Dear asshats that label people to marginalize them,
I’m sick of hearing this crap about Obama being a far-lefty. He’s nowhere near - so cut the shit.
On social issues - arguably yes - he’s progressive and to the left. Equality and civil unions. oh no. it’ll destroy society. get over yourselves.
On Civil Liberties - what the hell is going on here? It used to be considered ‘right’ and ‘conservative’ to believe in privacy and civil liberties. Now you’re a rabid lefty if you do. fuck off.
On the economy - He constantly harps on the benefits of the free market, but in order to keep the market fair and free there’s a need for regulation and over-sight. We’re not talking about government run services here - we’re talking about regulated businesses. This is hardly traditional far-left idealism.
On trade - free trade on the condition of environmental and worker protections is not protectionism - get it through your thick fucking skulls. It’s not a refusal to trade or an attempt to tax incoming good just cuz they’re not from here and that’s bad! Stop being disingenuous - there’s a real discussion to be had here about the merits of enforcing worker and environmental protections in trade agreements and calling anything that hasn’t been stamped with the republican seal of approval “protectionism” is just plain fucking retarded. Have you even read our current “free trade” agreements? They’re not. There are stipulations in those as well, only they’re generally to protect one particular industry or another in the US, instead of looking out for workers and conditions in both countries. Where do you get ‘far left’ from this stance?
On foreign policy - far left would be pacifist or world-cop hard-core interventionist depending on which group you’re using to create your stereo-type. Neither of which apply to Obama. I’ll grant that he’s slightly interventionist - but he has no plans to dick with other nations forms of government, dictate how other countries should be run or to completely withdrawal in isolationism. So cut the crap on this account.
Knock it the fuck off with these bullshit labels and have a real fucking conversation about these issues. The stances are nuanced and there is asstons of room for real debate about differences on these issues and the merits of these policies. Get your fucking head out of your rotten asshole, take the shit out of your ears and think about your own fucking positions for yourself and thoughtfully compare and contrast them with these instead of this mind-numbing fucking horsespooge that comes out of your goddamn mouths.
From the outside, it looks even more absurd. Both of the parties are pretty much The Conservative Party - from here in the UK. And that’s viewing it from a framework where our own ‘left wing’ is pretty much the same as the right.
As other posters have shown, it’s the comparative scale that’s important. From a European perspective. he’s a righty.
But that’s not the scale in which the comments are being made, now, is it?
The “Social Compass” threads have shown how foolish it is to try to pigeon-hole anyone into merely “left” and “right”. But for the purposes of gross illustration only, let’s line up all 435 members of the House and all 100 senators from “left” to “right.” Now we have a line of 535 mainstream national politicians. That’s a good line to discuss.
Yes, by those on the left. The Republicans always considered both Clintons to be one bomb short of radical Bolsheviks, despite every shred of evidence that spoke otherwise.
So, it’s foolish to try and pigeon-hole someone into “left” and “right”, but let’s do it anyway? There are just too many ways to slice and dice that puppy.
Obama is going to be called a far lefty and McCain is going to be called a warmonger. It’s campaign season, so you better get used to it!
I would guess, one or two degrees left of HRC, a bit to the right of Edwards, and way to the right of Kucinich and Sanders – but has anyone actually done the math?
There isn’t a complete set of equations to do the math with, so you won’t get a unique answer. Maybe the best way to measure this, if you absolutely felt you had to, would be for him to take the Political Compass test. It doesn’t always work well, and I thought it was kind of hokey, but it did put me almost exactly where I would’ve put myself.
who cares where they sit on some subjective political compass? Discuss the issues ffs. Where they are in relation to someone else on some imaginary line or sphere or dodecahedron shouldn’t be important. The content of their message and stance on issues should be.
When you have a ten second spot on the nightly news to make your point, you can’t lay each individual issue and where the candidate stands. The politicians, therefore, summarize by saying “He’s a lefty. Trust me.”
I will grant you that some politicians would like their constituents to not think too much about politics.
I do blame the media (the television media, anyway) when they rush the candidates through time constrained segments, requiring soundbytes sized statements.
I do blame the media when they let statements go unchallenged. (Which is why some candidates won’t go on unfriendly networks.)
In all, it’s a mutually interdependent relationship between the pols and the tv networks.
The times that the candidates do have the time to get into the nitty gritty include the moderated debates, the hour (or more) long interview segment, and print media. If a candidate is not getting specific during those times, then I can see your point. However, most candidates don’t stonewall during those times.
