No definition except the one used by most Americans.

Perhaps this is the problem with Americans?

Not enough rectification of names?

I was thinking more total lack of political understanding.

I guess? I mean, here in the US we typically call people on the left side of the spectrum "liberals," so I don't really see what is ignorant about it. Both Democrats and Republicans typically think of Western Europe as further to the left than the US. Mostly you guys just seem to get bothered when people use "the left" in locally relative terms (which is generally more relevant in discussions of national politics) than in some globally relative sense.

Most Americans are stupid as hell politically.

You got Trump 4 years ago. I'm sure you'll do even better in 4 years.

Carry on.

For Bobo - while this is in WaPo, this is also a solid example of NYT brainworms:



Republicans, as we all know after the last four years, are cynical liars. They are not turned off by Biden's approach, they are turned off by the simple fact that they don't want to give money to poor people (even less so under a Democratic president than a Republican one). But all they have to do is lie to the paper about the reasons they oppose stimulus relief - "we're totally reasonable here, we would be willing to work on this if only Biden's approach hadn't turned us off", lol - and WaPo will print it as fact?

Brainworms.

The soldier that posted that is 100 percent a Trump supporter.
You don't go on twitter and start criticizing the commander in chief right of the bat like that. Either that or some right wing propaganda stint.
If true, it's bad. I agree. But let's not go jumping to conclusions.
It could also very easily be a Trumptard in some position of military authority that relocated them on purpose to make the administration look bad.

These people would stop at nothing to discredit Biden. I wouldn't be surprised if one day they decide to storm the Capitol!

I do think there is some value in pointing out that the NYT is not a "left" paper-- if only to point out their war support. And this then extends to the mainline Democratic party with people like Obama/the Clintons, now Biden and so discussions like this one end up happening.
Perhaps in Europe where their various nations aren't regularly bombing the world, war is harder to use as a litmus test-- but it works here. Perhaps it is still ultimately arbitrary and "left" can just be 50% of a population. No doubt people can find issues that divide them even in peaceful times. It'll still continue to be worthwhile to point out that the Democrats and Republicans are far closer aligned than a lot of people would like to think, and that what counts among the most authoritative and trusted sources in media has only very rarely found a war it disagreed with.

Cookies? Well ok then. Guess we don't need to give them proper wages or health care or treatment for the injuries from their service bc the DR Jill (I think you missed the dr part so you are a sexist sorry bro , I'ma lib) passed out some shitty cookies she bought from the market or asked her servant to make.

More NYT brainworms: they fired an editor who tweeted she had "chills" on Biden's inauguration day, sending conservatives into a rage and demanding she be cancelled

Cancel culture run amok.

The reason that can happen is that Americans have no employment rights and submit tamely to hire-and-fire-at-will practices, and they're fine with that, apparently. ('Yes, massa.') They're fine with only two weeks' annual leave, and no entitlement to maternity leave, and a private healthcare insurance racket that costs them twice as much per head per annum as the West European systems that give far better coverage, and, unlike Oliver Twist, they never, ever ask for more, do they? And they literally believe that their oligarchic Democratic Party, which never questions any of this and keeps them under the lash, is in some way 'liberal.' Oh dear. Oh very dear.

Unfortunately yes, because of the way the republic was created, as an oligarchy, by self-serving oligarchs. It's not a democracy and it never was and was never meant to be. That is why, for instance, every state has two US senators regardless of population, something Americans treat as handed down by Holy Writ and never question at all. There's a reason why the expression 'one born every minute' was coined by an American.

And yet despite all that stupidity, #1 superpower for 85 years ainec.

Just wait until we get our bearings.

welcome comrade?

It's just normal. Even the tories in the UK support a lot of it. it's not some radical lefty idea but the USA is a basket. As being discussed it has two right wing parties and even many progeressive seeem to believe some right wing stuff is the only way.

Obviously it was never meant to be a pure democracy.
I'm not sure it was ever designed to be an oligarchy though.

More of a system where the aristocracy ruled itself.

Corporations were frowned upon by the FF's. Which is ironic because many of the GOP sheep defend them using the FF's words.

As I said, American's are total morons when it comes to political ideology.

I think in the future we're going to be seeing a lot of stuff that is left-wing in name only but packaged in such a way that it is wholly amenable to Wall St-- like a completely neoliberal, public/private GND, and carbon tax schemes.
Republicans in congress will give lip service against it but privately they'll love it, liberals will love it, and stocks will never be higher.

Would be impressive if you had the landmass of the UK. You guys defo got the best starting position in a civilisation game. Only took the second world war to promote you thanks for turning up at the end.

Fun fact: The first US presidential visit to a foreign country took place in 1906.

The US wasn't merely isolationist in its first 130 years, it had foreign relations anxiety.

That is a very interesting and illustrative factoid. Thx for that.

Hmmm do you know if that fact refers to visits 'as POTUS in an official capacity' or also to their pre POTUS lives?

If the latter it is even more instructive as it would speak to a person more likely to bring a much more narrow world view, with lack of curiosity, into the Office. If the former, it could be more of a 'been there done that and just not a priority of mine during my office'.

Imagine what it’s like to still be this butthurt over the Dr. thing.

You had someone like Jefferson who was a bit of a francophile and served overseas as a US minister (ambassador these days?), I’m not an expert on presidential biographies but there were probably others.

I don’t think the presidential visits thing was coincidence. After what I have read, it was part of isolationist policy, the US stood alone and it was seen as important that presidents did not mingle or meet foreign heads of state or visit them. Foreign political influence was a big no-no. I think the first visit by a foreign head of state to the US happened under Grant in the 1870s.

Obviously the US was somewhat geographically isolated and travel was time-consuming and expensive, so that likely also played apart.

Has to be former. Many of the early presidents were British educated at least in part and traveled frequently to Europe. I suspect the lack of state visits by POTUS had more to do with transportation and communications technologies of the day.