I've used "the Left" to signify people on the social and progressive leaning political platform, while "the Right" have been the conservative and "family values", whatever that is supposed to mean. I don't find these to be contrasts, at least not anymore.
We have been lied to about these political spectrums, when it's really just collectivism versus individualism across the board. The people who identify with today's Left are for censorship, authoritarianism, and most of all; collectivism. While the Right has remained unchanged.
I reject these notions of the left and right political spectrum, in favor of a nuanced political picture. I don't think these method of slicing people up into camps benefits anyone other than serving the collectivists(!) who like no better than to force the "us vs them" mentality of either you're with us or you are against us.
I mean, what values do you espouse? Are you for government control or individual responsibility, why not both? Setting up such values as contrasts seem to be a divisive tool played by both sides, when there's really no side to pick, just what values one identifies with and how you put into action those values.
Collectivism gave us Communism, fascism, the gulags and kz camps of the 20th century which is why I think individual freedom and responsibility is so important.
So, do you think it serves a utility to offer up such sides? Or do you think, as I, that it should be about what values you identify with (and which values you reject for that matter)?
Being social doesn't mean being a Socialist. But people are so easily swayed by words (you must buy the soap I am selling, and if you buy now I will send you this vegetable peeler for Free!). Yes, definitely look at candidates as individuals. I think we are too easily swayed by party affiliation (both have Deep State on their foreheads). And good luck finding an honest candidate.
I am actually very close politically in substance to Cavebear, but not in rhetoric. When I vote, it isn't rhetorical though. Centrist, pragmatist, skeptic, optimist. But not a regressive nor a progressive (current labels). Those are red flags to excite the bulls and other bovines.
Quote from: Sal1981 on April 13, 2018, 07:10:09 AM
I've used "the Left" to signify people on the social and progressive leaning political platform, while "the Right" have been the conservative and "family values", whatever that is supposed to mean. I don't find these to be contrasts, at least not anymore.
We have been lied to about these political spectrums, when it's really just collectivism versus individualism across the board. The people who identify with today's Left are for censorship, authoritarianism, and most of all; collectivism. While the Right has remained unchanged.
I reject these notions of the left and right political spectrum, in favor of a nuanced political picture. I don't think these method of slicing people up into camps benefits anyone other than serving the collectivists(!) who like no better than to force the "us vs them" mentality of either you're with us or you are against us.
I mean, what values do you espouse? Are you for government control or individual responsibility, why not both? Setting up such values as contrasts seem to be a divisive tool played by both sides, when there's really no side to pick, just what values one identifies with and how you put into action those values.
Collectivism gave us Communism, fascism, the gulags and kz camps of the 20th century which is why I think individual freedom and responsibility is so important.
So, do you think it serves a utility to offer up such sides? Or do you think, as I, that it should be about what values you identify with (and which values you reject for that matter)?
That is intriguing. Can you offer more?
Quote from: Cavebear on April 13, 2018, 07:17:14 AM
That is intriguing. Can you offer more?
I was inspired mainly by a YouTube comment on this vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qpg6P1PNWR8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qpg6P1PNWR8)
Quote from: Bobby McdonaldActually, there is no Holy Political Spectrum with magical angel "wings" at all, Lindsay. It's a total lie. Nothing at all maximally separates Hitler's national socialists from Stalin's international socialists. Such ideologues were all calling themselves "progressives" back in the 1920s. We should stop promoting the Leftist myth of a bilateral political spectrum entirely. It's stupid. It only perpetuates the problem which rightly has people flummoxed when antifamaggots are calling Ben Shapiro a Nazi. That stupid myth about a "spectrum" dupes people into thinking that anyone who "leans in the direction" of American constitutional conservatism is somehow getting closer to becoming a Nazi. That's just stupid-as-shit.
Hitler's Nazis were reign-of-terror socialists every bit as much as commies are. You're getting a first-hand taste of just how fascist the international socialists are, right? Stalin didn't hate Trotsky any less than he hated Hitler. He murdered Trotsky. You can't hate somebody more than that. All socialists are Leftists and they are all fascists too. The term "Leftist" is properly only an historical allusion to an arrangement of seating in the French national assembly at the end of the 18th Century and there weren't even any "right wingers" back then either. There has never been a bilateral spectrum in reality:
There were simply so many French socialists in the French national assembly room that they occupied all the seats on the left. Everyone else had to physically sit on the right side of the room in a political potpourri. For example, Thomas Paine was neither a Jacobin nor a Montagnard, so he and the other Girondists had to sit in chairs on the right, next to monarchists and others with whom the Girondists had practically nothing in common. There was certainly an ideological Left thereâ€"i.e. the socialists occupied all the seats on the leftâ€"but there was no ideological Right at all and no spectrum. Neither is there such a spectrum today. We need to teach people to think outside of the Left's stupid rhetorical box. We've all been indoctrinated with a lie.
