🇳🇱
Can you list what policies of Biden or Obama's that either of them took action to execute in some way, that is a right-leaning policy stance?
As far as I know every single one of their policy stances and actions have been left side of the fence:
* increased restrictions on guns
* push towards universal single payer healthcare
* pro-abortion
* pro equal oppertunity
* pro free education/loan forgivness.
Literally cant think of a single thing they pushed for that is right.
And yes, obviously we want people to follow their conscious and be a good person... funny that huh, its almost like having a conscious is important, but so are other things.
@freemo @pyranose @georgetakei Both Biden and obama never did anything but increase military spending. Obama ramped up drone bombing. Biden has continued the border policies of the trump administration, including family separations. GITMO is still open. There is little or no movement on major polluters, curbing drug company monopolies, and a net increase in fossil fuel land leases.
In many cases, it is a lack of action from the Biden and Obama administrations, but that isn't a left position either. It is a pretty far right position. Don't pass a law for federally protected abortion rights...
And I don't think Obama adopting Mitt Romney's healthcare plan is a left wing plan either, and there is no push from Biden for a single payer system. In fact, I believe biden took that off the table in the Dem primaries back in 2020.
I see both Obama and Biden as right wingers. I'm far from the only one (https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2020) :
@Free_Idealist @pyranose @freemo @georgetakei
Reality sucks, eh?
Yea the reality that people believe this does indeed suck.
@freemo @Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei , I am sure someone can come up with a counter to the argument. But I have yet to see it. And without any argument to the contrary, and what I have seen, I tend to agree with the placement of those people on that scale.
Just for an example, there are reasons Biden was called "The Senator from MBNA", a credit card company.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2008/08/senator-mbna-byron-york/
> I am sure someone can come up with a counter to the argument. But I have yet to see it.
Which argument? That the plot above sucks and isnt remotely accurate?
Of course someone has, we just spent quite a while doing line by line on policy and decisions and showing how virtually every vote Biden or Obama have ever made has been left leaning with very very few examples of right leaning ones.
Now you may not agree with the argument, which is fine your allowed to be wrong, but to claim you have never even seen an argument formulated, when we just got through with one, is clearly erroneous.
> And without any argument to the contrary,
Except the one I just spent quite some time laying out...
> and what I have seen
Which seems selective...
> I tend to agree with the placement of those people on that scale.
I would expect you would incorrectly draw that conclusion, given your selective eye sight :)
> Just for an example, there are reasons Biden was called "The Senator from MBNA", a credit card company.
Do you think in order to be left you have to be anti-large company or something? I mean sure that starts to develop at the very radicalized extreme ends of the left... but no hating large companies is not a strict requirement barrier to the left. Assuming of course those businesses are well regulated (an unregulated business would be more of a right thing)
@freemo @Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei
I would say that you being in the thick of the forest your sight is blinded by the trees. As for selective eye sight, we all suffer from that. No exceptions to that rule.
No, I don't think to be left you have to be anti large company. I would suggest not being anti large company is a common feature for the right though. I would say being in favor of corporate government enforced monopolies is a strong indication you are pretty far right wing. With almost no room for exceptions to that rule. I would also argue that 'unregulated businesses is not a right wing position. The right loves mountains of regulations that support their major donors, and inhibit competition. That privatize profits, while socializing costs like pollution.
> I would say that you being in the thick of the forest your sight is blinded by the trees. As for selective eye sight, we all suffer from that. No exceptions to that rule.
I would argue quite the opposite. As someone who has spent his whole live living around the world, often moving from country to country every half a year or year or so... someone who has experienced, been a resident, dealt witht he healthcare and the taxes and almost every aspect of living, and done this in a vast array of different countries in different regions... if anything this gives a perspective outside "the forest" and makes my eyesight less selective.
In fact I'd say you, as someone I presume has mostly only ever lived in one country (or one region like europe) and has only ever heard one countries echo chamber and lived it... you ont eh other hand are more likely to be stuck int he forrest with selective vision so to speak.
