"What makes someone in the left or in the right is their views in economics."
So if fascists started regulating heavily, giving out handouts and taxing the rich, they would be leftists?

Many people say there's no global warming Jai, it's not always wise to follow the masses.

The democrat party defends some social policies, but I wouldn't say it's a left party when it acts in most issues. I have to say the democrats aren't a leftist party, but rather a centre one. Without any better choice, many left and far-left voters will elect democrat candidates, out of fear to have republicans elected, but that's just because there's no better choice. The democrat politicians go from the centre-right to the centre-left.

Would a left party agree to invade the irak? Would a left party support every major free trade agreement that was recently signed? Even better, a leftist president would currently be working in 2 major free trade partnerships? By those statements, you can't say they are a party in the left spectrum...


I'd agree Bernie is pushing the democrats to the left, it's possible I'll change my views on their stance in the political spectrum soon.


@GeneralPE

Actually the nazist party was in the left in many issues. Even their name is national socialism. I wouldn't say they're in the left though, as they saw most left ideas impersonated in the Soviet Union as repugnant.

Edited 3/10/2016 02:06:15

@TeamGuns you're missing a huge point. In political science, the words liberal, conservative, left-wing, right-wing, centrist, etc change depending on 1) the time period and 2) the country. Based on the politics of America, the Democrats are without a doubt left-wing and at a minimum left-of-center.

Would a left party agree to invade the irak? Would a left party support every major free trade agreement that was recently signed? Even better, a leftist president would currently be working in 2 major free trade partnerships? By those statements, you can't say they are a party in the left spectrum...

1) Not all Democrats voted to invade Iraq, and those who did have received heavy criticism.
2) Free trade is a result of being a capitalist society so yes even Democrats have to support it. That doesn't make them right-of-center though considering their opinions on unions.
3) Obama has been heavily criticized for TPP by many Democrats, so don't expect it to pass Congress.

If you're comparing the Democrat Party to European socialists, then sure the Democrats are center. But on the American ideological spectrum they are a 100% left wing.

Yea, I agree that in the american spectrum they are the left lol, but only because there's nothing else "more left" then them. And I compare them to general left, not just european left. In Brazil (it's the non-european country I know the best in politics) they'd be considered at the center as well.

And I don't think Conservativism and Liberalism can really be put in the socialist or capitalist sides... They are because of "ideology alliances" that may happen in a lot of countries. As an example, a social-conservative or a full-liberal (economics and in moral issues) parties wouldn't be impossible matches.

Edited 3/10/2016 03:40:16

I, personally, like RT.

RT English usually just nitpicks America and Britain, and has boring news for Russia. RIA is my favourite, but its English version, called Sputnik, just sucks for the same grounds.

BBC is probably one of the best and most expansive English tongue news agencies.

What is the danger, is when individuals selectively form their own echo chamber upon which only the biased news outlets that already meet their preconditioned ideas of right and wrong speak to them.

Well, it's also dangerous when supposedly neutral sources aren't. Contrast

Russian intervention in Ukraine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_in_Ukraine_%282014%E2%80%93present%29):
In 2014, Russia made several incursions into Ukrainian territory. Beginning with Crimea, Russian soldiers without insignias took control of strategic positions and infrastructure within the Ukrainian territory of Crimea, which Russia annexed after a disputed referendum.

Iraq War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War):
The Iraq War was a protracted armed conflict that began with the 2003 invasion of Iraq by a United States-led coalition. The invasion regime toppled the government of Saddam Hussein. However, the conflict continued for much of the next decade as an insurgency emerged to oppose the occupying forces and the post-invasion Iraqi government.

For two invasions of independent dictatorships, the Russian invasion seems much more evil, despite the Iraq War being far bloodier and thorough.

the vast majority of people want to hear what THEY WANT TO HEAR, not what the honest truth is.

That's part of it, but also, the majority of folk hear what they're allowed and suggested to hear.

What does this exactly mean: he's so far left of the Democratic Party as it stands today, that he decided not to join them.

But he did - your point moot. He'd get nowhere if he joined the Socialist Party.

Many people say there's no global warming Jai, it's not always wise to follow the masses.

Well, there's more who say there is global warming - but I'll take your advice and not follow the "masses".

Would a left party agree to invade the irak?

Warmongering has nothing to do with economic direction. Very many Democrats voted "go-ahead" with Iraq War, even Sanders, I think.

Yea, I agree that in the american spectrum they are the left lol, but only because there's nothing else "more left" then them.

And in Nepal and many middle American countries, the Communist Party is an important player in the polit - doesn't mean most of the EU is in the middle.

Edited 3/10/2016 03:59:29

@Жұқтыру

About global warming: I was of course talking about the masses that refuse global warming to be a problem. Because global warming IS real.

About the russian/american interventions: I have to say I disagree with the idea that Russia invaded a dictatorship in Ukraine, it was a an elected government wanted by the people who in this case overthrowed the Russian puppet dictatorship. I have to say the invasion of irak was a mess and hard to justify if we see the casus-belli used to go to war, but it doesnt make the russian invasion any more rightful or the article about it in wikipedia a tendencious one.

About the irak war: Sanders voted against it, and deeply criticized the war on the congress floor, predicting much that happened on the next years. He voted for the afghanistan war though.

But he did - your point moot. He'd get nowhere if he joined the Socialist Party.

Well in the Senate he's an Independent and I presume he's a registered Independent voter in Vermont. The only reason he is "running as a Democrat" is because he doesn't want to be disadvantaged by running as a 3rd Party which would force him to spend millions of dollars trying to get access to the ballot in all 50 states. Both the Democrats and the GOP have constructed massive obstacles for 3rd Party Candidates to get access to the ballot in presidential and congressional elections in order to protect themselves. That being said, running as a Democrat and being a Democrat are two different things. For Sanders he's doing the former and is not the latter.

