I'm not against it because Youtube, FB, etc don't have to give anyone a platform. They have just as much right to say "no, this sh*t is stupid, we don't want it on our site". I even say that when it comes to controversial viewpoints I'd agree with. These are not examples of some "left-wing" (lol) conspiracy to keep opposing views hidden.
Yeah, I'm sure if we outright ban certain forms of speech the controversial nature of said speech won't lead to people using it even more just to f*ck with you. I mean I certainly don't do that. It's not like stating curse words are ''bad words'' leads to young people using them even more than if they were just treated as any other word in a language.
I'm saying that when you say you aren't for censorship before saying you are, it has the same ridiculous effect as the ''I'm not racist, but...'' line of thought. The best way to fight off ideas you believe are bad are by having them out in the open and up for discussion rather than leaving them behind the shelves in the library for a kid to find and wonder why he never heard of this before (meaning it wasn't in the public square to be discredited)
And here's the thing, not everyone wants to have a debate with an extreme ignoramus about his viewpoints. And, said ignoramus is always free to create his own platform for his ideas, and to invite anyone kind enough to actually entertain him to a debate. But no one else is obligated to provide that platform for him, nor are they obligated to listen to what he has to say.
This is the problem in society, people think their free speech rights are being threatened, when in reality, they're the ones questioning the rights of others to tell them to take their sh*t somewhere else.
I don't dispute any of that and said as much plenty of times; you're missing the point m8.
Even by American standards, where "leftist" means "centre-right" to any other observer, I don't think Obama is particularly left wing in the context of Democrat presidents. In some areas, such as foreign policy, he's clearly to the right of Bill Clinton. And Hillary lies to the right of both of them in most policy areas.
The rising popularity of Sanders is a fair point but I don't think it's fair to call him a "leftist". He may identify as a democratic socialist but he's really a social democrat which puts him firmly in the "centrist" camp. Definately further left than pretty much any mainstream figure in American politics, but not actually left in the grand scheme of things.
When speaking of Obama I was talking about his ideology, not necessarily the manner in which he governs. Government wise he's left on social issues in the American context, as most Democrats tend to be, and it shows itself in his jumping the gun on judgement when a Black kid assaulting a police officer is killed. Which stems from his upbringing by his mother who had a leftist bent. IIRC didn't she meet Obama's father in a Russian Language class? lol.
Governing wise he's Bush Lite. I honestly don't know why people expect the President to be the Monarch. Even if Obama was a wild leftist Communist (he may have hung out with Communists but I don't think he's that far out), he can't enact his wild leftist dream anyway. So when it comes to governing all American leaders will generally keep the trend going because they aren't monarchs. Whether they're Bernie or Trump.
Venezuela was in economic freefall long before the death of Chávez, but that was largely due to nepotism, cronyism and financial mismanagement. The nation simply exchanged capitalists for corrupt politicians as the economic elites.
That's the natural outcome of large state government run economies. I'm being 100% serious and not throwing a ''haha f*cker gotcha ZING'' statement here when I say I legitimately wonder if there has ever been a large state government run economy that WASN'T corrupt in the 20th and 21st century.