That said im not saying I have no bias, clearly i have plenty, just as we all do. What I am saying is that of the two of us, given our expiernce, I am less likely to be indoctrinated to this stuff.
> No, I don’t think to be left you have to be anti large company. I would suggest not being anti large company is a common feature for the right though.
Something being a common property of the left or the right does not make it a proper of the left or the right, nor does beleiving it change where you are on the scale.
Generally the right is older and the left is younger. That doesnt mean I can argue that two people with identical opinions on policy the younger one leans more left than the older one.
I think you are confusing the DNC and GOP with left vs right. There are quite a few things people on either side tend to sharein common that has nothing to do with defining that side.
> I would say being in favor of corporate government enforced monopolies is a strong indication you are pretty far right wing.
I know what monopolies are... I know how lack of monopoly laws has a tendency to result in monopolies forming... but how do you "enforce monopolies" I have never heard of someone in the GOP actively forcing the creation of a monopoly by .. what... forcing smaller companies to merge until they become a monopoly.... I dont even know what this means.
That said I do agree that the left will generally be anti-monopoly, and the right tends to not care so much about monopolies. But just to be clear a monopoly is not a large company, and even when companies become megalarge that doesnt necceseraly mean its a monopoly. A monopoly is only tangentally related to the size of the company.
> I would also argue that ‘unregulated businesses is not a right wing position
Yes. Loosely speaking i would say the right is about individual/entity freedom, and the left focuses on collective welfare. This generally means the right prefers to put as few limitations on people and businesses as possible (unregulated) while the left usually forces (regulates) the individual to act for the greater good even if it harms them as an individual to do so.
> The right loves mountains of regulations that support their major donors, and inhibit competition.
Not really. I mean yea they are corrupt just like the democrats and will take pay to do things that help their corperate buddies, sure.. this is corruption and its on both sides. But in terms of policy they tend to be far less heavy on regulating their donors competition than the democrats would be willing to.
> That privatize profits, while socializing costs like pollution.
Witht he right focusing on individual freedoms and the left focusing on collective welfare then yea. Naturally the right is going to care more about an individuals right to do things that may cause pollution than they will care about the pollution, I'd agree with that.
@freemo @Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei
"I think you are confusing the DNC and GOP with left vs right."
Nope, I am saying they are both right wing. And posted a link that I agree with, that shows they are testibly both right wing.
"how do you “enforce monopolies” "
Pretty easy. Licencing.
"Witht he right focusing on individual freedoms and the left focusing on collective welfare then yea."
The right stands firmly against individual freedoms. They are against body autonomy, and that is the very foundation of individual freedom. If you don't own yourself, and have the right to do what you want with your own body, you have no basic freedoms. And, I would say the 'left' in America is not far separated from the 'right.' Because there is no left wing in America.
> Nope, I am saying they are both right wing. And posted a link that I agree with, that shows they are testibly both right wing.
Yes that much is clear. That is also not the comment you made where i said you seemed to be confusing the two.
> Pretty easy. Licencing.
Ok so what act of licening did Obama carry out that explicitly forced the creation of a monopoly?
> The right stands firmly against individual freedoms.
yea, no.
> They are against body autonomy
Mostly no, though there are always exceptions from individual members.
For example on abortion (I am pro abortion myself).. the right usually focuses on preserving the bodily autonomy of BOTH the mother and the baby. Some go so far as to only care about the bodily autonomy of the baby by completely outlawing abortions. Others care about both by proposing extremely narrow abortion windows that garuntee the woman still has a right to abortion early on, but once nerves and braincells form in the baby that its own self-determination is also honored. Generally the left cares **only** about the mothers bodily autonomy and is perfectly fine violating the babies right to self-determination. They do this for the "greater good" because otherwise it would harm our communities and mothers. Meanwhile the right doesnt care too much about the community or the reprocussions so long as both the mother and childs life is protected.