Pretending that the Left's Holy Spectrum exists only serves the interests of deceitful socialists who, for the political survival of their fascist ideology, need to keep people from recognizing that all socialists are group-thinking political witch hunters whose ideology inclines them toward launching reigns of terror against "deplorables". Leftists merely disagree among themselves as to the requirements for a socialist state to be sustainable. Basically, Hitler thought you needed a Super Race, with sloth bred out of it and virtue bred into it. Commies think that any race of peopleâ€"even blacks and Arabsâ€"can have their "deplorables" exterminated so as to make socialism sustainable even in a mixed-race society.
Socialists all have to address the problem of how to prevent a socialist society from degenerating into a nation of couch potatoes when everyone is purportedly to have all their basic material needs provided at no cost by a socialist government. Back in the days when Joe Kennedy was supporting Hitler's socialist movement, he was also sending his boys to England so they could be mentored by Fabian communists. That was thought essential for a well-rounded education in all strains of socialist theory. Nobody knew which type of socialism might work best.
Hitler was a progressive who admired Margaret Sanger's work in the area of eugenicsâ€"especially abortion. In the 1920s and '30s, eugenicists of all socialist strains collaborated in the development of strategies for the mass extermination of "deplorables" whose heads were deemed worthy of being lopped off into guillotine baskets...
youtu.be/PCHJVE9trSM (http://youtu.be/PCHJVE9trSM) (Hillary Clinton says Trump's supporters are a "basket of deplorables")
Nazis and commies used to set aside their disagreements over who the "deplorables" actually were when they wanted to work together on figuring out what ways of killing massive numbers of dissidents would be most economically efficient and most politically palatable.
This is why George Bernard Shaw sounds so much like Hitler here:
youtu.be/hQvsf2MUKRQ (http://youtu.be/hQvsf2MUKRQ) (George Bernard Shaw Defends Hitler, Mass Murder)
All Leftists are fascists. Since the days of the original Leftist Reign of Terror, which led to the rise of the first charismatic Leftist dictator (Napoleon), socialists have been on the cutting edge of coming up with the most politically viable ways of exterminating and otherwise shutting up massive numbers of political opponents. Their first tools where guilt trips, fear mongering and, for undesirables immune to such rhetorical devices, the guillotine and prisons. The Jacobins and Montagnards mainly disagreed only over the effectiveness of prisons. Thomas Paine was therefore extremely lucky to have been captured by Jacobins instead of by the totally brutal Montagnards...
German socialists later developed and applied the gas chamberâ€"a tool that is still used in Japanese cities for the mass extermination of stray dogs as if to remind us of the old East-West structure of the Axis powers:
youtu.be/4q1NBqMKBsQ (http://youtu.be/4q1NBqMKBsQ) (Japan's Dog Death Row)
Today's Euroweenie socialists have brilliantly developed the weapon of single-payer medicine for eliminating "deplorables" to a point where today's targets for extermination don't even have to know their heads are on the socialist chopping block. Here are socialists exterminating elderly men throughout the 1990s, for example:
5-year Prostate Cancer Survival Rates:
UK 51%;
Norway 63%;
Sweden 66%
Denmark 38.4%;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 92.3%
Source: "Cancer survival in five continents: a worldwide population-based study" (Lancet Oncology, July 17, 2008) by Michel Coleman et al.
Elderly men generally don't pay income taxes the way they did before retirement and they use the healthcare system much more than younger men do. Therefore, elderly men stand in the way of a socialist state being sustainable, so you can see the socialists seizing old men's estates in those statistics. That wealth was then redistributed to younger skulls of socialist mush to keep the socialists' corrupt racket going. It's VERY INHUMANE!
After Hitler made national socialism politically nonviable in the West, the international socialists were faced with an existential crisis: They desperately needed to separate, in the minds of the unthinking masses, their ideology's historical association with the Nazis. They did this first by suddenly calling themselves "liberals" instead of "progressives". They also ramped up this "Left-Right" bullshit we're all indoctrinated with today.
This new paradigm insidiously smeared the reputation of civilized American constitutional conservatives with the stench of Hitler's socialist failuresâ€"this despite the fact that conservatives' ideology, centered as it is around individual autonomy, has actually always been anathema to ALL forms of socialism and other tribal group-think.
