To start this off, im not American. I have never been to the United States, and all my interactions with Americans have been either online, or in tourist situations. But something about the way US politics are progressing, especially with Sander's success during the Democratic Party's primary and then the election victory of Trump, has been bothering me.
In short terms, why is there no genuine left wing within the Democratic Party, even after it became clear that the message of the left wing, as represented in rather moderate terms for international standards by Sanders, has mass appeal? The party seems to be supressing these elements rather than allowing them atleast some type of platform.
And maybe to expand the question a bit, why is this element barely present even outside of the democratic party? The US is the most economically divided country in the western world. The perfect breeding ground for economic left wing views, no matter how one personally feels about them. Where are the young firebrands who represent these views? The new right has these people, take Ben Shapiro or even Milo Yiannopoulos. Again, no matter how one feels about them, they generate attention by a young audience with daring rhetoric. I personally dont see any counterparts on the left wing. Or is Chomsky the radical voice of young leftists in the United States?
Maybe I've got this all wrong, and just don't notice these voices from an outsiders perspective, so please im willing to learn. But if my base assumption is correct, and the US left wing is as weak as I assume it to be, why do you think that is the case?
Thanks for all answers in advance.
EDIT: Well this whole thing blew up overnight. Im currently working my way through it, and the vast majority of answers are really interesting. Im absolutely learning some things I haven't considered before.
Democrats and moderate Republicans in the House threatened GOP Congressional leadership with a discharge petition to debate immigration reform and to at least resolve the DREAMer issue. GOP leadership parried with agreeing to vote on two immigration bills that have little chance of passing. Speaker Ryan has been adamant of only passing legislation that the President will sign. President Trump has sent mixed messages about what he'd do. GOP leadership fear that immigration reform would negatively affect their midterm success. It could depress Republican turnout if they pass anything, but also risk losing independent voters by not doing anything. The President's current strategy is to place the onus on the Democrats, which doesn't gel with reality because of the existence of the discharge petition. Members of his cabinet have also justified separating families. The separation of families is striking a cord with Americans and its generating more outrage than usual. Will this lead to anything before the next Congress in January?
Two years in, Brexit negotiations stalled and the extension of March 2019 as final date is all but postponed.
In the meantime, it gained formidable opposition which speaks of the referendum's non-bindingness and/or possibilities for another referendum.
In the mean time, proponents remain vigilant to see it through.
Which side is more likely to emerge victorious in the end?
Silicon Valley mogul Tim Draper has succeeded in getting his Cal 3 Initiative on the ballot in November for a statewide referendum. If approved it would divide California into three states/ See details of the divisions here.
The proposed states would include:
California: The Central Coast and LA County. Population ~12.3 million
North California: The Bay Area, the Shasta region, and the northern half of the Central Valley. Population ~13.3 million
South California: The Southern Half of the Central Valley, the Inland Empire, the Sierra Nevadas, and Imperial Beach. Population ~13.9 Million
The proposal calls for the state government to divide the state within a year, pending approval from the US Congress.
What are the pros and cons of breaking California up in the manner outlined by Cal 3?
Each political party is a complex association of very different people, ideas, wings and so on. Their voters and the party members themselves might like ideas from other parties or not all ideas that are on their own party's agenda at the moment, but have to agree for the party to advance or to be chosen as candidate. Are political parties outdated because they keep us in an old left right pattern or do they still fit into today`s societies compared to the societies they were founded in (because even then political parties changed constantly)? Or do we need something new, because we can communicate differently now and if so, what could that be?
Modern digital platforms that distribute and organise work appear to be breaking down the dominance of traditional, centralised corporations.
On the one hand, this would seem to be a good thing for Workers' Rights - breaking the hold of powerful corporate entities, allowing for more flexibility and choice in employment, and in parallel opening new possibilities for worker solidarity and coordination through the internet.
On the other hand, low-skilled workers find themselves more isolated and atomised than ever before, unions struggle to engage with such a workforce, and there is no longer an obvious 'factory boss' for workers to bang on the door of.