Another example of bodily autonomy is vaccines, while the right generally sided strongly with personal freedom and allowing people to have the right to choose if they want to vaccinated or not, the left went the other way and sided with collective welfare and prefred to support vaccine passports, getting fired from jobs, and being denied service, all grossly intrustive to the individual forcing us to make public part of our medical history effectively. It is clear on this issue again the right sided with individual rights and freedoms while the left focused on collective welfare.
Even on issues of Drug use the right has focused more on personal freedom of late than the left. While Biden explicitly stated he would not legalize cannavis Trump claimed to support its legalization. While he never legalized it he did pass the farm bill which comes pretty damn close (its now legal in america to order psychadelic cannabis products across the whole country, though still with some restrictions).
> And, I would say the ‘left’ in America is not far separated from the ‘right.’ Because there is no left wing in America.
Well as established this is wrong, per the thread.
@freemo @Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei
"Ok so what act of licening did Obama carry out that explicitly forced the creation.."
Not sure he did create a monopoly, although I assume his administration oversaw the creation of a few. But without any doubt he continued the policies for existing monopolies, in the oil and gas industry, cable TV, internet service providers, pharmaceuticals, auto manufacturers, insurance companies (that is a HUGH one under Obama) and literally thousands of other monopolies licensed by the state.
"the right usually focuses on preserving the bodily autonomy of BOTH the mother and the baby."
If you have an abortion ban that says you can not remove a dead fetus from a mother, then you do not care about the body autonomy of the mother. Google up "abortion ban dead fetus" for examples where this is undeniably true. The right doesn't care about body autonomy. If they did, they would support drug use, prostitution, abortion, trans gender surgery, etc. And 'the left' doesn't support those things either. Which to me indicates that 'the left' is almost as far right as 'the right.' As for vaccines, I think American history is full of forced vaccines. The 1st forced vaccines were done by George Washington (innoculations). We have had vaccine passports since about WW I. Every school kid in public school has needed one since about 1950, Public health isn't a left or right issue, and there have always been ways to bypass vaccines.
"Well as established this is wrong, per the thread."
Repetition is not proof. When the BLM candidates control even 25% of the government, when the Rent is Too Damn High Party has even NYC, when The ANTIFA party has 100 congressmen, and 30 senators... then their MIGHT be a left wing in this country. Right now we have the theocratic right, and the Senator from a credit card company.
> Not sure he did create a monopoly
Ok then this wasnt even a valid point then.
> although I assume his administration oversaw the creation of a few. But without any doubt he continued the policies for existing monopolies, in the oil and gas industry, cable TV, internet service providers, pharmaceuticals, auto manufacturers, insurance companies (that is a HUGH one under Obama) and literally thousands of other monopolies licensed by the state.
He isnt a dictator, he doesnt get to dictate the state of things. He can, at best, suggest a bill (this is rare), and he can veto bills, thats it.. You act like he can go in and change anything to whatever he wants... it doesnt work that way.
So all we can do if we are honestly evaluate if he is left or right, is not to look at the things he never had a decision to make on at all.. we look on the votes he did make the actions he did. This nonsense of "everything wasnt perfect when he left so he is right wing for not fixing everything" is so beyond absurd...
> If you have an abortion ban that says you can not remove a dead fetus from a mother, then you do not care about the body autonomy of the mother.
On this I agree, then you dont care.. however that is **not** the stance of the right as a whole, so you are just blowing hot air on that one. While they are generally against abortion, sure, but whether or not they can abort a dead fetus is not a left or right idea specifically.
> Google up “abortion ban dead fetus” for examples where this is undeniably true.
I just searched it... what I found was that an overwhelming majority (66%) of the GOP beleive abortion should be legal under extenuating circumstances such as a dead fetus, risk to the mother, rape, etc.
So yea thanks, the search confirmed this is **not** a majority held property of those on the right. More importantly it wouldnt be objectively either per my above comments.
> The right doesn’t care about body autonomy.