We need to stop promoting this Left-Right myth if we want a civil society. It's demonic and only breeds the kind of stupidity where Bernie's thugs are going around branding conservative Jews like Ben Shapiro as "Nazis".
We have a real education crisis today and it needs to be addressed immediately. The Left's Political Holy Spirit does not exist. There is no evidence for its existence. There are no wings.
I don't agree with everything Bobby writes, but it has marked the tipping point in which I reject the political spectrum being divided into sides.
Also, I'm not so sure values can be so easily pinned down to one of the political spectrum that is used to the Left or to the Right. This is easily recognizable by something like an abortion-endorsing Republican, where, of course, people think that since it's a Republican, the person must necessarily be pro-life and therefore dismiss such notions as an oxymoron. Who decided such contrasts? If I say I identify with classical libertarian values, does that necessarily mean I'm totally against gun control? Says who? What do people even mean when they identify with a certain ideology?
I think people can use labels, sure, but it should be with the caveat that they're
labels and are superficially descriptive at best.
I have taken the 8values (at https://8values.github.io/ ) political test, but even for most of the questions, I felt like they weren't indicative of my core political values, that these 8 dimensions could so easily be cut down to a spectrum. So, I'm weary of these kinds of left/right dichotomies.
Quote from: Sal1981 on April 13, 2018, 08:06:33 AM
I was inspired mainly by a YouTube comment on this vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qpg6P1PNWR8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qpg6P1PNWR8)
I don't agree with everything Bobby writes, but it has marked the tipping point in which I reject the political spectrum being divided into sides.
Also, I'm not so sure values can be so easily pinned down to one of the political spectrum that is used to the Left or to the Right. This is easily recognizable by something like an abortion-endorsing Republican, where, of course, people think that since it's a Republican, the person must necessarily be pro-life and therefore dismiss such notions as an oxymoron. Who decided such contrasts? If I say I identify with classical libertarian values, does that necessarily mean I'm totally against gun control? Says who? What do people even mean when they identify with a certain ideology?
I think people can use labels, sure, but it should be with the caveat that they're labels and are superficially descriptive at best.
I have taken the 8values (at https://8values.github.io/ ) political test, but even for most of the questions, I felt like they weren't indicative of my core political values, that these 8 dimensions could so easily be cut down to a spectrum. So, I'm weary of these kinds of left/right dichotomies.
I've never been comfortable with labels, though I have often felt forced to adopt one to make it easier for others to "understand" me. I'm more situational that idealogical. Some ideas from the Right make sense, some from the Left make sense.
But the link sends me to some dedicated conservative twit. Can you check it please?
BTW, these are the 8values result for me:
https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=57.9&d=68.6&g=66.5&s=81.3 (https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=57.9&d=68.6&g=66.5&s=81.3)
Quote from: Cavebear on April 13, 2018, 08:21:13 AM
I've never been comfortable with labels, though I have often felt forced to adopt one to make it easier for others to "understand" me. I'm more situational that idealogical. Some ideas from the Right make sense, some from the Left make sense.
But the link sends me to some dedicated conservative twit. Can you check it please?
I've already watched that - she explains why she doesn't call herself as a leftist anymore and gives reason as to why.
Quote from: Sal1981 on April 13, 2018, 08:22:03 AM
BTW, these are the 8values result for me:
https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=57.9&d=68.6&g=66.5&s=81.3 (https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=57.9&d=68.6&g=66.5&s=81.3)
That is a very different site and comports more with my understanding of reality. Which causes me to wonder about that other link you offerred. Accidental links are often the truest gaze into the mind of another.
I saw what you really think... You slipped. And I am not impressed! That previous link that you tried to hide is one of the most hideous things I have ever witnessed. I withdraw any positive statement I made about you. Deception is not grounds for long-lasting agreement.
You ALMOST me going. A shot at centricism. Well done crappist.
Quote from: Cavebear on April 13, 2018, 08:37:51 AM
That is a very different site and comports more with my understanding of reality. Which causes me to wonder about that other link you offerred. Accidental links are often the truest gaze into the mind of another.
I saw what you really think... You slipped. And I am not impressed! That previous link that you tried to hide is one of the most hideous things I have ever witnessed. I withdraw any positive statement I made about you. Deception is not grounds for long-lasting agreement.
You ALMOST me going. A shot at centricism. Well done crappist.
What other link? Do you mean the quoted Bobby Mcdonald YouTube comment?
Quote from: Sal1981 on April 13, 2018, 07:10:09 AM
We have been lied to about these political spectrums, when it's really just collectivism versus individualism across the board. The people who identify with today's Left are for censorship, authoritarianism, and most of all; collectivism. While the Right has remained unchanged.
