Hardkill

Yeah, that was the initial thought, but the Kennedy name, his populist and anti-establishment environmental policies, some of his economic populist views, anti-war stances, etc. has given a serious cause for concern for Biden and the Democrats. However, RFK jr. has not offered any substantive policies or ideas or even a coherent credible vision to address any of these issues for the country.

But America, Canada, and European have already had a history of having been involved in many of the deadliest and bloodiest wars in the history of mankind. Yet, despite all of these wars, they have continued to become increasingly liberal/progressive significantly. I mean why didn't the US regress in their liberalism during the Civil War, WW1, WW2, Cold War, or after 9/11 and the war on terror in the middle east?

Even if Ukraine ends up losing this war, it's still better for the country to keep fighting to continually wear down as much of Russia's resources as possible. Even if Russia wins this war, the longer this war goes on the weaker Russia will become in the long-run.

* I actually realized another mistake I made with my OP. It had to do with the Burger Court. I just realized that the Burger Court (occurred from 1969 to 1986) was actually the last liberal leaning court to date before the Rehnquist Court began to occur in 1986. However, the Burger Court became a less liberal leaning SCOTUS than the preceding Warren Court (occurred from 1953 to 1969). According to wikipedia, this court was "A symbol of the conservative 'retrenchment' promised by President Richard Nixon in the 1968 election, Burger was often overshadowed by the liberal William Brennan and the more conservative William Rehnquist. The Burger Court had a less generous interpretation of the protections offered by the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment than those of the Warren Court, but the Burger Court did not overrule any of the major precedents set by the Warren Court." ** I also just realized that while Justice Frankfurter's more conservative views prevailed during Vinson's tenure (which caused the court to become more conservative than preceding very centrist Warren court), many of the dissents written during the Vinson Court (1946-1953) had laid the groundwork for the major rulings that occurred during the succeeding Warren Court. So, the Vinson Court was essentially a transition court like the Burger Court was in its own way. *** I further now realized that while the Stone Court (1941-1946), which preceded the Vinson Court, was more centrist than either center-right or center-left, the Stone Court tended to lean slightly more liberal than conservative overall with all its rulings. In fact, according to wikipedia, "The short length of the Stone Court gave it little chance to establish a definitive legacy. However, the Stone Court continued the Constitutional Revolution of 1937 that had started during the Hughes Court and foreshadowed the liberal rulings of the Warren Court." Therefore, one could argue that the US used to have a liberal-leaning SCOTUS for about 45 years (1941-1986).

Even MSNBC has now made a scathing rebuke of the Israeli government:

Megyn Kelly is another staunch conservative Independent:

Totally. I actually wrote that in the comments section under her YT vid on why she left the Democratic Party and then joined Fox News.