Seeing as you encouraged me to look it up and the actual data confirmed perfectly the scenario I said and debunked your own... seems this is clearly proven to be false if we are judging them based on their policy stance.
> If they did, they would support drug use, prostitution, abortion, trans gender surgery, etc.
Well as covered earlier they actually **do** support drug use, more so then the left anyway. While Biden actively said he would not legalize marijuana Trump said he would... and while Trump didnt fully achieve it he came pretty damn close with the Farm Bill passed.
Abortion we already covered too.
Prostitution I agree is a right-wing policy stance. The GOP, while being mostly right wing, is not synonymous with the right wing. On most issues they pick a right-wing stance on very few they pick a left-wing... this is one of the few the GOP picks a left wing stance by not supporting it.
> And ‘the left’ doesn’t support those things either. Which to me indicates that ‘the left’ is almost as far right as ‘the right.’
No you mean the DNC doesnt support it. the DNC is not the same as the left even though they as a party are on the left (a person can be on the left and hold some non-left view so long as the aggregate is clearly left). When you go down the policy list of the DNC 98% of it is all on the left, 2% might be right wing ideas.... most of the policy stance however is not a right or left principle and denotes a different metric (like authoritarianism, which is independent of left or right)
> s for vaccines, I think American history is full of forced vaccines. The 1st forced vaccines were done by George Washington (innoculations). We have had vaccine passports since about WW I. Every school kid in public school has needed one since about 1950, Public health isn’t a left or right issue, and there have always been ways to bypass vaccines.
This doesnt even address what was said... Whether forcing people to take a drug is common and has been done before has absolutely **no** relevance on if it is a left or right wing principle... To argue its been the normal since forever as some twisted argument that it is left or right wing is just nonsensical and does nothing to advance that point.
Being against forced drugging of people (personal freedom) is a right wing principle... force drugging people for the greater good is a left wing principle. The fact that it has been done before and isnt new has no bearing on that.
> Repetition is not proof.
I agree, and what you responded to was not me repeating myself, so also not relevant. I had pointed to the fact this was already proven and evidence laid out earlier in the same message.. that is not repetition, that is avoiding repetition and refering you to the original proof instead.
> When the BLM candidates control even 25% of the government, when the Rent is Too Damn High Party has even NYC, when The ANTIFA party has 100 congressmen, and 30 senators… then their MIGHT be a left wing in this country. Right now we have the theocratic right, and the Senator from a credit card company.
Yea this is also really disconnected from what is being discussed... we arent saying the country is a left-wing country... we are saying Obama and Biden were left wing... huge difference. It amazed me you cant see how poorly your arguing your point... like somehow the entire country having high rent or somethign proves Obama and Biden werent left wing.... i almost sprained my muscled rolling my eyes on this one.
@freemo @Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei
"like somehow the entire country having high rent or somethign proves"
I never made that argument.
> I never made that argument.
You said:
> ...when the Rent is Too Damn High Party has even NYC... then their MIGHT be a left wing in this country
So yea you implied that the rent being too damn high, and it not being addressed the way you want it to be, is somehow an argument in this thread where you are arguing that no (or at least almost no) left wing candidates exist.
This was absurd.
@freemo @Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei The Rent is Too Damn High is the name of a left wing political party.
Thanks, yes that confirms what i said earlier, it is a single issue party whose focus is on the rent being too high in NY.
@freemo @Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei
“like somehow the entire country having high rent or somethign proves”
I never made that argument.
No but you did make the argument that not having fringe politicial group in power whose sole purpose is to lower rent prices is an point supporting your argument here (which is about if Obama and Biden are left or right)
@freemo @Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei
My point was, and is, that there do exist some actual lefty parties. They are NOT in power. Only right wing parties have power in the United States. All left parties are out of power.
> My point was, and is, that there do exist some actual lefty parties. They are NOT in power. Only right wing parties have power in the United States. All left parties are out of power.