As a leftist who's pretty strongly in the individualist camp and adamantly opposed to censorship and authoritarianism (and I'm pretty sure I'm far from alone in that regard), this makes for a very bizarre read. Late April Fools joke?
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 13, 2018, 08:59:05 AM
As a leftist who's pretty strongly in the individualist camp and adamantly opposed to censorship and authoritarianism (and I'm pretty sure I'm far from alone in that regard), this makes for a very bizarre read. Late April Fools joke?
The point is that the dichotomy left/right doesn't explain nuanced views.
Sendt fra min SM-G920F med Tapatalk
QuoteCollectivism gave us Communism, fascism, the gulags and kz camps of the 20th century...
Collectivism has also given us social welfare, stronger economies (countries in Europe that rank higher on the collectivist scale also rank higher in economic growth), and support for amazing feats like putting a man on the moon ("We" had to beat "them") or other massive social projects.
Individualism mean while has given us dictators that only care about themselves, corporations that put their wealth over the good of society, and a society that doesn't care for it's neighbour nearly as much as it should.
The point I'm trying to make is not that collectivism is good and individualism is bad, but rather that they both have goods and bads. I don't believe that is all individualism has to offer, and I don't believe everything collectivism has to offer is good either. There is certainly a lot of room for the individual to pursue their agenda, but overall a society that cares about the society is a more efficient one than one that cares about the individual first.
Edit: I will say this; individualism also gave us Ayn Rand and libertarians. That in its very nature sure make one question just how inherently sane individualism is.
Quote from: Sal1981 on April 13, 2018, 09:31:49 AM
The point is that the dichotomy left/right doesn't explain nuanced views.
Sendt fra min SM-G920F med Tapatalk
Exactly.
Was hitler left or right?
Well, his economics were left - and socially he was right, and so this would land him in the center. Billy next door just has moderate views on prettymuch everything, and so he is center also. Hitler and Billy are both centrists, despite not having similar belief systems in the least. If the left-right spectrum cannot say with any accuracy what someones views are no matter where they fall on the spectrum, it no longer serves the purpose of its very existence. It's fallacious.
Quote from: Sal1981 on April 13, 2018, 08:22:03 AM
BTW, these are the 8values result for me:
https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=57.9&d=68.6&g=66.5&s=81.3 (https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=57.9&d=68.6&g=66.5&s=81.3)
My result made me ... the only Centrist here.
Quote from: Shiranu on April 13, 2018, 11:20:51 AM
Collectivism has also given us social welfare, stronger economies (countries in Europe that rank higher on the collectivist scale also rank higher in economic growth), and support for amazing feats like putting a man on the moon ("We" had to beat "them") or other massive social projects.
Individualism mean while has given us dictators that only care about themselves, corporations that put their wealth over the good of society, and a society that doesn't care for it's neighbour nearly as much as it should.
The point I'm trying to make is not that collectivism is good and individualism is bad, but rather that they both have goods and bads. I don't believe that is all individualism has to offer, and I don't believe everything collectivism has to offer is good either. There is certainly a lot of room for the individual to pursue their agenda, but overall a society that cares about the society is a more efficient one than one that cares about the individual first.
Unions gave us social welfare. Are the D people promoting unions? The best social welfare is a good job at a good wage. Federal workers get that, because of unions. That has gone bye-bye in the private sector since 1980. Union voters controlled the D party from FDR until LBJ. Then the 60s happened, and it all went to shit. Unions got blamed for wage inflation and non-competitive industry. The government and corporate leaders were innocent, I tell you!
Quote from: Sal1981 on April 13, 2018, 09:31:49 AM
The point is that the dichotomy left/right doesn't explain nuanced views.
Sendt fra min SM-G920F med Tapatalk
Cavebear's situationalism would agree with you, except for his web link paranoia ;-(
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 13, 2018, 05:45:04 PM
Exactly.
Was hitler left or right?
Well, his economics were left - and socially he was right, and so this would land him in the center. Billy next door just has moderate views on prettymuch everything, and so he is center also. Hitler and Billy are both centrists, despite not having similar belief systems in the least. If the left-right spectrum cannot say with any accuracy what someones views are no matter where they fall on the spectrum, it no longer serves the purpose of its very existence. It's fallacious.
Left = French Revolution and all imitators, if it means anything at all. It doesn't mean the American Revolution, or even Fabian British Socialism. So just better to call them blood thirsty revolutionaries!
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 13, 2018, 05:45:04 PM
Exactly.
Was hitler left or right?