Is the new world of digitally-coordinated work and 'gig economy' jobs shaping to be a good, or a bad thing in the long run? What can we do to head in the right direction? Do traditional forms of unionisation or government lobbying have a role, or do we need something radically different?
Inspired by this article:
Kentucky sues Walgreens, cites 'alarming' rate of dispensing opioids
The author, Nate Raymond, writes the following, "Kentucky's attorney general on Thursday sued Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc (WBA.O), accusing the company of playing a dual role in propagating an opioid epidemic in the state as both a pharmacy chain and wholesale drug distributor."
It later goes on to cite a quote from the Attorney General in the suit filing papers, "At the store level, Walgreens dispensed opioids at "such an alarming rate and volume that there could be no legitimate medical purpose associated to their use," according to the complaint."
Is this the new face of pushing back on the War on Drugs, and tackling the opioid epidemic? Will other State AGs follow suit and begin filing suits of their own?
The UK Government maintains a party system with a different ethos and mechanics than that of the US - a power in power and a party in opposition - where the job of the party not in power is basically to oppose whatever the Government is doing. Observation of American Government now suggests that we have unknowingly and quickly moved to that model. However, we are missing one crucial element of the English system, which is that a government is in power only for as long as it can win a majority on Parliamentary votes. Some governments only last a few weeks before another election is held. Whereas the US has a fixed four year term. So what is the implication of a fixed four years of a party in opposition?
So in this hypothetical scenario Kashmir becomes a fully independent nation. It consists of Gilgit-Baltistan, Azad Kashmir, Kashmir Valley, J&K and Ladakh. As well as the Chinese controlled areas. All of this is done peacefully, so India, Pakistan and China have no hatred towards Kashmir.
What exactly happen? Does Kashmir have what it takes to survive on it's own? Will it become a poor country with instability and infighting?
This is a very high profile loss what's left of the never-Trump Republicans from 2016. His opponent defeated him by portraying him as insufficiently loyal to the president. Can you viably run as an anti-Trump Republican at all in the next couple of cycles? Will there be a resurge of the "Kasich" wing of the party post-Trump, or is the GOP the party of Trump for a generation?
Most of the articles and rhetoric I've heard in regards to the claim that Trump is a would-be authoritarian dictator have overwhelmingly come from the left. This isn't to say that the arguments are invalid or incorrect, but there is certainly bias. I've read articles comparing Trump to Hitler, and I saw a headline the other day commenting about his "authoritarian cult". Is this a foreshadow of what's to come or sensationalist click-bait?
Bob Altemeyer would argue that the number of right-wing authoritarians far outnumber the left. If he's right, this creates bias and polarization in discourse and prevents discussion. There is not a fair representation in the media from both sides.
I pose the question here for discussion/debate in hopes of getting a bit more balance than what I'm seeing all over the news: Is Trump's behaviour indicative of one with Authoritarian tendencies, or is he acting in a reactive way in accordance to a conservative, polarized voters?
Many Western countries have or had centrist parties or coalitions that effectively unite moderate left with moderate right (to the extent that their members would often view them as "moderate" before "left" or "right"). US on the other hand has two main parties who will arguably often prefer to support more radical members of their own side over moderates from the other.
How realistic do you believe would be an emergence of a more classical centrist force in US, potentially as a third party? Perhaps certain scenarios would make it more likely (e.g. Trump vs. Sanders election), but even in that case how realistic would that be in a historically two-party environment?
I'm really to interested to learn about ways in which we can protect the workforce better than what the unions are able to do now.
Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un have officially completed their historic summit in Singapore, which marked the fist time a USA and a DPRK head of state met directly.
After a photo-op handshake, the American president and the North Korean supreme leader spoke for about three hours. One hour with just the two of them (and translators), and two hours including their top diplomats. Both leaders have signed a written statement that seems to say little else than that a meeting took place, and that both parties are committed to a continuing dialogue from this point onward.