Seeing as all the evidence clearly showed the democrats are a left-wing party. Arguing some other left-wing party that is a joke and has no stance on any issue excpet one issue in one state, completely fails to make your point. An obscure non-functional left wing party not being elected but a different left wing party (DNC) being elected does nothing to advance your argument as to whether or not the DNC is left wing.
@freemo @Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei
"Seeing as all the evidence clearly showed the democrats are a left-wing party."
Except it doesn't clearly show that. Let me know when they have ANY left wing stance at all, like BLM, ANTIFA, defund the police, end wars, UBI, open borders, body autonomy, etc. Or even the rent being too damn high.
ahh there you are making the Fallacy of Composition yet again... yea this is why its clear your in the wrong, you lay into fallacies and even when they are explained to you you just ignore it and keep repeating it....
As stated, I listed over 20 specific votes and introduced bills by both Obama and Biden within the thread that are clearly left wing. So there is that but thats not the point.
You just listed a bunch of left wing things you want to see.. your upset because all the ideals adopted by the left in the USA are moderate left ideals rather than the more extreme left ideals you demand... Just because they arent as extreme as you in their leftism doesnt make them right... A person on the left doesnt have to adopt every single fathomable left-wing idea anyone can favricate in order to be considering ont he left... thats just absurd... That said there have been a ton of left wing stuff they DO support, so the point has been very well proven.
@freemo @Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei
"Clearly left wing".
Those words don't mean what you think they mean. They may be clearly left wing to YOU. But to me, they are all pretty far right. Go back to my statement about forests and trees.
No they are **objectively** left wing to anyone who is objective and knowledgable in the matter.
I do expect people who have strong biases (particularly those ont he extreme end of the spectrum) to think that though.
@freemo @Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei
I think you don't understand the range of the political spectrum. I don't feel you CAN understand it. I think it is remarkably astute of you to understand that a left party is fringe at all, but fail to understand why.
Your free to think that... and of course i would say your wrong.
@freemo @Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei , just curious, where would you place Democratic socialists, actual socialists, and the communist party of America?
@freemo @Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei , or the Green Party...
> just curious, where would you place
So keeping in mind the left isnt a single point in space... as a politicial spectrum its a bit like the real number line. There is a clear center dividing left and right in an absolute way, the 0.. but the left goes off into the negatives infinitely, and the right goes off into the positives infinitely.
In other words just because two things are on the left doesnt mean they are anywhere near eachother in the extremity of their ideology. Something at -1 (slightly on the left) will not at represent something that is -1000 (extremely left) which in turn wont look much like anything at -1000000... I mean sure they may all match a core defintiion, but some may embrace that definition to a larger extreme... much as all those numbers are all negative numbers (and thus similar in one way) they are still very different numbers.
> Democratic socialists
left
> actual socialists
left
> communist party
left
> or the Green Party...
left
That said they are all on very very different parts of the left spectrum and not at all near eachother on that spectrum, but still clearly in the left.
More important on other political spectrum scales (such as authoritarianism) these ideologies vary greatly and arent on the same sides of many of those scales.
@freemo @Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei
Looking at your number line... you see the Dems, Obama, and Biden as closer to the socialists, Greens, etc. than to the GOP? Really?? On a scale from 1-100, I see the GOP about 80. I see the dems about a 70. Dem socialists about 50, socialists about 20. Greens come in at about 30 maybe? Anything to the right of Saunders, at 50, is 'right wing.' Anything to the left of him is 'left wing.'
Your point about authoritarian vs libertarian... I addressed that in my initial post with a picture from political compass.
> Looking at your number line… you see the Dems, Obama, and Biden as closer to the socialists, Greens, etc. than to the GOP? Really??
Nope, lets use the analogy to show why.
I am just going to pick arbitrary numbers they dont represent where I think these parties fall on the left-right spectrum. They are just to illustrate a point:
Lets say, hypothecially, that communists were -10000, socialists -1000, green party -100... so all on the left... now if the democrats were -1, and the GOP were +1, then the democrats would be on the left, and the GOP on the right, but the democrats would be more similar in general to the GOP than they would any of the other parties on the left. Doesnt change the fact they are on the left.