Obama was undoubtedly a once in a generation broadly charismatic president. When he first ran for president in 2007-2008, his charisma had even surpassed that of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump as he was able to appeal to such a broad spectrum of voters including liberals, moderates, and even an unusual amount of conservatives for his time. When he won the presidency in a near landslide, he of course made history by becoming the very first African-American in the history of the country and did so in such a uniquely inspirational way. Furthermore, a very significant number of Democratic congressmen were voted into office "on the coattails" of Obama, which lead the Democrats to not only win the government trifecta, but also essentially win a supermajority of Dems in both chambers of Congress. Moreover, the presidential election of Obama, made him arguably the first liberal Democratic president since LBJ in the 60s and most Americans had such high expectations of Obama that they believed he had the potential to become a transformational president and enact a truly historic roster of progressive reforms to the degree that FDR or even TR, WW, or LBJ were as presidents. Under most Americans' optimistic scenario, Obama would end the era of conservative politics that had begun with the presidential election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. Obama therefore, gave American's the impression that he would restore the Democratic party as the dominant political party in the US and would continue to dominate for decades to come just like they did at the national level during the extended New Deal era (early 1930s to mid 1970s). However, sadly, Obama turned out to be one of if not perhaps the worst party builder compared to any other president in US History. During his presidency, his party suffered such historic losses not just at the congressional level, but also at the state and local levels of government in every state in the country after the 2010 and midterm elections as well as after the 2016 general elections, particularly with the presidential election of Trump. Yes, his party made somewhat of a comeback when Obama won re-election in 2012, but that was the only time that Obama and the Dems redeemed themselves during his presidency. Also, even when did the results of the overall electoral victories in 2012 weren't nearly as great as they were in 2008. Obama, in fact, lost the exceptional level of "magic" he had in 2008 because he let himself get caught in the bubble of the pollsters, pundits, hucksters, campaign handlers, instead of speaking much more from the heart like he did in 2008 or instead of even doing as great of a job at acting incredibly presidential like Reagan did. Plus, what's ironic is that even though the polices he enacted during his president were actually probably the boldest set of policies compared to any other president before him since LBJ, in terms of his rhetoric during his presidency Obama actually made the terrible mistake of trying to come off as non-partisan/bipartisan as possible. As a matter of fact, his leadership style turned out to be the least confrontational compared to any other president before him since Jimmy Carter or a mid 1900s normal moderate Republican president like Eisenhower or Gerald Ford. That certainly reaffirms the opinion of Noam Chomsky and many other experts out there who have stated before that while Obama became more liberal/progressive of a president than any other president since Nixon, Obama was still more like a moderate Republican from the mid 1900s in terms of policy changes. In office, Obama didn't give people the impression as much as they had hoped that he would be as much of a populist as FDR and LBJ were: I'll admit that there also several factors outside of what Obama and the Democratic party did that cause his party to have much more difficulty in building and maintaining their party's coalition to the level that FDR was able to achieve: 1. Historical Context: The Great Depression was an unprecedented economic crisis that affected virtually every aspect of American life. Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal responded to immediate and urgent needs for relief, recovery, and reform, providing tangible assistance to millions of Americans who were suffering from unemployment, poverty, and homelessness. The severity of the crisis created a sense of urgency and solidarity among the public, which contributed to widespread support for Roosevelt's policies. In contrast, while the 2008 financial crisis was severe and led to significant economic hardship for many Americans, it was not of the same magnitude as the Great Depression. The economic challenges facing the nation during Obama's presidency were complex and multifaceted, requiring a nuanced and multifaceted policy response. 2. Policy Implementation and Communication: Franklin D. Roosevelt was known for his effective communication skills and ability to convey empathy and reassurance to the American people through his fireside chats and public speeches. His clear and direct communication helped build public confidence in his leadership and his New Deal agenda. While Barack Obama was also known for his oratorical skills and ability to inspire, the implementation and communication of his policy agenda faced challenges, including partisan polarization and opposition from political opponents. Despite efforts to explain the rationale behind his policies and engage the public in the policymaking process, Obama faced difficulties in garnering broad-based support for his agenda. 3. Political Landscape and Opposition: Franklin D. Roosevelt enjoyed significant political support and a broad coalition of allies, including labor unions, progressives, and Democrats in Congress, which helped facilitate the passage of his New Deal legislation. While Barack Obama had Democratic majorities in Congress during the early years of his presidency, he faced staunch opposition from Republicans and conservative groups, particularly in the later years of his presidency. Partisan polarization and gridlock in Congress limited Obama's ability to enact his policy agenda and may have contributed to public perceptions of ineffective governance and frustration with the political process. 