Is there any indication that North Korea will hold up their end of the bargain? Past presidents have attempted to start denuclearisation processes, and all have failed at one point or another. How does this affect the people living under the direct threat of a nuclear North Korea, most notably South Korea and Japan? Similarly, how can North Korea be sure that America will hold up their end, especially with the recent developments on the Iran deal and the G7 summit (Edit: and Lybia of course)? What happens if they do, what happens if they don't?
What does this mean for ordinary people living in North Korea? Will this affect them in any meaningful way? What about five or ten years from now?
Seeing as North Korea was one of the few areas where Americans consistently approved of Trump's actions (i.e. his net approval on the subject was consistently positive), this was a hugely important summit for him. Will this be painted as a great success and a first step of many, or as a glorified photo-op. What will this mean for him politically?
Are there other interesting or unexpected developments from the USA-NK summit that could affect the rest of the world?
Nation states have not been around for that long. Different countries' populations are not culturally or otherwise homogeneous and people of different countries have more in common than their separation suggests. Most countries are very similar concerning policies too, so that cannot be the justification either. So the main reasons for their existence are history and a common language (although all are multilingual, some even officially). With a rise in nationalism and globalism at the same time, how long do you think nation states will last and what will be next?
While the recent summit with North Korea has overshadowed the end of the G7 meeting, it continues to be a topic of discussion in Canada after Donald Trump's negative comments about the Canadian Prime Minister and the statement by Peter Navarro that there's "a special place in hell" for Justin Trudeau.
The reaction in Canada has unified Canadian political parties in support of the government including a strong statement of support by the populist Doug Ford who was recently elected to be the next Premier of Ontario. Mr. Ford is often seen as "Canada's Donald Trump" and while that characterization may not be accurate, he has been an outspoken critic of Justin Trudeau... and now says he will stand shoulder to shoulder with Trudeau against Donald Trump.
Stephen Harper the former Conservative Prime Minister was recently on Fox News defending the actions of the Liberal Prime Minister who defeated him in the election.
What are American perspectives on this bilateral dispute?
After following the discussions about Trump, the rise of the alt-right, the new ultra-nationalists and so on where identity politics seem to be at the center of the emotional pull I also noticed something else: The "other" side (probably what you traditionally might call the "left" or "progressive") seems to have very little achievable mid-term visions that I could clearly see or understand, let alone identify with.
I understand that there are a number of 'hot' long-term issues, eg health-care insurance for everybody, that have been tackled in as much as something like that is "solvable" in most developed countries except for the US. Or something like multinational free trade (a vision which originated in a different political environment) which seems to become a reality. All these things have been discussed for decades and most people have picked their side. People get emotional about these subjects, but I can't see anything that I would describe as a vision.
So my question would be:
What kind of vision for the next 5-10 years would make me want to support the progressive cause? (and steer me away from political fatigue - which would make me vote for a disruptive candidate sooner or later)
This is more of a thread on the rhetoric that Oppositions chooses to engage in and not about the actions of Donald Trump, President of the United States.
Trump has refused to sign the G7 joint statement, openly stating that traditional United States allies are taking tremendous advantage of the United States in trade, and has suggested that Russia should rejoin the Group of 7. Trump has made many overtures to Russia, has developed a personal relationship with Xi Jinping, and has agreed to meet with Kim Jun Un.
Irregardless of whether or not Trump's statements or positions have merit, why isn't the Opposition in the United States screaming the accusation that Trump appeases, emboldens, or gives quarter to the US' enemies while alienating the US' allies? Wasn't this the criticism often leveled at Barack Obama during his tenure in office? Why isn't the criticism leveled back at Trump?
Edit: This post is not about whether or not Russia or any other country is actually a US ally or enemy. Such questions are complicated, and the answers naturally change with time and circumstance. The post is about political tactics.