Well, his economics were left - and socially he was right, and so this would land him in the center. Billy next door just has moderate views on prettymuch everything, and so he is center also. Hitler and Billy are both centrists, despite not having similar belief systems in the least. If the left-right spectrum cannot say with any accuracy what someones views are no matter where they fall on the spectrum, it no longer serves the purpose of its very existence. It's fallacious.
Hitler was probably neither left nor right. He mostly went with whatever worked. Very nice post. Thank you.
Quote from: Cavebear on April 15, 2018, 03:23:44 AM
Hitler was probably neither left nor right. He mostly went with whatever worked. Very nice post. Thank you.
Stalin was probably neither left nor right. He mostly went with whatever worked (for him). A corrected paraphrase.
Quote from: Sal1981 on April 13, 2018, 07:10:09 AM
I've used "the Left" to signify people on the social and progressive leaning political platform, while "the Right" have been the conservative and "family values", whatever that is supposed to mean. I don't find these to be contrasts, at least not anymore.
We have been lied to about these political spectrums, when it's really just collectivism versus individualism across the board. The people who identify with today's Left are for censorship, authoritarianism, and most of all; collectivism. While the Right has remained unchanged.
The right remains unchanged? Unchanged from what? It seems more vicious than I remember it in the past, and I hate to say this, but a bit more screwball. It's also farther to the right, as is the Left, whatever new spectrum label that you choose to give it. I agree that "Left" and "Right" are not nuanced. They don't identify any specific values that are across the board.
But you know what? Left and Right do describe something very important in our political division. They are used by the Left and Right to describe their very selves. There is a Left and Right side of the isle in the senate. When a person says he is part of the Right (or Left), a general and immediate picture comes to mind. It may not be accurate, but it is no less accurate than saying, I'm an individualist (or collectivist), which warrant's about the equivalent of "WTF?", and is no more descriptive than Left or Right. How individualist is it to take away a woman's control over her body? Or for that matter how collectivist is it to require you get a license to own a gun? These are labels without particular meaning, and often inaccurate at that.
Left and Right mean something to people. They mean something to politicians and the media who capitalize on the generalizations to divide and separate people into one of two groups.
Quote from: Sal1981 on April 13, 2018, 07:10:09 AM
So, do you think it serves a utility to offer up such sides? Or do you think, as I, that it should be about what values you identify with (and which values you reject for that matter)?
In and ideal world, it should be about values, but in reality it's about Left and Right, colloquial synonyms specifically meaning Democrat and Republican. The two party system depends on this. People identify themselves that way, and they defend their group with the enthusiasm of the self righteous.
Give these groups different labels, and eventually those labels will become meaningless and used to describe an equivalent emotional state just as they do today, just like the ideology labels like Nazi, Fascist, Socialist, Capitalist, Left or Right, rather than what those things actually are. They will be divided into evil and good, no matter what they really accomplish.
I think what you are doing here is trying to describe a fucked up system, and then trying to unfuck it by changing some labels.
People are fucked up ... no shit Capt Obvious ;-) My dad used to comment about Medieval battle, where men didn't wear clear uniforms (other than personal heraldry) ... "how can you tell who to hit?". Well .. is someone hits you, you hit them back, I suppose. Politically, changes are proposed. Either something new, or an attempt to modify or cancel something in the status quo. One could say that the Left is the one striving for "something new" ... and that the opposite is clearly reactionary (from the POV of that Left ... hence Right). So it was Left to introduce gay marriage, but Right to try to reverse gay marriage. Yeah, I don't find that rhetoric to be very useful.
If the label "Left" doesn't suit a Leftist, they will likely deny that the Left-Right spectrum is real. They are spreading scared squid ink. Similar a Rightist who doesn't want to be called racist. We only embrace labels as "us" because we see some benefit in doing so.
Quote from: Baruch on April 15, 2018, 09:45:40 AM
People are fucked up ... no shit Capt Obvious ;-)
I hate to be obvious.
Quote from: Baruch on April 15, 2018, 09:45:40 AM
If the label "Left" doesn't suit a Leftist, they will likely deny that the Left-Right spectrum is real. They are spreading scared squid ink. Similar a Rightist who doesn't want to be called racist. We only embrace labels as "us" because we see some benefit in doing so.
Centrist seems to be a fashionable label for those that want to appear to be moderate because the original label has become politicized into an inflammatory attack, but it doesn't say much about what the person's values are. He might be at the center of some wacky extreme and not even realize it.