4. The dynamics of business interests and corporate lobbying New Deal Era (1930s): During the Great Depression, many businesses were struggling to survive, and the economic crisis created widespread public support for government intervention to address unemployment, poverty, and economic instability. While there were some business interests that opposed Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal policies, particularly those related to increased regulation and taxation, the overall influence of corporate lobbying and business interests was relatively limited compared to later periods. Roosevelt faced opposition from conservative business interests, such as the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, but these groups did not have the same level of influence over government policy as they would in later decades. Obama Era (2009-2017): During Barack Obama's presidency, business interests and corporate lobbying exerted significant influence over government policy, particularly in areas such as financial regulation, healthcare reform, and environmental policy. The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in 2010 further amplified the role of corporate money in politics, allowing for increased spending by corporations and interest groups in elections and lobbying efforts. Lobbying expenditures by industries such as healthcare, finance, energy, and telecommunications reached record levels during the Obama administration, as businesses sought to influence legislation and regulatory decisions. The influence of corporate money in politics and the revolving door between government and industry became prominent issues during Obama's presidency, leading to debates over campaign finance reform and government transparency. Overall, while business interests and corporate lobbying existed during both the New Deal era and the Obama era, their influence and prominence were greater during Obama's presidency. The changing dynamics of money in politics, regulatory capture, and the expansion of industry influence over government policy have been ongoing challenges in American democracy, with implications for governance, accountability, and public trust in government. 5. The strength and cohesion of the conservative movement: The 1930s were marked by the Great Depression, which created a sense of crisis and urgency that demanded immediate government intervention and action. Roosevelt's New Deal policies, aimed at providing relief, recovery, and reform, were largely seen as necessary responses to the economic challenges of the time. While there were critics of the New Deal from conservative quarters, the level of organized opposition and mobilization was not as extensive as during Obama's presidency. The Republican Party during Roosevelt's presidency included a broader spectrum of ideological views, including both conservative and progressive elements. While there were conservative voices opposed to Roosevelt's policies, particularly his expansion of government intervention and social welfare programs, the conservative movement as a cohesive and organized force did not emerge until later decades. The media landscape during Roosevelt's presidency was different from today, with fewer channels for disseminating information and influencing public opinion. Conservative voices had less access to mass media platforms compared to the modern era, which may have limited the reach and influence of conservative viewpoints. The debate over the role of government and the appropriate level of government intervention in the economy was central to both Roosevelt's presidency and Obama's presidency, but the context and circumstances were different. Roosevelt's New Deal policies represented a significant expansion of the federal government's role in addressing economic challenges and providing social welfare programs, whereas Obama's policies were perceived by conservatives as further extending government reach into healthcare and other areas. The emergence of the Moral Majority and other conservative religious organizations in the 1980s mobilized religious conservatives around issues such as abortion, school prayer, and traditional family values. These groups played a significant role in shaping conservative politics and influencing elections at the local, state, and national levels. The rise of conservative media outlets, such as talk radio, cable news channels, and conservative-leaning publications, provided a platform for conservative voices and viewpoints to reach a wider audience. Figures like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Fox News became influential voices in conservative politics, shaping public discourse and mobilizing support for conservative causes. Grassroots conservative organizations and activists, including Tea Party groups, gun rights advocates, and anti-tax organizations, mobilized supporters through rallies, protests, and political campaigns. These grassroots efforts helped energize the conservative base and push back against perceived liberal overreach during the Obama administration. Republicans made significant gains in the 2010 midterm elections, winning control of the House of Representatives and making gains in the Senate and state legislatures. This Republican resurgence was fueled in part by opposition to Obama's policies, particularly the Affordable Care Act, and by a growing dissatisfaction with the direction of the country among conservative voters. The Rise of the Tea Party and rise in right-wing populism of course help conservatism in America come back with a vengeance and contribute to the rise of Trumpism.