In 2014, Russia made several incursions into Ukrainian territory. Beginning with Crimea, Russian soldiers without insignias took control of strategic positions and infrastructure within the Ukrainian territory of Crimea, which Russia annexed after a disputed referendum.

People talk about the fear of Islamophobia, but a much more dangerous phenomenon for the world is a rising Russophobia in America. America sees Russia as the boogeyman and an existential threat even though all their actions have been in self-defense of encroaching NATO/US movement into Eastern Europe.

Hmmm, I'd say russia making active military incursions into other countries is a threat, as is the United States when they do the same thing. I agree there's a boost created by the russophobia in america, but also by politicians in general, because there are far more important threats to the world then Russia...

Russia can not compete with America demographically, economically, industrially, agriculturally, or in any way that matters except as a nuclear weapons power.

About the russian/american interventions: I have to say I disagree with the idea that Russia invaded a dictatorship in Ukraine, it was a an elected government wanted by the people who in this case overthrowed the Russian puppet dictatorship.

A Russian semipuppet switched to a NATO puppet, that's all I see. Both were "democratically elected" leaders, but the vote's 100% rigged, both times. Also, the invasion in Iraq - replaced a dictator with a dictator, with pretty much the same vices, and perhaps more (this is mostly agreed upon worldwide).

I have to say the invasion of irak was a mess and hard to justify if we see the casus-belli used to go to war, but it doesnt make the russian invasion any more rightful or the article about it in wikipedia a tendencious one.

Just look at the wording, though, that's my main point. It should be near the same, for two like happenings. And this is just one big example I recall, I don't like reading Wikipedia for in depth polit as it definitely gets biased. But here's another parallel that gets worded quite differently.

Great Irish famine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_%28Ireland%29
The Great Famine (Irish: an Gorta Mór, [anˠ ˈgɔɾˠt̪ˠa mˠoːɾˠ]) or the Great Hunger was a period of mass starvation, disease, and emigration in Ireland between 1845 and 1852.[1] It is sometimes referred to, mostly outside Ireland, as the Irish Potato Famine, because about two-fifths of the population was solely reliant on this cheap crop for a number of historical reasons.[2][3] During the famine, approximately 1 million people died and a million more emigrated from Ireland,[4] causing the island's population to fall by between 20% and 25%.

Hungerdeath: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
The Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомо́р, "Extermination by hunger" or "Hunger-extermination";[2] derived from морити голодом, "to kill by starvation")[3][4][5] was a man-made famine in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1932 and 1933 that killed an estimated 2.5–7.5 million Ukrainians, with millions more counted in demographic estimates. It was part of the wider disaster, the Soviet famine of 1932–33, which affected the major grain-producing areas of the country.

These happenings are both seen in three lights = unstoppable problem, stoppable problem, but the administration wasn't doing enough, and genocide. Yet it emphasises "manmade" in Hungerdeath, while nothing is mentioned about that in the Irish famine.

Russophobia

I could be wrong, but I don't think it's Russophobia - just Putinphobia. I don't think Russians get the same deals as Arabs do.

Edited 3/10/2016 05:08:20

@Жұқтыру

About the russophobia, you're right, it's a putinphobia one, but it is transmitted to the russian people, as he is the head of state of that country.


About those famines, I need to make a point again.
- The irish famine was caused by a bacteria that attacked the only potato type of crop they had on the island. A bad plurarity of crops and bad prepareness for the famine, as well as a low help provided by the central government of London (Ireland was a part of the UK) caused the massive ammount of deaths.
- The holomodor was a famine caused by a mismanagement of human ressources by the soviet administrators in order to reach quotas of productions that couldn't be reached while keeping the local population fed. I don't believe it was a planned massacre, but collectivism, the stalin policy of ignoring local complains and the lack of reports from administrators ammoung the deaths in the ukrainian region caused a shortage problem to become a catastrophy.


Both famines can be blamed on the governments. But the primary reason of the Irish famine was a plague, and the primary reason of the Holomodor was the official policies of the country.

Edited 3/10/2016 05:40:05

About those famines, I need to make a point again.
- The irish famine was caused by a bacteria that attacked the only potato type of crop they had on the island. A bad plurarity of crops and bad prepareness for the famine, as well as a low help provided by the central government of London (Ireland was a part of the UK) caused the massive ammount of deaths.
- The holomodor was a famine caused by a mismanagement of human ressources by the soviet administrators in order to reach quotas of productions that couldn't be reached while keeping the local population fed. I don't believe it was a planned massacre, but collectivism, the stalin policy of ignoring local complains and the lack of reports from administrators ammoung the deaths in the ukrainian region caused a shortage problem to become a catastrophy.


Both famines can be blamed on the governments. But the primary reason of the Irish famine was a plague, and the primary reason of the Holomodor was the official policies of the country.

It's all disputed, but part of Wikipedia's object is not to present any one (biased) outlook on something.

Edited 3/10/2016 08:21:30

Well, the main idea of wikipedia is to be as neutral as possible.

Wikipedia and neutral are antonyms....

It's not always neutral, I'd agree. But in most major pages there's safety locks that prevent them from being changed to defend one side partially.

In my opinion he is likely to be Assassinated anyway, even if he does become president, or He'll fall off his silly wall and all the Mexican's will see him :D

Mister Failure, do you realize how hard it is to assassinate the President?

Last attempt was on Reagan- and security has gone UP a good deal since then.

GWB, if I remember correctly, had an attempt but was unharmed

If you count attempts, people sent letters with letal chemicals to Obama too... It's not impossible to kill a president, provided you have a person up to the job and a lot of cash to pay her.

"her"
Why her?