieve things. How to get medicare for all implemented? How to get $15 minimum wage? How to get UBI? How to get tuition free education? How to end the drug war? How to end the wars? How to get the Green New Deal implemented? That stuff is million times more important than the logo of Uncle Ben's or Ghostbusters movies with dark skinned lesbians in the major roles. The left should be more strategic and focused in the most important things and be effective in "selling" those ideas to other people. Lefty ideas are already very popular so this should not be too hard, but something has to happen so that this popularity of lefty ideas shows in the politicians elected. 80-90 % of Democratic voters support medicare for all, but their are "forced" to vote for a candidate is strongly against it. Something has to change. The left need to be wiser.

     I've decided you are from Massachusetts.

     The success of an economic program provides the space for positive social change. The 2016 election was the clearest illustration yet of this base reality. Red Zoners are screwed by their politicians and the Dems either can't reach them or ignore them. The rust belt is left to rot.

     
     

[Florestan]

Not really. Serious violence and murder has been almost exclusively on the side of right wing groups white supremacists.

Thanks for replying, but  honestly I think you conflated two questions in one answer. Allow me to separate them.

My first question was: Do both sides have their share of fanatics and (useful) idiots?

Your answer: Not really..

My second question was: If yes: Given the proper circumstances, can these fanatics and (useful) idiots on both sides do a lot of harm?

Your answer: Serious violence and murder has been almost exclusively on the side of right wing groups white supremacists

Thanks for answering. again. I have some supplementary questions, if I may:

1. What do you mean by "serious"? Where do you draw the line between "serious violence and murder" and "trivial violence and murder"?

2. according to you, "right wing groups white supremacists" have been given, and taken full advantage of, proper circumstances. Fine. Let me rephrase my second question: are there no far-left groups which given the proper circumstances will retort to just as serious violence and murder as the right-wing groups?

[71 dB]

I've decided you are from Massachusetts.

Okay. Interesting. Maybe if I talked more about coffee drinking and sauna you would decide again I'm from Finland?

The rust belt is left to rot.

That's the reason why the rust belt is called that and not the belt of prosperity. 

[Florestan]

Not clear to me why a Finn who largely identifies with the far left offers an explanation to this question from a non-American, which is a request for information not mere opinion.

well, strictly speaking, these were "questions from a non-american". It didn't say response from an natchral-born american was required.

You are both right, guys, paradoxically as it may sound!

[Florestan]

1. I don't think there are "sides" without fanatics and useful idiots to begin with. People are individuals with opinions disagreeing or agreeing with other people. Forcing people choose their sides is a method for those in power to make people blame each other for their misery when they should be blaming those rigging the system.

You know what, Poju? If I have in mind Romania and Romanian politics I completely agree with you. The difference between Finland and Romania is that the Romanian Social-Democratic Party is the most corrupt, demagogic, xenophobic and populist Romanian party*. Don't get me wrong, all Romanian parties post 1989 have been all of the above in various degrees but the Social-Democrats are absolute and unchallenged champions in this respect and the one and only party which constantly and relentlessly waged legislative war against the independence of the judiciary, a war they lost because of massive civic and civil protests of which I was a small but devoted part. Since 1990 until this year I voted for a lot of different parties, yet my principle was always the same: never ever for the Social=Democrats, always for whichever party has the greatest chance of defeating them.

*besides being the direct heir, via various name changes and fusions, of the Rpmanian Communist Party.

[drogulus]

Okay. Interesting. Maybe if I talked more about coffee drinking and sauna you would decide again I'm from Finland?

That's the reason why the rust belt is called that and not the belt of prosperity. 

     I said the rust belt is left to rot, Mr. Finland Person. The point is Dems have done less than they should have done to expand the economy. It goes back to Clinton, who thought running a private sector deficit for several years was a triumph of some kind, a "surplus" of something that was more important. Obama was influenced by the same Clintonians to pivot from expansion to deficit cutting, producing a historically weak recovery.

[Karl Henning]

Ready to give Trump the boot!

[greg]

And yet you don't seem to be anywhere near as worried about these things as about Antifa.

At this point BLM has proven to be worse than either... you don't hear as much news about alt-right groups causing violence, the destruction and murders were mainly from BLM people this year.

Also, they targeted a campaign bus, something I'd never be involved in. Antifa targets random people that disagree with them and forms a mob to beat people up.

I don't identify with the far left. I identify with the left. If you look at me through the US Overton window, I am "far left", but that's because the Overton Window has moved so far right.

