What do you believe is the greatest threat facing the United States, and what measures would you implement to address it?

@4meAndyou Billionaires who are Marxist?

That's self-contradictory: extreme personal riches come from being an extreme capitalist, the complete opposite to Marxism.

Nevertheless, I don't trust those people any more than you do - though Donald Trump seems to like them.

How though, do you define "Left Wing" in American terms, but objectively? I know it in British terms, and I think most European countries' versions are similar; but the Left-Right spectrum seems to be very relative, very subjective and differing sometimes considerably from country to country. North Korea probably thinks (privately!) China's Communist system bordering on Right-wing Capitalist!


Do you have any real "Marxists" in America? You might have politicians whose ideology seems tending towards something like the present-day Labour Party in Britain; but Labour now is much more to the Right than it was in its past, and even then its Socialist ideals were a long way from hard-line "Marxist", let alone Communist. (The "Communist Party of Great Britain" was always a tiny minority one that never won a Parliamentary seat.) I don't recall hearing about America having real hard-Leftists, let alone Communists as you imply - even among what Stalin might have called "filthy rich capitalist pigs". Your choice seems only a few Independants, the Green Party, both few in number, and the Republican and Democrat Parties.

Your last sentence intrigues me. I don't know your country's political and electoral system in detail but I do know your presidents serve a maximum of eight years, with a general election every four years. That has been normal in the USA since that nation established itself, so what might be different in 2028? Do you fear the next general election might not be the usual choice, basically between just two Parties each presumably already planning selecting new Party leaders, and trying to win that election?

@ArishMell "Billionaires who are Marxist".

Yes, for example banker Jacob Schiff who funded the Russian marxist revolution.

"extreme personal riches come from being an extreme capitalist, the complete opposite to Marxism"

A population being free to trade and own the product and means of their labour does afford individuals the freedom to build themselves up to the full potential they have, yes. And that is terrific. I hope more people strive to become the best version of themselves.

@ArishMell The odd thing about massive personal wealth is that it can be USED to further the hobby horses of those who wish to change or influence the entire world.

Case in point: Klaus Schwab, George and Alexander Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates and many others. They call themselves "globalists", but the cultural changes for which they HIRE so many activists and protesters are ALL Marxist in nature.

Are they hypocrites? Absolutely. "Do as I say, not as I do."

@4meAndyou Well, calling for changes that won't affect them personally (or do but in their favour!) could well be hypocritical, but what changes are they calling for?

@Therealsteve The tragedy is that the countries that did embrace hard-line versions of Marxism, do not allow any such freedom. They look after their citizens in some respects, but are not at all liberal.

@ArishMell Open borders, for starters.

@4meAndyou That's not "Marxist" but I do know immigration is a very sensitive matter in the USA. It is in many other countries, too.

Communist countries tend to close their borders... but in the opposite direction, to stop their own citizens escaping.

@ArishMell I suspect that globalist Progressivism is a morphed brand of Marxism...or Marxism LITE.

@4meAndyou Well, I don;t particularly like the oligarchs either, but am not sure what you mean by "Globast Progressivism, and like it or not we live in an increasingly connected world in which no country can exist all on its sweet own.

The word "progressive" objectively simply refers to change with time In the much more subjective world of politics it is supposed to mean modern and socially caring, but I know it is often used as a mere slogan, and that some people are very wary of that definition because they think it somehow "Marxist".

It is not, though left-wing parties historically have tended to be progressive in their ideologies by that caring definition. They arose against contemporary ideology we call now "right-wing", that they saw as holding unhealthy and increasingly obsolete, "sink or swim" social attitudes.

I don't know how America's Democrat Party arose; but I know the nation as a whole formed partly a s reaction to old Church religious and monarchical powers such as those that led to the French Revolution.

In the UK, the Labour Party was originally very much the Trades Unions' party and to some extent still is, and can trace its ideas back well before that. However, it was never "Marxist" although it did introduce the modern State services and industrial ownerships that some American Republicans seem to imagine border on "Communist". It did these very much to help all those people who may have been employed (and most were) but on such poor pay and terms that things like health and welfare services were largely out of their reach.

Marx really only took what he saw happening around him and tried to suggest an ideology to remove the injustices. He may gone a bit far in his notion of "the workers" owning their industries, but it was not his fault that some countries took his ideas and used them to the extreme, in Communism.

I don't know if this applies in the USA but nowadays, in many European and other countries, the two wings have rather come together.

@ArishMell Here in the United States "Progressive" is a term tied to a long list of toxic behaviors.

One, as I mentioned, is the attempt to permanently cement wins for the Democrat/Socialist/Progressive/Marxist party by importing a giant population of illegals to increase the number of seats they own in the House and the Senate. 15 million to date. Our House and Senate are filled with representatives and Senators based on population...NOT on the number of citizens who vote. Once the Progressive Democrats realized that, they opened our borders wide, and initiated the destruction of our economy...because MANY of the illegals go directly onto the dole. 42 BILLION dollars just for subsidized housing!!! FREE medical care, welfare, social security and Medicare for the fraudsters...on and on.

Another toxic trend the "Progressives" want to cement into place is teaching VERY young children, as young as 5 or 6 years old, that they can just decide whether they want to be a boy or a girl...and stocking their young libraries with books with pictures showing how a man makes love to a man. In ONE state, these toxic people have even passed a law that allows them to remove a child from their family home and their parents if the parents fail to use the childs NEW pronouns.

A third toxic trend in our public schools is caused by the teachers unions. Randy Weingarten, their leader, even stated publicly that their aim with their curriculum is to address the needs of the "whole child". Basic education, such as reading, writing, math, and science is taking a back door to brainwashing our children by teaching them to be social justice activists, and screwing up their heads regarding their own sexuality.

I could go on and on, by my shoulders are getting stiff from typing too long. I think you get the picture.

@4meAndyou I do get the picture. Thankyou for explaining it.

I would not class much of that as either very "progressive" or "Marxist" particularly, irrespective of the general ideology of the administrations responsible, but I can understand why it is so sensitive.

@ArishMell I realize, also, that the American definition of "Progressive" is not, in fact, progressive. However, the policies the Democrat/Socialist/Progressive/Marxist party are pushing will eventually lead this country into full on globalist style socialism. That would actually destroy our nation.