To most people outside the US your democrats seem uncomfortably right-wing.
Maybe not right-wing, but definitely on the conservative end of the spectrum. The republicans, on the other hand, would be under gouvernment agency surveilliance for being dangerously right-wing and having government overthrowing tendencies.
Well I’m Canadian but yes I agree they do.
Whoops, my mistake.
That goes for many people in the US as well. Believe it or not.
At least they’re the good right.
I’d take testicle cancer over brain cancer. That doesn’t make testicle cancer the ‘good’ cancer.
Compared to every other choice, I believe so. After all, many of our great presidents were Democrats.
For me USA has two parties: Dumb-racist-right
and
Hello-fellow-kids-right
When people find out that leftism actually means the destruction of capitalism…
It… Doesn’t?
Here’s a bunch of stuff:
- Heavily subsidised / free education
- Healthcare subsidised / costs capped at yearly max of a couple of $100
- Decent paid parental leave, minimum 20 weeks
- hmm… I realised that I don’t care. Usually I’d delete my comment. Meh
Isn’t that just social services and not the workers owning the means of production?
That’s not necessarily leftist
It’s to the left of center but not really leftist
Well to be fair, to fight over who the real leftist is and what the end goal should be, is as left as it can get.
None of this is “Leftist”
I agree. In the US tho? This is so far left it’s not funny. In fact, it’s deeply worrisome.
It’s really not. It’s both mainstream Democrat stuff and not at all actual leftism.
So, remind me which primary candidate has campaigned on making this federal law, and not been regarded as a “socialist”?
How someone is demeaned by their political opposition is often completely divorced from reality.
your completely wrong because… uhh i dont care
He’s definitely not radical left, but he’s the most pro-union president since at least Carter. Yes - I’m aware of the rail strike fuckery… are you aware of the stuff he’s passed?
Id say the problem is that the bar is quite low.
It is, but it’s important to recognise that he’s raising that bar with genuinely good, pro-union policy that will likely have a snowball effect, strengthening unions, and the left by extension over time.
Certainly, but a country so far off the rails as the US is when it comes to social justice and worker protection, won’t be fixed over night. Fixing this will take decades and it will be a bloody uphill battle all the way.
I’m genuinely very happy with Biden’s first term. He is left, he is dangerously close to being a Social Democrat. If any antitrust action happens in the next year, I’d label him that. He is currently walking a very fine line of giving people leverage while also handsomely paying capital for following along. Its like he has paved the path for them to do the right thing.
He is left, he is dangerously close to being a Social Democrat. If any antitrust action happens in the next year, I’d label him that.
What aspect of the private economy has he socialized? He is progressive for America…but that doesn’t mean he’s a leftist. Unless you are willing to actually have the state socialize a market from private industry you aren’t “left”.
It’s debatable if social democrats are anything but center left, most socialist believe that profit motive will drive social democratic states to slowly repatriate state assets to the privet market.
a very fine line of giving people leverage while also handsomely paying capital for following along.
The people already have the leverage, the only thing he’s done is stay out of their way, unlike what he did with the rail workers.
Again, I’m not saying he’s terrible compared to some of our recent leaders, but it’s sad to think people believe he’s some warrior for the workers. The man has been in the higher echelons of American government for the last 50 years, and has a pretty awful track record.
I believe he’s the greatest president since Wilson.
I don’t know if I’ve ever met anyone who claimed Wilson to be one of their favorite presidents… can I ask why?
Also how do you make peace with his overtly racist sentiment, which was know to be aggressive even for the time?
I always thought his benefits outweigh his cost: Brought peace to Europe via the new radical idea of the League of Nations, fought for self determination for nations, supported progressivism in America, created the Federal Reserve, helped the United States go from isolationist to internationalists (until the bastard Republicans ruined it by vetoing the League of Nations bill).
As for his racism, it’s hard press to find a president who didn’t happen to hate an ethnic group. He deserve fault for it, no doubt about that, especially with segregating the Federal Government, but I try to look beyond that and his impact on the world and the nation at large. Hell, one of my other favorite presidents is FDR, despite the Japanese American Internment Camps, but I value his contributions to ending the Great Depression and bringing America to victory in WW2.
Brought peace to Europe via the new radical idea of the League of Nations, fought for self determination for nations, supported progressivism in America, created the Federal Reserve, helped the United States go from isolationist to internationalists (until the bastard Republicans ruined it by vetoing the League of Nations bill).
I think you may want to do a bit more of an in depth dive and into his time as president. I think you may be seeing his image through the rose tinted glasses we are usually taught in school.
The league of nations, while in theory may have been a progressive idea. I don’t think any modern historian is going to attribute it to “bringing peace to Europe”, in fact I don’t think it was accredited to stopping any conflict post ww1. It was effectively the UN, but with even less teeth, and was often seen to give member states participating in conflict legitimacy, as the league would rarely enact any policy to stop them.
fought for self determination for nations
This is where the racism conflicts with his proposed progressive image. Wilson fought for self determination, but only for white Europeans. During the same time he was preaching peace and self determination he was also sending interventional military forces to places like Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Mexico and Russia where European imperialism was being challenged.
helped the United States go from isolationist to internationalists (until the bastard Republicans ruined it by vetoing the League of Nations bill).