Btw, how about back when Obama totally ripped Trump to shreds in this speech during the 2020 presidential campaign? Obama went full beast mode there. In fact, this was one of my favorite speeches he ever gave because of how raw and powerful that was. It really was like seeing a side of him that I don't think I ever saw before, but in an amazing way. I feel goosebumps and feel like my fighting spirit is building up inside of me every time I watch this. So, you can't say that he doesn't have it in him to fight as a badass leader.

Actually, you guys should see how confrontational and strong surprisingly came off in his latest SOTU speech: He brought up how much of a threat to our country Trump and the MAGA Republicans are. He even dared to call out SCOTUS's terrible rulings in front of their faces. He also mentioned like Truman did before how the GOP in Congress are "Do-Nothing" Republicans.

I know... We all have been so cynical and jaded by the last 30 years of leadership. Yet, this is one big reason why I decided to make this thread. Most people, including my past self, have not been able to understand why our country hasn't had the kind of leadership it deserves. It's because of all of these specific problems I mentioned in my OP, which we have had for decades. Of course, you've already made similar points on many of these issues before on this forum and on your blog. The Left made the mistake of playing into the hands of both the far-right and business interests/corporate lobbying for far TOO LONG. The good news is that I actually believe now that the Democratic party including Obama himself began to understand this starting around 2018 to 2020. The Democratic party and liberals/progressive throughout have been working very seriously on building a brand new party infrastructure, growing a liberal/progressive media ecosystem, getting more confrontational towards Trump and the MAGA Republicans, amassing a large left-wing grassroots movement on the ground, garnering support from many more big donors who genuinely want to save this country, etc.

Woodrow Wilson was a strong center-left progressive for his time (1910s). He actually became the very first liberal Democratic president in US history whereas FDR was the 2nd liberal Democratic president in US history. Wilson's New Freedom major policy changes were undoubtedly on the order of Teddy Roosevelt's Square Deal policies (1900s decade) and his leadership was very heroic during WW1. That's why most experts rank him as one of the top ten presidents in US history along with TR. JFK and his legacy has been widely credited for leading the left-wing in America towards success with the civil rights movement and other historic domestic polices that would eventually become LBJ's Great Society programs before he was assassinated. LBJ's major policy changes were on the order of the New Deal in his own way. Like FDR, he too was a progressive center-left populist and most progressives love to reference him as a badass left-wing activist president like FDR, despite his terrible handling of the War in Vietnam. Truman has also been widely considered amongst experts to also have been a strong and decisive center-left president who fought hard for his party and the rest of the Truman. His policies dramatically expanded both our military defense and US Intelligence agencies. He was in fact responsible for the creation of the CIA. He also has been has usually been ranked as one of the top ten presidents in US history. Those were all exceptionally strong liberal/progressive Democratic in their own ways. Teddy Roosevelt was actually the last liberal/progressive Republican president in US History. He was a real badass too. FDR though has been considered by most to the greatest president since the early 1900s because of his incredible heroism as president during the dark days of the Great Depression and WWII. Also, because of how powerful and sustainable of an influence his New Deal policies had many decades later. His policies amounted to the greatest expansion of both the size and scope of the US government and government intervention compared to the policies of any other president in US history. Yet, even though many Americans have hated the idea of the government not minding its own business, FDR's policies still to this day are still alive. Since the 80s, Reagan and the Republicans have failed to eliminate practically any of the New Deal policies including Social Security. The Republicans have also failed to eliminate virtually any of the Great Society policies including Medicare, Medicaid, the landmark Civil Rights Acts, and the landmark Voting Rights Acts. Just like how Trump and the Republicans failed to repeal Obamacare and totally repeal Dodd-Frank.

He was actually more to the left as president than Bill Clinton was for sure. But when he first ran for president, he ran as a left-wing populist who would bring about "Hope and Change" in America like FDR did. This is one big reason why Bernie Sander and the progressive began to rise in the mid 2010s. Many Democrats, liberals, and progressive, Independents thought that Obama let them by selling them out as another neoliberal corporate pro-establishment Democratic president. By 2016, Americans were starving for an A-level to S-level president after being constantly disappointed by career politicians across the political spectrum who failed to put up such an exceptional leader for our country since 1988, particularly after Obama turned out to be a head-fake in many respects. I am glad that Biden turned out to be an even more left-wing president than Obama. Even most progressives have been surprisingly pretty pleased by that as well.

Oh no, Allan Lichtman has been widely regarded as one of the most brilliant US Historians in the country. You should read and follow up on his 13 Keys system, which has been shockingly successful many times since 1984 in predicting the next POTUS. It's genius. As for Reagan, Professor Lichtman, who is a left-wing Democrat, personally did not like Reagan's policies at all. However, he explained that as a professional US/presidential historian, he has to put aside his own personal biases and beliefs to objectively assess a president's record of success. I hate to say it, but whether or not you dislike Reagan's policies and the terrible long-term political influence he had in the country for decades, he was still undeniably successful as a president and in his goal in shifting the entire general electorate, including the whole GOP party, much more to the right. To be fair, Reagan was also much less divisive than Trump was and was a true anti-communist. Plus, Reagan never really bought into or even succumbed to the hard-right's extreme views. The part where Lichtman explains his reasoning for ranking Reagan an A starts at around min 49:00:

