The answer is given by Tulsi Gabbard.
Post #2.
Please talk about Gabbard.
What do you think of her?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
There are two Left-wings
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
Post #2.
Please talk about Gabbard.
What do you think of her?
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
She can hop in
.
The second one. No use for the first.There are two lefts. Dos derechas. Deux droites. Zwei Linken.
Both in the US and in Europe.
One is lounge-loving, yacht loving and is funded by George Soros, Schwab and similar individuals.
Defined by Tulsi Gabbard as an elitist cabal of warmongers.
They only care about LGBTs and sex and what links the two. They couldn't care less about the poor or the people in need.
They only care about sipping cocktails in a luxurious yacht while speaking of opera and of Caribbean Sea cruises...
They pretend to side with the people...but won't do anything about welfare programs, like universal healthcare.
The other is totally focused on easing people's lives. They try to make American people's life better. The Left of RFK Junior...and Tulsi Gabbard. Or Sanders.
They think wars are awful and destructive and think the money spent on war should be spent on universal healthcare instead. Or on other programs meant to improve all the social classes.
So which Left do you prefer?
Only because of antipathy for her?She can hop in
Why do you dislike Tulsi? Enlighten me.
Sexualizing politics is something not worthy of the party that is supposed to take care of the weakest, regardless of their sex life.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
LGBT folk are often the target of discrimination and violence precisely because of their "sex life". How does defending their rights "sexualize" politics?
Even if I am a foreigner, and I think in a foreign language, I express myself in English, and I guess I am good enough at it, in order to be understood. Yet I am misunderstood all the time.
So I will try visual, this time.
This video shows the two left-wings debating one against the other.
And so it shows two left-wings do exist.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
What does any of this have to do with my post?Even if I am a foreigner, and I think in a foreign language, I express myself in English, and I guess I am good enough at it, in order to be understood. Yet I am misunderstood all the time.
So I will try visual, this time.
This video shows the two left-wings debating one against the other.
And so it shows two left-wings do exist.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
If there's two left wings, the bird must be flying in circles.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
I suspect its a weird way of saying that the left hasn't become a homogeneous cult like the right.
If anyone thinks Hillary Clinton was left wing the were very much misinformed.Even if I am a foreigner, and I think in a foreign language, I express myself in English, and I guess I am good enough at it, in order to be understood. Yet I am misunderstood all the time.
So I will try visual, this time.
This video shows the two left-wings debating one against the other.
And so it shows two left-wings do exist.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I actually like RFK I was convinced that blue dog Democrats don't exist anymore in the left wing , but his recent times at the podium really do sound like a breath of fresh air from the left.
Then why is she a member of the Democratic Party?
GOP is right-wing, Dems is left-wing.
That is why Gabbard left the Democratic Party. Because it has been taken over by non-leftists.
Why do you think that?
I would say "right wing" and "left wing" can be useful terms as approximations, but they're not really official nor all that specific. They can be rather vague also, since there are those who are right-wing on economic matters, yet perhaps left wing on social matters (or vice versa).
One can even have a spectrum for foreign policy, with the right-wing being militaristic and nationalistic, and the left-wing peaceful and internationalistic. For domestic law enforcement, the right-wing tends to be pro-cop, pro-law and order, while the left-wing tends to have sympathy for the victims of police brutality. In terms of environmentalism, the right-wing supports shameless polluters, while the left-wing wants to save the planet.
Because they are terms invented in Europe after the French Revolution (which is, after the birth of the USA), so they apply to European politics, almost exclusively.
But in this case: it's the exact opposite. The Democratic Party with Obama and Hillary has become the Party of War, and as Gabbard said, it is driven by an elitist cabal of warmongers who started many many wars.
Whereas Trump's party has become the Party of Peace, because during his administration no new war was started.
Yes, although even then, they can be used as approximate markers to illustrate one's basic outlook - though they're never really specific enough and oftentimes require more explanation.
That, too, seems to go back and forth. In the 1950s, one could look back on recent history and see that the wars still in active memory at the time were WW1, WW2, and the Korean War - all of which occurred under Democratic administrations. So, back then, the Democrats could be characterized as the party of war, while the Republicans were the party of "peace and prosperity." The Republicans were also virulently anti-communist, so they did not really oppose Truman going to war in Korea or even LBJ going to war in Vietnam. (There are those who even say that JFK was assassinated because he wanted to pull the US out of Vietnam.)