I’m not quite sure if most people would consider this entirely correct. Wilson was a staunch isolationist and campaigned as such for both of his terms. Though i think this belief stems from duplicity on Wilson’s part. For his second term he won on keeping America out of the war, but just a few months later he would be making calls to arm and intervene. However, America would return to it’s isolationist tendency as soon as the war ended, that is until pearl harbor. Fdr is widely recognized as the president who ended American isolation.
As for his racism, it’s hard press to find a president who didn’t happen to hate an ethnic group. He deserve fault for it, no doubt about that, especially with segregating the Federal Government, but I try to look beyond that and his impact on the world and the nation at large.
While I agree that we have to judge a person within their historical context. Woodrow’s racism was seen as extreme even during his term in office, and was pervasive in all his policies both domestic and abroad .
Hell, one of my other favorite presidents is FDR, despite the Japanese American Internment Camps, but I value his contributions to ending the Great Depression and bringing America to victory in WW2.
The biggest difference is that fdr deserves criticism for signing the executive order despite knowing it was racist, not because he himself was racist.
Eleanor Roosevelt was very vocal about the racist motive to intern Japanese Americans and pushed FDR to listen to his conscious. However, decades of yellow peril and a vast amount of pressure from military advisors forced his hand. He was worried about the political blow back of ignoring calls to action, and was worried about the possibility of fermenting a military coup similar to what happened in 33’ with the business plot.
He still deserves the criticism of actually signing the order, and all the misery that it entailed, but it’s hardly the same as Wilsons hardened racism.
Of course, I’ve no doubt my opinion will change when I read a biography on him.
Biden help a 1994 crime law that caused mass incarceration
Yes, we all know that, but it’s weirdly conservative to remain fixated on past events instead of the current material reality
It’s “conservative” to judge a politician based on their record and actions?
I mean, I guess you can take that point of view. But there are people still in jail based on that bill from thirty years ago. They’d probably like us to stop judging people based on past events.
Wait - the entire legal system is “fixated on past events.” What are you even on about?
Everybody voted for the fucking bill. If he didn’t write it, someone else would have. It was, unfortunately, very popular.
And it was 30 years ago. I hope I’m not judged today for things I did 30 years ago.
These are people we elect and I would definitely judge them based on their history. This is not once a cheater always a cheater kinda thing. If everyone paid attention to Trump’s history we would not have the courts packed with people that want the world of “The Handmaid’s Tales”. If we look at Bernie Sanders history you would see he’s always had the same stance of fighting for the average middle class and disenfranchised people.
I’m not saying you should forget, just that you should judge based on current policy and practices instead of harping on a bill he wrote 30 years ago.
Your Trump comparison makes no sense because his behavior hasn’t changed or has arguably gotten worse over the same period of time. Everyone is aware of that too, the problem is half of the country doesn’t care.
I’ll ask you - how would you feel about someone writing off this legislation as being “30 years ago” of you were someone who lost decades of their life to this draconian legislation? If you are a felon who can’t vote? If you are a minority person in your 30s who didn’t have a father for huge chunks of their formative years thanks to the mandatory sentencing laws?
I would say the same thing. I would promise to not fall into the same dogma that, 30 years ago, brought us that crime bill. It had support from a wide array of representatives and people. We the people have changed, albeit slowly, and now we understand crime and policing better as a problem. I’d rather focus on, rather than what people did 30 years ago, what we’re doing now to stop the same patterns and create new ones. Maybe Biden can be leveraged to put a dent in our police problem, perhaps he does feel a connection to the issue having written that bill?
If you think that people should be judged purely on their history, why should those convicted felons be allowed to vote?
I want to point out that I think that should not be the case. Just that I think you should take a look at Biden’s current policy at and least acknowledge that he’s doing better than he was 30 years ago. Don’t forget the sins of the past. Just acknowledge when people do better and, maybe eventually, consider forgiving those past sins if he continues the positive momentum.
What would you judge people on other than their history?
I’m disinclined to forgive Biden when he hasn’t “forgiven” those incarcerated by his laws.
Biden has had the opportunity to make changes, which is great. Convicted felon a rarely get that chance
Exactly which is why that idea is hilarious.
So did the Congressional Black Caucus, and prominent local black leaders, who called for the crime bill not knowing it would disproportionately fuck up black people
Turns out sometimes people are just wrong and that doesn’t make them evil
Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time😎
If y’all are so progressive how come I can’t get free ice water at any restaurant I’ve traveled to outside of the US
I have never heard of that before.
I love watching online “Leftists” seethe as they realize that, outside of their web bubbles, they have no impact and no one takes them seriously
Oh bless your heart honey. As the southerners say.
Southerners are generally unintelligent so this tracks
That is because they are mainly right-wing.
I think being right wing is a consequence of lack of intelligence
Its because they don’t prioritize learning.
on a national scale sure, but we’ve got plenty of impact in local communities.
Sure ruin a town at a time. Serves as a good warning to the next town over
deleted by creator