Professor Lichtman ranked him at about a B level in his presidency: (starting at around min 58:00 in this vid)

I reckon that a lot of that may have to do with the fact that Obama knew he already shocked enough white Americans by becoming the very first black POTUS ever in US History, which already made him polarizing to some extent amongst his constituents, fairly or unfairly. So, he probably wanted to allay people's anxieties about how far he was willing to fight for African-Americans and the poor as the first black POTUS. He probably thought it would be more prudent and safe if he didn't come as aggressive in his rhetoric and campaign style as someone like MLK or Malcolm X were. After all, both of them were assassinated as heroes. It's also just like Merrick Garland who has already been fucking up as the US Attorney General and with his sluggishness in the handling of the prosecution of Trump with his extreme centrism.

Yeah, and that was a big mistake he made. TR, WW, FDR, LBJ, and even Truman and JFK all fought like hell against the establishment for the people and their efforts were rewarded by building a powerful sustainable coalition for their party. Even the third way neoliberal centrist Bill Clinton in the 90s was more confrontational and a better party builder than Obama was. Ronald Reagan was much more confrontational and a much better party builder for his party than Obama was for his party. Biden has actually turned out to be even more confrontational and a more successful party builder than Obama was! Allan Lichtman gave a very good insight/analysis here on how it was partly Obama's fault that Trump and the Republicans had amassed such political influence and power during his presidency: *Lichtman didn't mean to say Biden twice in that response of his. He meant Obama had the problem of being afraid of being perceived as being too partisan.

Did you watch that whole video with Professor Mearsheimer. He explains how and why Biden and the US government cannot just simply stop weapons shipments. Otherwise, the Israeli lobby will go after Biden and his party politically with campaign attack ads saying that they betrayed Israel. Also, there are still to this day, A LOT more Democratic and Independents voters in this country who are Jewish/pro-Israeli than there are Democratic and Independent voters who are Muslim/pro-palestinian voters throughout all of America. Biden and his party cannot afford to lose too many Jewish/pro-Israeli voters in America as well for the upcoming election.

The Israeli lobby obviously has way too powerful of an influence on the US government for even the President of the United States to disregard and the Israeli government has too many hardline extreme right-wingers who have too much of a hold over Netanyahu: Furthermore, such big positive changes take a long while to happen. Besides, what practical action are people like you taking to actually make such change possible? Not to mention, can you imagine how much the war in Gaza will be if Trump became president?

Here we go again.... Yes, his backdoor funding to Israel's military is still not good; however, there has already been a noticeable transition in both rhetoric and policy from the Biden administration and the rest of the US government. The US actually abstained from voting against the latest UN resolution vote on the demand for an immediate Gaza ceasefire. I know that's still not ideal or not good enough, but that already has been a big break from the norm in US military/foreign policy with Israel: The American government and the general electorate as a whole are center-right culturally, but are still center-left in policy overall.

Yeah, I thought about those ones for a long time. It was a tough call, but I decided to put them in both Left Wing/Progressive category and the Far/Radical Left. I do believe that their policies and stances are bold, solid left-wing policies, but they are not radical or extreme left-wing to the point of wanting to completely replace capitalism with some form of Socialism/Communism. These individuals believe in having a mixed economy of some sort, while promoting as much social justice as possible. That's my reason for putting them in the Left Wing/Progressive. However, their rhetoric has also has gotten to be increasingly toxic, too polarizing, and too vitriolic. They never used to sound this way before years ago. I am also getting really tired of the nonsensical long-shot ideas they keep coming with, such as Cenk's idea of running for President, trying to primary every Democrat out there including Biden who aren't left-wing enough, even in the most red areas of the country. Cenk, Ana, Kyle, Krystal, David Dole, Sam Seder, Emma Vigeland, and others like them really don't have a clue as to how to really win many big elections, particularly when it comes to winning the presidency because none of them have ever won any elections themselves or even worked closely with any successful politicians on any big campaigns. Furthermore, none of them have any real experience in having worked in any part of Washington or in any part of the US government at all, which means they don't really understand the political reality of negotiations and policymaking. Moreover, instead of complaining so much about how the whole system is rigged and how Democrats never do enough, why aren't they out there canvassing a lot more on the ground like the original progressive activists did in the early 2000s or the civil right movements, or like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, AOC, and Jamaal Bowman and all of those contemporary progressive have been doing everyday? Lastly, I really don't like how they've been saying and have been influencing so many of their followers to say that AOC, John Fetterman, Bernie Sanders, Warren, and many other progressives in Congress have sold them out and calling Biden "Genocide Joe." They are taking this shit way too far.