Yeah, my dad calls himself a "Centrist," but he is a Republican in every sense of the word. The only "Centrist" thing I've seen of him was when we were at this bar with some of our family friends. My throat was sore, so it was difficult to talk. The others started talking about conspiracies straight out of Fox News, and my dad was the only one who expressed any healthy specticism. He compared it to 9/11 truther claims, only for several of them to reveal they were 9/11 truthers as well. It was quite a weird experience. I'm not used to my dad being the most reasonable person in the room.
Quote from: SGOS on April 15, 2018, 10:42:00 AM
I hate to be obvious.
Centrist seems to be a fashionable label for those that want to appear to be moderate because the original label has become politicized into an inflammatory attack, but it doesn't say much about what the person's values are. He might be at the center of some wacky extreme and not even realize it.
Better than Capt Oblivious ;-)
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 15, 2018, 11:08:09 AM
Yeah, my dad calls himself a "Centrist," but he is a Republican in every sense of the word. The only "Centrist" thing I've seen of him was when we were at this bar with some of our family friends. My throat was sore, so it was difficult to talk. The others started talking about conspiracies straight out of Fox News, and my dad was the only one who expressed any healthy specticism. He compared it to 9/11 truther claims, only for several of them to reveal they were 9/11 truthers as well. It was quite a weird experience. I'm not used to my dad being the most reasonable person in the room.
My father was Republican too, but a centrist. He wasn't in favor of unnecessary wars, or of Richard Nixon's criminality. He wasn't in favor of out of control budgets or give aways to the rich. He would probably not have supported gay marriage ... and didn't like Johnson's Great Society (buying votes of the weak). I think he was pretty typical of the working man of his time. Since then we have been brutalized again and again, particularly since 1981. The New Republicans were S Democrats and John Birchers ... not something he supported. My mother was the S Democrat, though she didn't hate American minorities, she did hate Japanese (WW II).
It is natural to oppose whatever your parents are for, particularly when you are still young. I wasn't typical though. The Powell memo, the PNAC and the Southern Strategy are anathema to me, though a bit before my time.
Quote from: Baruch on April 15, 2018, 01:08:58 PMIt is natural to oppose whatever your parents are for, particularly when you are still young. I wasn't typical though. The Powell memo, the PNAC and the Southern Strategy are anathema to me, though a bit before my time.
Actually, people usually have similar world views as their parents. You grow up hearing their opinions so much, they become ingrained in your mind. Christians beget Christians, Republicans beget Republicans. Those who break the family trend are not the norm.
The labels of 'left' and 'right' don't mean much--or they mean whatever the users want them to mean. And the users don't usually tell you exactly what they mean. They just use the words. For me left means those fighting against the divine right of kings--or change from a more autocratic form of govt. to one less autocratic. The right means those fighting to maintain the divine right of kinds--or for tradition and the way things were done in the past.
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 15, 2018, 01:19:59 PM
Actually, people usually have similar world views as their parents. You grow up hearing their opinions so much, they become ingrained in your mind. Christians beget Christians, Republicans beget Republicans. Those who break the family trend are not the norm.
I broke ranks with my parents who were Republicans, possibly because my grandparents were Republicans. But politics played a small role in my parent's lives, and they didn't rail on about how bad the Democrats were. I called myself a Republican, but I was really apolitical until I started paying attention and decided the Republicans were against my values. But this was at a time before the political make up of our leadership had shifted so far to the right, and back then, Republicans and Democrats agreed with each other, or at least compromised on things. Democrats today seem like the Republicans of my youth when acrimony didn't rule political decisions the way they do today.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 15, 2018, 01:47:16 PM
The labels of 'left' and 'right' don't mean much--or they mean whatever the users want them to mean. And the users don't usually tell you exactly what they mean. They just use the words. For me left means those fighting against the divine right of kings--or change from a more autocratic form of govt. to one less autocratic. The right means those fighting to maintain the divine right of kinds--or for tradition and the way things were done in the past.
Très français de toi. And Jeffersonian. You were born about 200+ years too late.
Quote from: Baruch on April 15, 2018, 05:00:09 PM
Très français de toi. And Jeffersonian. You were born about 200+ years too late.
No, not really. Those definitions still work. I guess that makes me a traditional liberal. :cool:
Political designations of Left/Right are messy, the labels keep changing, but I think there is enough psychological and social science research to support there are value differences between liberals and conservatives these differences are cross-cultural. Certain people are more open to novel experiences or appreciate order or are more group oriented. These preferences express themselves in political beliefs.
I've been called a bleeding-heart liberal, mainly because in comparison to people around me I am liberal, but don't label myself as liberal anymore because not all my beliefs are progressive and Left/Right politics does seem to perpetuate dichotomy. If someone wants my position on an issue I will give it, although often I don't have enough information to form an opinion. I typically focus on individual rights but I'm no libertarian, I believe we need government to protect individuals from the tyranny of the masses, excesses of capitalism and other problems. I tend to be more solution-focused than ideologically consistent. I don't believe in the Golden Age of the right or the Utopia of the left. I also don't think "people are fucked up." Everyone is trying to get their needs met and sometimes we do fucked up things and sometimes we do great things. Individually and collectively we are all works in progress.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 15, 2018, 06:54:53 PM
No, not really. Those definitions still work. I guess that makes me a traditional liberal. :cool:
So, are you assembling a guillotine, mon cheri?
I think the main problem with modern politics is that we still see holders of political positions as our rulers rather than our servants.
The two main problems with people in political positions are the issues of wealth and power. It is not a good thing for a country to have a political leader that can gain two much of both.
We've solved (for the most part) the problem of too much power. Leaders generally need a quorum of consent in order to act. But at the moment, democracies don't have a way to prevent someone holding political power from using it to unfairly gain a disproportionate amount of wealth.
Quote from: Jason78 on April 15, 2018, 11:04:55 PMdemocracies don't have a way to prevent someone holding political power from using it to unfairly gain a disproportionate amount of wealth.
Or vice versa.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 16, 2018, 12:25:26 AM
Or vice versa.
That is why we need Plato's Uber-menschen ... aka Guardians. Greek Mentats.
Quote from: Baruch on April 16, 2018, 01:08:00 AM
That is why we need Plato's Uber-menschen ... aka Guardians. Greek Mentats.
Orange mentats are good in combat and grape mentats are good with merchants--I haven't found any greek mentats yet.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 16, 2018, 03:40:09 AM
Orange mentats are good in combat and grape mentats are good with merchants--I haven't found any greek mentats yet.
You have to eat lots of the dolmades ... stuffed grape leaves. Then wash that down with retsina (pine resin flavored white wine from Athens). Get the grape, coming and going. ΕίσÏ,,ε αÏ...Ï,,ÏŒ ποÏ... Ï,,ÏÏŽÏ,,ε
Quote from: Jason78 on April 15, 2018, 11:04:55 PM
I think the main problem with modern politics is that we still see holders of political positions as our rulers rather than our servants.
They are servants, servants of the wealthy, paid by the wealthy, with money from the middle class:
"Jeeves, bring me another bill, one that says I get all the money."
"Right away, Sir."
Everyone has always been the bitch of the chieftain ... from tribal days until now. Just be glad you aren't a cute pool boy ;-)
Quote from: SGOS on April 17, 2018, 06:59:36 AM
They are servants, servants of the wealthy, paid by the wealthy, with money from the middle class:
"Jeeves, bring me another bill, one that says I get all the money."
"Right away, Sir."
I've never understood the american idea of lobbying. It seems like sanctioned bribery.
Quote from: Jason78 on April 17, 2018, 01:15:58 PM
I've never understood the american idea of lobbying. It seems like sanctioned bribery.
Seems like? That is exactly what it is. It was legalized by the people who take the bribes. Go figure that one out.
Quote from: Jason78 on April 17, 2018, 01:15:58 PM
I've never understood the american idea of lobbying. It seems like sanctioned bribery.
If you think that's bad, check out our courts. You can pay a guy to work to get you a lesser sentence from the judge. Just don't mistakenly pay the judge directly!
Quote from: SGOS on April 15, 2018, 01:51:11 PM
I broke ranks with my parents who were Republicans, possibly because my grandparents were Republicans. But politics played a small role in my parent's lives, and they didn't rail on about how bad the Democrats were. I called myself a Republican, but I was really apolitical until I started paying attention and decided the Republicans were against my values. But this was at a time before the political make up of our leadership had shifted so far to the right, and back then, Republicans and Democrats agreed with each other, or at least compromised on things. Democrats today seem like the Republicans of my youth when acrimony didn't rule political decisions the way they do today.
My parents were both conservative Republicans (though my mother changed her views in old age - and my father became moreso to balance things out I suppose). I am not. Nor are any of my siblings. Conservative Republicans will go the way of the Whigs someday.
Quote from: Cavebear on April 19, 2018, 02:25:25 AM
My parents were both conservative Republicans (though my mother changed her views in old age - and my father became moreso to balance things out I suppose). I am not. Nor are any of my siblings. Conservative Republicans will go the way of the Whigs someday.
What, a cure for male pattern baldness?
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 17, 2018, 02:00:44 PM
If you think that's bad, check out our courts. You can pay a guy to work to get you a lesser sentence from the judge. Just don't mistakenly pay the judge directly!