> On a scale from 1-100, I see the GOP about 80. I see the dems about a 70. Dem socialists about 50, socialists about 20. Greens come in at about 30 maybe? Anything to the right of Saunders, at 50, is ‘right wing.’ Anything to the left of him is ‘left wing.’
Thats an odd scale being one-sided to represent a two dimensional property.... in this scale 1 represents "the least X" and 100 represents "the most X" what is X?. A single magnitude scale makes no sense when talking about a binary unbounded spectrum.
@freemo @Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei
100 would be Genghis Khan. 0 would be government at all. Number lines are just a range. I just don't see the need for anything other than whole numbers here. If you want to toss in authoritarians... then refer to the Nolan charts.
> 100 would be Genghis Khan. 0 would be government at all.
No im not asking examples of things that are at 0 or 100... I am asking, what quality is 0 to 100 measuring?
> I just don’t see the need for anything other than whole numbers here.
My objection has nothing to do with you using whole numbers. I used whole numbers in my example too. The difference here is more fundemental than that...
my line had an absolute inflection point (0) that divides the two categories, yours has an arbitrary point (50) which is relative rather than absolute, that makes a huge difference. Your scale represents things like "hot, cold, warm" but would fail to represent things like "what is my altitude above sea level" where there is a clear 0 people, clear negatives, and clear positives, and no maximum or minimum
So by going from an unbounded (infinite at both ends) scale with an absolute center point (0) to one that has none of that is a VERY different representation and is not capable of representing the information we want.
> If you want to toss in authoritarians
Nope, I have no interest in tossing this in, why would we want to it has no relavance to if your on the left or right, it is a different metric. My point is two things can be on the exact same point of the left-right scale and still be vastly different when measured by other scales.
@freemo @Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei
"what quality is 0 to 100 measuring?"
A gestalt. 1 being far left principles, 100 being far right. If you want more info:
> A gestalt. 1 being far left principles, 100 being far right. If you want more info:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_political_spectrum#:~:text=Generally%2C%20the%20left%20wing%20is,tradition%2C%20reaction%20and%20nationalism%22.
Your response is non-sensical. You are telling me you are measuring two properties, left-principles vs right principles, and using a one dimensional value to represent a two dimensional idea... that makes no sense.
Take altitude from my earlier example (which is a value of the same dimensions as left-right)... how would you represent that on a 0-100 scale... you cant, like its literally impossible. This is true for the exact same reasons its completely nonsensical to use 0-100 to represent left-right.
@freemo @Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei
Your argument that one scale is superior to another is going to be ignored by me, because I honestly don't care what the scale is. I just don't CARE. No one should.
Which proves you completely dont understand how scales work.
It is the dimensionality of the number that matters. It just so happens you **must** use different types of scales to represent different dimensionalities. Thats a fundemental fact of numbers.
They are functional, practically and fundementally different. One is literally impossible to represent the idea, the other isnt.
I mean for example, which ideology do you place at 0 (the most left end of the scale)? Whatever ideology that is, how woudl you then represent a different ideology that is more left wing than whatever you attached at 0... you couldnt, because your on a bounded scale not an unbounded.
Moreover, where on your scale would you put a party or person that is neither left nor right, 50? I have 50 of what? Nothing? The inflection point itself is less of an issue, the bounding of the scale is.
@freemo @JonKramer @Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei
It doesn't seem to be about boundedness: consider open interval (0,1). There is no leftmost point, and yet the interval is bounded.
@robryk
no its still about boundedness, that just address the leftmost aspect but its actually more complicated than just that (jon was struggling with the basics so i didnt want to make it this technical)...
So take your example... how would you map an unbounded variable like altitutde to your (0,1) interval... even though you removed the idea of a "left most" the mapping still cant occur linearly.
@JonKramer @Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei