Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by CavLancer, Jun 12, 2014.
There isn't a leftist in the US. So we'll never find out.
Huh ? John what's-his-name ? whatever !! Our foreing minister (Sikorski) says (unoficially) it's "bull's " anyway xD He says "Polish-American" alliance is a "bull's " and that we "suck 'em off good" He says we are all polish subordibate .... nuff said .... Personally I think he crossed the line ...
Oh I kind'a missed a point here -> Obama , make ammendement in Your constitution so he can stay
It's clearly the Republican's fault he can't have a 3rd term anyway.
(All kidding aside that telling of the story is so painfully spun that even some of the spin doctors on CFC would probably cringe)
Obama couldn't get stuff done in his first term because he had to worry about re-election.
Obama can't get stuff done in his second term because he's not up for re-election.
It seems like it would be easier for people to admit to themselves that Obama simply isn't the guy they hoped for.
Unfortunately no. Not yet. There are several small socialist and social democratic parties in the US. They seem for the most part underfunded, disorganised and hampered by popular opinion. A popular opinion I presume is formed by a lifetime of near monopoly for commercial corporate media. (Yes, its a form of monopoly on opinions compared to countries that fund public service as a counterweight)
The party I think will emerge for real is the Green party. They are not hampered by that shade of red that most Americans find so uncomfortable.
The US Green party is actually good and they dare think outside the box in a way that will appeal to people the more they get their head out of the telly and into the real world. Theyre not hard-core lefties, more social democratic which in my opinion is the most practical and most easily absorbed kind of socialism.
The US does have public channels. They simply are being watched less.
In a democracy, you are resposible yourself to audit the information you get on truth. The fact that most people fail to do so is why democracy is a highly inferior way of governance.
Well, americans are notoriously stupid. This make me and mama bear sad. So we try our best.
Except for all the other forms that have been tried.
Nope. I've been in numerous courtrooms observing numerous judges. Judge Judy is an embarrassment, the WORST I've even seen.
Getting back to the thread, I'm going with Joe Biden.
He was my guy in 2008 until he got creamed in Iowa and dropped out of the race.
It was Obama's Iowa victory speech + Chapter 2 of "The Audacity of Hope" which switched me to Obama.
There are plenty of fairly liberal politicians. Kucinich, Grayson, Sanders, e.t.c. None of them have a shot at winning the Presidency though.
I'd argue that the most liberal member of Congress that could potentially get the nomination of the Democratic Party, and win the Presidency is Senator Elizabeth Warren, and only because she has a very populist message.
It depends on the definition of Left and Right. Obviously half the voters are left of center. If you define Barak Obama as right of center, no one will appear leftist.
I don'r think the Democrat candidate has emerged yet. A year from now it will be different. By then the anti-Hillary will be surfacing.
I am not convinced that other forms of government are actually worse. Democracies remove agency and decision from capable people. The only advantage of democracy is that incapable people are rendered powerless as well.
I agree. There has never been a good form of government. Every form is open to abuse. More impotantly, every form is run by humans. It is sufficient to say that democracy, or representative Republic as in USA, is less bad than most.
So what about a government run by a sufficiently advanced AI? Do you think that would be better or worse than a human-run government?
That would suck, unless it was smart enough to convince us of the greater good (which is what many religions seem to do with regards to their divine laws). What would be way better is hyper-intelligent humans with incredible information exchange capacity. Then, democracy would be fine.
I think that mainly two traits would be needed for those guardians of democracy:
-Very high intelligence
-A will to honestly make things better, in an ethical manner
And while i am of the view that some such people exist (and probably some of those would be even willing to do this kind of work) it goes without saying that in the corrupt tunnel of vermin most of the humans are now in, it is pretty much impossible for this to happen.
Hillary isn't terrible, and I'd support her but I am personally hoping for someone younger. (Gillibrand 2016 anyone? )
This is a great time for me to ask a potential Hillary supporter why they'd support her.
My support is solely pragmatic. Nothing about her 'excites' me, but as far as democrats go she has the best shot at winning. As I said though, I don't really get excited by her politics and I'd prefer someone younger and more in tune with my generation
Given an election between her and Cruz, Romney, Christie, or pretty much any other Republican, I'd vote for her. She's less bad. I'd much rather vote Green, but that merely benefits the Republicans by taking a vote from the Democrats in this two-party, winner-takes-all system.
Separate names with a comma.