Speaking of southerners, Beau of the Fifth Column (Justin King) and James Carville are southern liberal Democrats: James Carville is a well known center-left Democratic strategist, who I've mentioned before became a brilliant campaign strategist for Bill Clinton's presidential campaigns and other Democrats in the 90s. After Clinton's presidency, he continued to be a well-respected campaign strategist and pundit for the party: Beau is more left-wing than Carville, but he is still a sensible, pragmatic liberal/progressive Democrat:

Haha. Yeah sure. Actually, maybe on some views like economic populism/nationalism. Many southerners and rural folk in America are actually socially conservative, but more economic liberal. A lot of more of them used to be that way during the extended New Deal Era (from the early 1930s to the mid to late 1970s) because they knew much help they desperately needed from not just the state and local levels of government, but also from the federal government starting officially with FDR's presidency and the Great Depression. They of course have always never really liked any kind of big government intervention policies unless it only benefited white christian American citizens in their areas economically. The Deep South has especially always been the most opposed to any kind of big intervention ever since before the Civil War. but it was obvious to every southerner and rural America throughout the entire country, during the Great Depression, that like what happened in the aftermath of the Gilded age, they once again had absolutely no choice but receive as much emergency assistance from the federal government as possible from the federal government. As a matter fact, they were willing accept to FDR and the Democratic party's idea of taking big government intervention action to a much greater level than ever occurred before in US History, as long as it didn't disproportionately benefit people of color or challenge the racial hierarchy of the South. Eventually, by end of LBJ's presidency, there became a growing number of southerners and rural Americans who no longer wanted anymore liberal/progressive economic reforms by federal government, especially because of the fact that the entire US government finally put an end to all Jim Crow laws in America by the mid to late 60s. This growing backlash among some Southern and rural Americans against anymore liberal and progressive economic reforms continued to grow as a decades long trend throughout the 70s, 80s, and 90s, early 2000s, and early to mid 2010s. However, I think ever since the mid to late 2010s, that trend has been reverse amongst southerners and rural Americans, with rise in economic populism and economic nationalism along with Bidenomics. Hopefully this relatively new trend continues the way the Democrats have been steering it.

Thanks guys! Even with the assistance of AI, it still took a lot of time and effort to put it altogether in the most accurate way possible. I'd like to also have this thread continue on as a place for me or anyone else on here to add on any more points or examples about each of these specific categories the US political spectrum. Another obvious example of an extreme-right/radical right/far-right/hard-right organization in America and has only existed in the USA: The KKK They have always been a white Protestant terrorist hate group known for their extreme racism, antisemitism, violence, and white supremacist beliefs. Just as horrible as Neo-Nazis, White Skinheads, Aryan Nations and any other white supremacy groups in America are. This group originated in the Southern United States after the Civil War and has historically been associated with the South due to its origins in the Reconstruction era. The organization has had chapters and members in various parts of the country, including the Midwest and even some in the Northeast. The size and influence of the group continued to occur primarily in the South during the late 19th century, early 20th century, and mid 20th century. However, after Jim Crow laws finally came to an end, the size and influence of the KKK went on a very significant decline for decades through the 70s, 80s, 90s, the aughts, and 2010s (even during Trump's presidency), and 2020s. Over time, the Klan's influence and presence have fluctuated, and today it remains a fringe group with scattered activity rather than a dominant force in any particular region. cross-Ku-Klux-Klan-Tennessee-1948.pdf

We are living in a Gilded age 2.0 and it MUST be followed by a Progressive Era 2.0..... Otherwise, it will be the end of all humanity....