Interestingly enough, the hard leftists object the most to the "hard left" label.there's plenty that belong to the group. that they're not a common feature of the electoral establishment should be a surprise to nobody.
defining what is or is not "hard" left based on what is represented in mainstream politics is another level of absurd.
Are you describing Jeremy Corbyn still or depressed gay people on twitter?- hard-leftists typically live in their own bubbles where they quarel over purity of their ideology and taking moral stands as if it's a competition. Once they emerge from this bubble, everyone else looks like an immoral right-wing fascist.
If you want to give a message you kill people like Soleimani that say all the time "Usa had an agreement with us, that means they are weak, we must destroy them!". This is the Obama style too, not just Trump: surgical attacks against hostile leaders.The answer is simple, they are improving their negotiating position before sitting with Biden and making deals. The bombing was more of a message than anything, as were their provocations (rocket attack in Iraq, IAEA breaches). Alternatively, it could be the Iranian hardliners trying to scupper a deal, but that AGAIN proves Biden did the right thing. You NEED to respond to provocations when they are testing you, or you'll show weakness.
If you want to give a message you kill people like Soleimani that say all the time "Usa had an agreement with us, that means they are weak, we must destroy them!". This is the Obama style too, not just Trump: surgical attacks against hostile leaders.
Instead neocons cried when Soleimaini was killed and now is randomly bombing so iranian people will rally for their regime.
That doesn't surprise me: Democratic Party voted against Iraq invasion in 2003 BUT there were few George Walker Bush cheerleaders that infiltrated the party and Biden was one of them.
- everyone wants to see themselves as reasonable centrist and not some extremist
WokeHere's some random unrequested mildly interesting math fact. If you take a small dimensional space, there's a good chance a random point in it will lay it far away from the edges. If however you take a high dimensional space, a random point in it has a very high chance of laying close to one of the edges.
This means that we are all extremists in some regard, once you consider enough aspects. It could be political beliefs, it could be how much sugar we put in coffee or our disdain for the combat system in Bannerlord. Extremists, all of us!
Therefore, we live in a low dimensional space, namely a left-right/populist-technocracist 2D space.Here's some random unrequested mildly interesting math fact. If you take a small dimensional space, there's a good chance a random point in it will lay it far away from the edges. If however you take a high dimensional space, a random point in it has a very high chance of laying close to one of the edges.
Dream on. The wording of a few Tweets on Jan. 6 mean nothing, and he wasn't even there.What crime? Sedition, fraud, violation of his presidential oath, possibly even treason, which carries a potential death penalty.
Agreed on this. The evidence is not foolproof. Giulianni is more likely to be prosecuted there for his "trial by combat" exhortation.Dream on. The wording of a few Tweets on Jan. 6 mean nothing, and he wasn't even there.
He and his family got to attend ethics class or something. Maybe this time he would do community service, jerking off Mexican rapists?I also doubt he'll get caught for tax fraud. When New York Times wrote extensively about his tax avoidance in the 90's it was all legal.
It's so easy to avoid paying taxes legally that there's no need to actually cheat. If he gets convicted it's on minor technicalities.
Hell, when he admitted to using funds from his charity foundation in New York to pay debts, he just had to pay back $2 million and nothing more.
It was barely talked about. So even when he committed fraud no one cared.
Genuine question: don't you feel that just using "left" and "right" kind of implies that the respective political standpoint is compliant with fundamental assumptions of society (not sure where this comes from btw), ie. with its core values and traditions, in the first place? Unless accompanied by a very clear disclaimer word along the lines of radical or, to a lesser degree, far. Ie. the usual left right spectrum debates, as long as people do not attach fifty pages of academic memoranda beforehand, pressupose a limitation to compliance with modern democratic state?I'm pretty sure you know this isn't what monty meant, but aside from this dogmatic Marx tier phrasing I kind of agree.
As useless as I think the terms "left" and "right" are most of the time, the core definition of left wing is to reject or want to to away with the fundamental assumptions of society, and right now the core of western society is somewhere between neoconservatism and liberal capitalism. By this definition everyone from Ted Kaczynski to Josef Stalin to Malcolm X is a leftist, which is why I think the defintion is pointless because of how many contradictory views it encompasses.
Even so, as vague as this definition is, none of these screaming blonde *****es or smug college stubble boys who prostitute themselves in service of the democratic party by churning out a bazillion videos, or even bernie sanders, can be considered leftist, let alone "hard left" like Brutus said. They want to reform the system by raising minimum wage slightly and making the law less discriminatory, while maintaining as much of it as possible, including liberalism and including capitalism. They're reformists, not jacobins. If someone like this is a "hard" leftist then basically every non-bourgeois person in the world is erect and ready to pop.
This is not a good argument, as long as there are differences in two ideologies they will be somewhat contradictory. If you want a word to refer to a family of ideas it will encompass plenty contradictory views.which is why I think the defintion is pointless because of how many contradictory views it encompasses.
I can see that being a good use, bear in mind that I spent most of my school statistics class flicking rubber bands and never really think about it enough.IMO even asking people "consider 1 farthest to the left, 10 farthest to the right, from a scale of 1-10, how would you politically define yourself?" allows you to predict whom they will vote, what policies they like pretty good. And this is widely used in researches, and I think even that is sufficient evidence that Left/Right distinction is useful.
I don't necessarily think so, because:Genuine question: don't you feel that just using "left" and "right" kind of implies that the respective political standpoint is compliant with fundamental assumptions of society (not sure where this comes from btw), ie. with its core values and traditions, in the first place?
I think this is more or less what I meant. The right to private property for example is something that's basically infallible in mainstream American culture and the root of much of the rest of their politics, so I wouldn't get annoyed if someone wanting to fundamentally change private property was called a hard leftist. On the other hand, Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders have done nothing like this. Maybe deep down they want to see the world burn, but looking at their fairly tame public rhetoric and deciding to call them hard leftist just reeks of the Daily Mail to me.my intrinstic reaction to seeing hard left / hard right is something about someone not that thrilled with the idea of e.g. the right to property / e.g. social and economic rights and wanting to adjust the balance accordingly.
One way to deal with the similarities of the hard left and right is to lump them together on another axis, populism.I don't think for example you could have something as strange and uncohesive as the Reagan social consensus without drumming it into people's heads that X group of policies is Left and Y group is Right. It makes no real ideological sense for someone who wants to nationalise rail to also be a gay rights activist, or for a CoE congregation member to also be a Brexit nationalist, but so often these things are treated in public discourse as basically the same thing. When something like the BNP or Le Pen comes along and offers a mixture of "left" and "right", media outlets are almost incredulous and don't know whether to throw the baby out with the bathwater or not. I don't think the words left and right are purely to blame for this, but they make the dichotomy far easier to draw.
NYT has two recent scandals, both very minor. The one you mention is about an Arab fantasist that claimed he was in ISIS and was believed without corroboration in a series of podcasts (the journo was fired/quit) and the other about one of their senior journos saying the n word at some workshop where it was actually used to discuss racists. The last one was also forced to apologize and maybe even quit.I'm surprised that Bloomberg is in the middle and pure 'fact reporting'. Also, NYT just 'skewing left' + 'fact reporting' is quite an understatement, considering the recent scandals regarding reports on the Middle East done by a journalist.