Is is. The dems have always been center to center right. There's a "left wing" within the party, consisting of Bernie Sanders and the likes. But the party itself and the presidents it has brought forth have never been left.
https://www.thenation.com/article/t...-any-other-administration-since-world-war-ii/ Speaking of war, Israel attacked a Syrian military airport around a week ago. 2017 sure is shaping up to be an interesting year.
Also only 1 day left till Trumps inauguration. Will everything transpire peacefully? Or will there be problems? What does everyone here think.
i suspect there will be violence in the crowd, but i don't think it'll be a big planned thing (from either side). i do live in the dc area though, and people are pretty emotional (again, from either side. more the left tho i think)
I suspect some extreme leftist is talking about the things that are illegal to say, but I doubt anything will happen.
If I was a climate change denying, socialism hating, bible bashing, borderline-racist, american... I'd actually be worried about Trump. Sure it's a big win for you for the next 4 years, but you know the right-wing backlash Obama caused... imagine the scale of the backlash Trump will cause.
I think it's mostly a media/self-description thing. The Democrats tend to describe themselves as "left" in the US, and the media here tends to oblige (as does foreign media to an extent). Since (as already covered a while ago) "left" and "right" are essentially subjective, arbitrary designations to begin with, it's a lot easier to get away with in the US where there are only two major parties. Though that said I'm certain that the Green Party and the Freedom party and such would be happy to change the narrative. Unfortunately they aren't really given a voice in mainstream media, likewise most of the time the truly leftist members of the Dems get sidelined most of the time, especially if they are critical of their own party's actions in that regard.
Anyway, I am kinda interested in the original point from this thread: As an observer to this whole shitstorm, I am pretty glad I am an ocean away because this looks like it is is heading to a nasty place. There may be a little truth in what Ragic says, but it ignores the fact that Trump himself is so offensive to so many people. He is a polarising factor - his language and his character. This is before we get to his policies. If he was a standard politician, the fact that he is happy for the rightwing circus to dictate policy would be bearable for 'the left' (or in this case, those who consider themselves left of Idi Amin)... I mean, it would be awful, but he won the election so what can you do... But, he isn't - he isn't diplomatic, he isn't subtle, he isn't magnanimous. He is gloating, he is attention seeking. People will obviously hate him passionately. But the main worry for me is not him being a ****, people are allowed to be horrible, the worry is that he is utterly unable to let anything that feels like criticism go unchallenged. So when opinion polls say he has the worst approval rating on record, he can't let it slide, he HAS to defend himself in the only way he knows, by attacking fiercely, denying facts -- say that they are fake, that there is a conspiracy against him. What effect does this have? If you voted for Trump then you are then faced with a decision -- do you believe him or do you not. If you decide you don't think he's right you are questioning your previous opinion, which we all hate doing because we don't like to doubt ourselves or to feel guilty about things. So it is easier to go along with his story 'yup it's all fake, the media lies about him'. This is polarisation because you are going from voting Trump because 'they took our jobs' or whatever, to thinking he is a crusader against a conspiracy. Fine, but what happens if it isn't just a stupid tweet about an opinion poll, what if he does something genuinely bad. After four years of thinking every piece of anti-Trump news is faked and rigged, what if he loses the next election but refuses to stand down on the grounds that 'it's all been faked'. What would Trump voters do then?
I too am glad america is an ocean away because currently it is a powder keg. a well closed off powder keg but that does not excuse the lit sparkler put on top of it. it could all be fine though. *backs away anyway*
Let's pretend that polarization hasn't been happening for awhile now, and that Republicans in Congress haven't been obstructing for the past 8 years, and that they suddenly want to compromise and it's the Democrats' fault. Let's pretend all those politicians who have signed pledges like the with Grover Norquist to never raise taxes are open to discussion and compromise and working together in a bipartisan manner. The reality is that now that there is a Republican in the WH, Congressional Republicans are chomping at the bit to pass all the stuff they couldn't get thru Obama - which is fair, they kind of have the mandate to do so for now, but pretending otherwise is just denying reality.
The US gives you freedom of religion ( I GUESS ) but not freedom FROM religion and that's a major issue. The fact that are politicians mention god more than our actual problems in the world and in the US is freakin scary. Democrats seem to have a tighter hold on reality but a lot of them are still just as bad. On the other hand Republicans are starting to think they are god sent like Donald Trump apparently thinks.
when he says "freedom from religion", i read it as "freedom from people imposing their religious beliefs upon others". which is about what you're saying, which i think would make your comment unnecessary and/or redundant, which leads me to suspect we interpreted his meaning in different ways
Indeed. I guess I just don't see his example (political leaders invoking their religious beliefs) as imposing their beliefs on others. If "mentioning God" is imposing religion, and he wants to do away with that... I read that as wanting to squelch (at least public) belief in or reference to God (or gods, I'd assume). The only major groups (in the USA) that really seem keen on forcing their beliefs on others that I've seen so far is "Radical Islam" (not to be confused with actual Islam); and some (rarer comparatively, of late) general Christian/etc. terrorists like those people that have bombed abortion clinics, or the like (for an ostensibly Christian example). All of which the politicians of the US have publicly condemned (although not all with the same phrasing/description). The other thing is, "Freedom of Religion" is a phrase referencing law... and it is already plenty legal to personally reject religion. So... unless he's calling for an purging of religious speech (or religion in general)... his comments were redundant with how reality is currently. As such, I made the assumption (perhaps incorrect) that he was not making such a silly, redundant, statement.
no, it is a shame in many places people are free to use their religious beliefs to impose rules about medical care, schoold curicullum etc. upon others.
Beliefs, religious or atheistic or other, are often the foundation of rules and laws. This does not require people to adopt those beliefs in order to abide those rules and laws. If you have a problem with a rule or law, you can and should lobby against it. If you believe the only reason for its existence is based upon imposing a concept based on religious belief (or enforcing a lack of religious belief) it should be easy to challenge within a legal context (albeit not necessarily a political one, unfortunately). Personally, and I'm not a lawyer nor a Constitutional scholar... I do not believe that discriminating against someone based on past medical procedures, or gender-identity being different from physical sex actually does fall under protecting religious freedom. In other words, I think that the recent ruling in that thread a while back is complete BS from a legal standpoint... and I do expect it to be overturned eventually. However, even that does not technically impose rules concerning medical care upon the patient. At worst it means they would need to go to another health care provider (and there is some grey area here, concerning availability of reasonable alternatives with comparable prices). In fact, all that ruling did was remove rules, which others felt (IMO incorrectly) were imposing others' beliefs upon them, the exact thing which you would call a shame (although obviously from a very different perspective). Figuring out the proper "border" between imposing and respecting beliefs is in some areas still a work in progress and many have conflicting viewpoints. Though it is progressing, and is largely going in the direction that you and I seem to agree it should. It's a shame, however, that this potential example wasn't brought up rather than: "they mentioned God! Oh woe is us all!" To the best of my knowledge, the law has sided on not forcing religious philosophy into science classes. While some might teach it in philosophy or theology classes, that's the proper place to study such things so... not really an issue; except I suppose in terms of overall variety at a given school (though honestly it's impractical to have full variety on such a wide array of topics in the first place). Some have tried to force religion (specific ones especially) into "science" classes for school, repeatedly, but it's also been repeatedly struck down. We're generally good here. TL;DR: To reiterate, having a law or regulation based on or inspired by a religious belief (or any other kind of belief) does not inherently impose your religion on others. If you think it does, than people will never have freedom of religion, as one religion or another or atheism will always be "imposing" upon everything else.