It can be hard to tease apart which country falls into which category, and the difference between semi presidential and parliamentary systems are especially hard to tease apart, in particular in countries which are just starting out as the entities they are. Some powers are almost certainly given to presidents in republics, but which ones can they still hold for a country to be parliamentary?
In asking this question I am especially interested in Continental European colonies in Africa and the post Soviet Slavic Republics (excluding the Istan countries).
It's been reported by multiple news outlets that President Trump tears up papers when he's done with them. Obviously, this is a violation of the Presidential Records Act. Right now, staffers are trying to comply with the act by literally taping torn pages back together. What is the penalty for violating the Presidential Records Act? Who would enact the penalty (Congress, courts)? Is there any realistic way for someone to force the administration to abide by this law or is it another one that everyone just assumed people would abide by?
The G7, briefly organized as the G8, was originally created as a forum for the world's major industrialized nations, mostly in response to the 1973 oil crisis and the formation of OPEC. The group consists of the United States, Japan, France, Italy Britain, and Germany (who collectively are treated as representing the EU), and Canada.
However, if the goal of the group is to be a forum for the world's leading economies, why aren't China and India (the world's 2nd and 7th largest economies respectively) included? Additionally, if Canada (the world's 10th largest economy) is a member, why not Brazil (the world's 9th largest economy)?
What is the logic behind excluding so many nations with economies much larger than many of the current members?
As it currently shapes up, RealClearPolitics is saying Republicans have a lock on 206 seats while Democrats have a lock on 196. Assuming a blue advantage in the election, we could be seeing an extremely thin Democrat majority (ie ~218 seats, plus or minus a few). Conversely, Republicans could barely maintain their hold on the House with only a few seats to spare.
If that happens, how would it change the dynamic of the new Speaker of the House? Assuming a narrow Dem victory, could Pelosi manage to lasso the votes of every single Democrat and get herself elected as Speaker, or is she too polarizing of a figure to manage this? Several conservative Democrats have spent the entire campaign bashing her in their districts and would be reluctant to go on record voting for her. On the other hand, assuming a narrow Rep victory, leading contenders like Kevin McCarthy are hardly universally beloved by other Republicans and could have a hard time getting every GOP member on board to vote for them.
Therefore if the House is in such a delicate balance, which representatives could make a good new Speaker of the House? Ideally someone with both leadership skills and crossover appeal?
India being the second fastest growing economy and many Indian immigrants moving to developed nations and proving them selves to be the best white collar workers shows that they are a country to have good ties with. As an Indian my self Indians very much respect the US and many dream of starting a life here, so public support would favor creating closer ties. The only issue I see that could be a problem is our ties to Saudi Arabia (Iran's greatest enemy and Iran being India's closest ally), our on going feuds with Iran, and our ties to Pakistan and China. But I belive that a good relationship between the strongest economies(US, Japan, UK, France, Italy) will really boost the economy of India, and maybe could be the next permanent country in the g7 summit.
States do not need the help of congress to pass and ratify a constitutional amendment. Since the federal government has not been proactively protecting the rights of all our citizens, do you think it is possible enough states would step up and solve the issues themselves if enough of their constituents held rallies and gained some political momentum?
I think one of the largest issues Americans face today is a lack of information. The news covers things that they think Americans should care about. The facts are simple, since Trump has become president, Congress and the executive branch have been more focused on the economy than social change. This makes sense since Trump is a Republican, but we still need to be aware that as much as 4% of the population are not being protected by the first amendment.
Edit: I'm really sorry for that "an" haha
After all the push back from America's allies on tariffs trump has reversed his position and is now suggesting we get rid of tariffs all together amongst the allied nation's.
An interesting move after getting the leaders of the EU and Canada to openly speak out against tariffs as attacks on our partnership.
If the allied nation's removed all tariffs (a long shot) how would this affect the US and or world economy?
Has Trump gained the upper hand by getting allied leaders to speak out so strongly against tariffs to then turn around and call for no tariffs?
Discussion about politics. Talk amongst yourselves. Politely and informatively.