Why do left wingers seem to continually believe they are the majority, even though all objective and practical political experience points to the contrary? Oh yeah, because they exist in a epistemic closure. Hence bat**** proposals to non existent problems like wifi's health effects and vaccines causing autism...

What are you on about? I'm about as left-wing as you get on this forum, but I have no illusions about being in some kind of ideological majority - that space is occupied by centrist liberals. I reckon there are more conservatives than socialists on here. Also, I'm pro vaccination and have no desire to take away, or even touch your Wi-Fi. I don't know any left-wingers who agree with Jill Stein on these points - on the contrary, my socialist peers perceive them as uncanny hippie tendencies.

I call myself a "libertarian socialist" for want of a better term. And I'm also basically a hippie.

In a nutshell, I'm very liberatarian on moral and social issues, but I'm not at all libertarian on economic/governmental structure issues. I'd give a nutshell version of what I'd do economically instead, but it's not that easy for me to give a nutshell version because it's so different than what anyone else has proposed (which unfortunately also means it would never be implemented . . . well at least not any time soon). But knowing that this will more than likely lead to misunderstandings due to me not filling in a ton of info, I'd basically make the economy structured on providing the wants of others (I believe that all needs are predicated on wants/desires), where competition for scarcer resources would be based on who does more, via a combination of hard work, efficiency and innovation, to provide others wants, which would be determined via polling. A practical upshot would be that everyone would initially be oriented towards making sure that everyone alive has shelter, food, clothing, health care, education, transportation, entertainment, etc.

I do see a 2024 run for her as well.

Best case scenario: Trump winning and having a disastrous presidency would set Warren up for a perfect 2020 candidacy.

Clinton winning two terms and having decent approval ratings eight years from now, comparable to Obama's current rating, would also allow Warren to ease right into the presidency. Although Democrats winning five presidential elections in a row is very unlikely.

Middle case scenario: Clinton loses reelection in 2020 to a moderate Republican, creating an unlikely environment for Warren to succeed in, but still leaving room for a 2024 run if said moderate has a terrible presidency.

Worst case scenario: Trump somehow wins two terms and miraculously has a decent presidency, which would spell disaster for any political future for Warren and probably most Democrats, as such a scenario would prove the US was far more right wing than they thought.

I'd love to see it, but I really don't see any way that any party other than Democrats or Republicans are getting the presidency in the US in my lifetime. Alternate parties routinely get less than 1% of the vote in the US. In 2012, Stein had 0.36%. (And I voted for Stein in 2012, by the way. I was one of those 50 people.)




(Really it was closer to half a million, but still.)

lmao. Someone doesn't understand politics.

I don't know, but political discourse in the US is pretty right-wing already. Bernie Sanders has been painted as some kind of radical socialist, while Norway had its first social-democratic majority government 71 years ago (the Nowegian Labor Party was notably more radical back then). And instead of using "left" and "right" to describe political alignment, American media uses the words "liberal" or "conservative", even though liberalism and conservatism are both pro-capitalist ideologies. Ideologies that seek to abolish, challenge or even just modify (social democracy) capitalism are hounded and demonized, to prevent the working class from promoting its own interests.

I've always felt that "working class," as it's practically used, is a bogus term. It suggests that people who are working (such as business owners) are not in fact working. "Working class" should be distinguished only from "unemployed class."

Of course, many of the unemployed class work, too, but they just aren't paid for it.

See Ki and Two Spirits replys. Or, for that matter, berniebros reaction to his profound failure of a "revolution".

His revolution wasn't that much of a failure. It has pushed many people to join the public arena and run for office seats locally actually.