The Democrats have also had a history of division between the moderate Democrats (who also tended to be supportive of war) versus the more left-wing progressive Democrats who tended to be more anti-war, pro-civil rights, pro-working class, etc. Their divisions became so sharp and bitter that they came to a head in 1968, which aided Nixon's rise to the White House and the resurgence of the Republicans overall. By this time, the Republicans were fully in the warmongers' camp, while the Democrats remained sharply divided between hawks and doves.
On the other hand, Nixon did go to China and Russia and tried to reach out to those countries in peace. Ford and Carter also tried to maintain a policy of Detente, but Reagan killed all that by his own extremist warmongering attitude. Even the media shifted to warmongering, by producing and promoting movies like Top Gun, Red Dawn, Iron Eagle, Rambo, and many others. The hippies all became yuppies, so whatever was left of any "peace movement" pretty much petered out and came to nothing.
The Democrats were struggling to play catch up. Even moderates like Carter and Mondale couldn't recapture the hearts and minds of the Democratic Party, and the Republicans had practically branded them as "traitors" for being too soft on communism. They were thought of as wimpy, weak, soft - peaceniks and liberals - something that the Democrats tried to dispel by showing Michael Dukakis riding on a tank. "See? We're just as tough as you big bullies!"
The Clintons were kind of symbolic of what happened to the left-wing and to Democrats in general. They were portrayed as hippies and anti-war marchers in the 60s, but by the 90s, their generation had matured and become more responsible - or at least that's how it was often presented. Whatever was left of the "peace" and "love" movement of the 60s had been co-opted by consumerism and corporate America.
This George Carlin clip from 1996 gives a hilarious take on how the transformation took place:
At that point, both the Democrats and Republicans can be considered equally complicit in guiding and determining America's warmongering ways.
Trump wasn't exactly a peacenik, although he represents the nationalistic "America First" crowd. They're not really peaceniks, but I've noticed some divisions between the rabid interventionists versus those who think the US should mind its own business and concentrate on defense matters closer to home.
In my view, it's far preferable to take the diplomatic and peaceful approach to foreign relations, although if a country decides that they need to go to war, then all we have to do is tell our military leaders to "win the war." No more management at the political level is needed. The politicians only decide whether to go to war or not, but once that decision is made, then it's up to the professionals to take charge and win the war however it can be won.
But America's interventionist approach since WW2 hasn't really been like that. It's been a way to shroud warmongering behind a facade of perceived idealism and selfless benevolence, where we go around fighting against evil and for freedom and democracy around the world. It is, of course, a complete crock of bubbling **** and extremely hypocritical, but worse than that - it hardly ever works. We're far worse off today than we would have been if we had taken a different course after WW2.
If they really felt that way about the world, then their best bet would have been to continue fighting after WW2, let Patton and MacArthur do their worst and conquer the USSR and China - and most of the problems we have today would be non-existent. I'm not saying that they should have done that, but I can't deny that it would have made a huge difference in terms of the direction America and the world took. The interventionists tended to believe in proxy wars where we tended to operate covertly and in the shadows - something more characteristic of organized crime than any kind of legitimate government with armies which aren't afraid to show their flag in battle.
Last edited:
They're very specific in Europe.
The rightists are conservatives who defend the laissez-faire. Liberals are rightists by definition, because they rely on Adam Smith's thought. Unfortunately American democrats have hijacked these terms, and now they think that being liberal is against conservatives.
No, conservatives are the ones who defend the status quo, that is the totally free market and the economic liberalism they benefit from.
That is why conservatives are necessarily liberals.
Leftists are against this conservative mindset, because they came as a reaction to Adam Smith's laissez-faire. First there were the very first socialists in France, like Proudhon, Fourier and Saint-Simon. Then the radicals Marx and Bakunin created Communism and Anarchism respectively; in Germany Marx was discretely successful. It was in Italy that modern Socialism was born as a perfect fusion between Marxism and Bakuninism. The founder of Italian Socialism is considered Andrea Costa; and Mussolini was considered his truest admirer and follower.