I find that hard to believe in this age where gays can marry, and most people don't have a problem with it. Many countries still have the death penalty or prison sentences for being gay. The US doesn't seem very far right unless you are coming from a very far left perspective.

[Florestan]

Capitalism makes better cars than communism for example

Not necessarily.

You're absolutely missing the point about "capitalism" and "communism", because you are just as materialist as the most selfish US billionaire.

[greg]

Counter protesting white supremacists and fascists and punching the occasional Nazi in the face isn't terrorism.

It is, because often the person isn't a Nazi. There were some older stories about them saying anti-semitic stuff and attacking a Jewish person, this one is a newer story:

Antifa militants attack 'Jews for Trump' supporters in New York City
https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-antifa-militants-attack-trump-supporters-in-new-york-city

So attacking Jews is okay as long as they are Trump supporters?

They are authoritarians. They aren't even pure anarchists, I don't think, because I think that type would just have a pure "live and let live" mentality without using force of any kind to anyone.

[71 dB]

Not necessarily.

You're absolutely missing the point about "capitalism" and "communism", because you are just as materialist as the most selfish US billionaire.

If you mean people are more free in capitalism, lack of freedom is not inherently part of communism. It's just that historically communism has been practiced in countries lacking freedom anyway. For example Russia is now a capitalist country, but Russians are not any more "free" than they were in communist Soviet Union, because they tend to have authoritarian leaders there for some reason (history? poor education? mentality? I don't know).

[71 dB]

I find that hard to believe in this age where gays can marry, and most people don't have a problem with it. Many countries still have the death penalty or prison sentences for being gay. The US doesn't seem very far right unless you are coming from a very far left perspective.

Those in power can do that, symbolism and social issues. Nothing hinges on them. on the contrary being woke can increase income. The US is NOT that right on social issues, but it IS very far right on economic issues.

[71 dB]

So attacking Jews is okay as long as they are Trump supporters?

Of course it's not. Who says it's okay?

[drogulus]

At this point BLM has proven to be worse than either... you don't hear as much news about alt-right groups causing violence, the destruction and murders were mainly from BLM people this year.

     There was violence and destruction that occurred during mass demonstrations by BLM protesters. This is a well known phenomenon. People with violent destructive aims exploit the situation. Some are not political, some are extremists from both sides. Most BLM demos are non-violent, but in some urban areas violent opportunists manage to create enough trouble to grab a considerable amount of news coverage. It has had an effect, so now some people think there are BLM murderers. That is, they believe that, a Constitutionally protected right.

[drogulus]

Of course it's not. Who says it's okay?

     People say that people say it's OK. People say it's not OK. What people say people say wins.

[greg]

Of course it's not. Who says it's okay?

Well, apparently Antifa does. I'm not saying anyone here specifically believes that. Moreso meant to be a rhetorical question.

The US is NOT that right on social issues, but it IS very far right on economic issues.

This is a good distinction.
I would say moderately right, though. If it were very far right then I think we would still have slavery, or some other system where it were impossible to move from being poor to middle class.
Still, though, economically, IMO we could use some leftward movement to balance things out, just that it has to be done in an effective way.

It has had an effect, so now some people think there are BLM murderers.

But there were a few this year.

As for fascist groups, surely there's some actual groups out there (the Proud Boys is not one of them), but they seem to not make much noise. If they did, I'd have a problem with it.

Whoever is making the most noise is the one I have a problem with currently. The current problem seems to be a bit more on the left with extremist groups that openly hate America and want to tear it down. The time they were chanting "Death to America" pretty much sums it up.   

[Florestan]

Now, to be completely honest --- which I always strive to be, and sometimes fail --- Voltaire was a racist, so demolishing his statue by the racism token alone is entirely justified. Yet he was also an outspoken champion of free speech (admittedly only when it suited him, but still...) and he was genuinely opposed to injustice and fanaticism. All things considered, he was more on the side of the good than of the bad, so demolishing his statue is ultimately unjustified.

All this boils down to "history is not written in black and white but in much nore than fifty shades of gray" --- a notion that fanatics and (useful) idiots on both sides ignore at others' peril.

[Florestan]

greg, this is for you, budddy!

The percentage of eligible voters who abstain from voting measures the degree of concrete liberty in a democracy.
Where liberty is fictitious, or where it is threatened, the percentage tends toward zero. - Nicolás Gómez Dávila

If interested, more here: http://don-colacho.blogspot.com/