But I guess that after WW2, the Americans kinda misinterpreted Europe's politics. They even thought of Hitler and Mussolini as right-wing dictators. No, they were left-wing dictators.
Probably because FDR and Truman were democrats, so they needed to create the myth of the "evil right-wing" in Europe; but it's a false myth, since the two dictators were leftists. And they both antagonized Bolshevism, because they wanted the moderate socialists of Russia (like Kerensky) to prevail over Leninism and Trotskyism.
Exactly.
Anti-Communism was used as a pretext to wage useless wars in South-East Asia.
They are right. He was murdered maaybe because he wanted to restore the presidential powers on foreign affairs.
But I believe he was murdered because he waged a war on Banking Seigniorage.
Interesting. We had a completely different story. A centrist party called Christian Democracy, supported by the USA, restlessly fighting against the Italian Socialist Party and the Italian Communist Party. The latter the biggest Communist party in the West.
Both supported by Moscow.
The hippy movement came as a reaction to the extremely conservative Christian Democracy which was against divorce, against abortion, against absolute gender equality.
But there will be two PMs, Moro and Craxi who said enough and strengthened the alliance between centrists and socialists.
As Soviet Russia collapsed, the Italian politics was completely redesigned. And the Left was replaced by a party which is practically identical to the American Democratic Party. The Italian Democratic Party.
Well...what can I say? He's 100% right.
The I want it all philosophy is the exact opposite of the apocalyptic philosophy we millennials have been raised with.
Like "oil will run out, sooner or later", "we have destroyed the environment", "don't make children".
That is why millennials are mostly childless.
Pretty so. What's the difference between Bush and Obama? None.
Trump is completely different than the rest of politician. He thinks as an European would.
It's understandable that you guys, being Americans for generation, can't see that. That he is different.
Exactly.
I have never understood this obsession the US have with reputation...
that is, wanting wars at any cost, but keeping the reputation of saints. Having the cake and eating it.
That is why the CIA has invented false flag operations and proxy wars, to justify interventionism.
Last edited:
Originally, those on the right supported the old order in France - monarchy, nobility, the Church. Those on the left supported the French Revolution and the overthrow of monarchist and/or religious rule. Nazi rule tends to be associated with the right wing because it was associated with the conservative monarchists who previously supported the Kaiser. Nazism appealed to Germany's past glories, mythology, and tradition - which are also associated with the right wing. In short, the left wing embraces new ideals, while the right wing clings to the old ideals - sometimes very old.
Yes, at first the Democrats were in full support of these wars, then the party split over the anti-war movement, then they went back to being warmongers again. The Republicans were always warmongers all along.
He should have been more mindful of his own safety.
I haven't seen the stats on millennials, but the global population still seems to keep rising.
The real irony is that, when the Boomers were younger, they knew all this. They knew about the world running out of oil, destruction of the environment, and overpopulation - among many other things. But somehow, by the 1980s, they had forgotten all of it.
Pretty so. What's the difference between Bush and Obama? None.
Trump is completely different than the rest of politician. He thinks as an European.
That makes him different in my eyes.
It's understandable that you guys, being Americans for generation, can't see that.
That he is different.
I don't know if he thinks as a European. His demeanor, personality type, and rhetoric seem more like the kind of person one might see at a roadside truck stop in the Midwest. That's why he appeals to people from that part of the country, since they see Trump as one of them. (He's not, but he puts on a good act of being "just a regular guy.")
I don't know if it's Americans' obsession with reputation or just certain elements of it. America's post-WW2 policy makes me think of the movie The Godfather - about a crime family which was struggling to gain legitimacy. Whatever dirty business had to be done was done in secret, with a standard program of denial in case anyone should bother to ask. One might well wonder why they would do that anyway. If they're doing something for America's defense and for our national interests, then the Americans would accept it. They have no reason to hide behind "national security" to cover up their misdeeds. If they're truly loyal and patriotic, they should be proud of what they do for America. The fact that they act like they're ashamed of it and have to hide it...well, that just makes people wonder just what the heck they are doing.