And here I was thinking that a courts job was to allow people to argue their cases and meet out justice impartially!
How naive of me!
Quote from: Jason78 on April 19, 2018, 01:38:01 PM
And here I was thinking that a courts job was to allow people to argue their cases and meet out justice impartially!
How naive of me!
Civics 101 lessons from Poli-Sci professor Cavebear? Don't eat the yellow snow!
Scewering Colbert interview of Comey ...
https://youtu.be/_LlEco44ekE
The spawn of J Edgar may yet get what is coming to them ...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/04/19/former-fbi-deputy-director-andrew-mccabe-federal-charges/533620002/
Quote from: Baruch on April 20, 2018, 07:10:43 AM
Scewering Colbert interview of Comey ...
The spawn of J Edgar may yet get what is coming to them ...
That commentator is more annoying than continual robocalls, although Comey may have been more influential than the Russians in swinging the presidential election over to Trump. Then he goes after Trump. His actions were perplexing. Was he the head of the FBI or a political operative trying to subvert the system? I kept wondering what his agenda was. He magnified the surrealist atmosphere of the most bizarre presidential election I can remember. Did he want Trump in the Whitehouse so he could be remembered for bringing down "the most powerful person in the world"? I'm just grasping at straws looking for a way to explain a behavior which I can't understand.
I may buy his book even though "tell all" books have never interested me. It seems like he has an interesting story to tell, but what could possibly be in the book that I don't already know? He has been under a microscope for two years, and he's still trying to hang on to the limelight as he drifts further into obscurity.
Quote from: SGOS on April 20, 2018, 08:15:19 AM
That commentator is more annoying than continual robocalls, although Comey may have been more influential than the Russians in swinging the presidential election over to Trump. Then he goes after Trump. His actions were perplexing. Was he the head of the FBI or a political operative trying to subvert the system? I kept wondering what his agenda was. He magnified the surrealist atmosphere of the most bizarre presidential election I can remember. Did he want Trump in the Whitehouse so he could be remembered for bringing down "the most powerful person in the world"? I'm just grasping at straws looking for a way to explain a behavior which I can't understand.
I may buy his book even though "tell all" books have never interested me. It seems like he has an interesting story to tell, but what could possibly be in the book that I don't already know? He has been under a microscope for two years, and he's still trying to hang on to the limelight as he drifts further into obscurity.
I also wonder what Comey's motivation was for how he acted. He was a huge reason Hillary lost. Why did he do that email shit again??? What he says his reasons were just don't add up. And then he is going after Trump. He doesn't seem to be able to make up his mind--does he want to be the hero to all sides???
Quote from: SGOS on April 20, 2018, 08:15:19 AM
That commentator is more annoying than continual robocalls, although Comey may have been more influential than the Russians in swinging the presidential election over to Trump. Then he goes after Trump. His actions were perplexing. Was he the head of the FBI or a political operative trying to subvert the system? I kept wondering what his agenda was. He magnified the surrealist atmosphere of the most bizarre presidential election I can remember. Did he want Trump in the Whitehouse so he could be remembered for bringing down "the most powerful person in the world"? I'm just grasping at straws looking for a way to explain a behavior which I can't understand.
I may buy his book even though "tell all" books have never interested me. It seems like he has an interesting story to tell, but what could possibly be in the book that I don't already know? He has been under a microscope for two years, and he's still trying to hang on to the limelight as he drifts further into obscurity.
Well, he may need book revenue to pay his legal bills, if charged with obstruction of justice. But really Facebook data mining was more influential as data gathering for the prior Obama campaigns and the Trump campaign.
What has been written, but not proven, is that Comey did what Obama wanted (in agreement with Hillary) ... and they all have to go into the wood-chipper to avoid stink landing directly on the Voldemorts of politics.
The D party is now suing Russia, Trump, and Wikileaks for stealing the election from Hillary. They don't want to go quietly into the night, Comey neither. We won't know who killed Seth Rich, anymore than who killed JFK, but everyone will know anyway. The investigator of the Seth Rich murder was connected to the Podestas.
Have you seen what kind of artwork Tony Podesta kept on his walls at home? The D party is the Satan party.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 20, 2018, 10:45:12 AM
I also wonder what Comey's motivation was for how he acted. He was a huge reason Hillary lost. Why did he do that email shit again??? What he says his reasons were just don't add up. And then he is going after Trump. He doesn't seem to be able to make up his mind--does he want to be the hero to all sides???
FBI chief is supposed to be politically neutral. If the FBI, DoD etc are not ... then I vote for ending democracy permanently. So it would be OK with you, if the heads of these agencies were blatantly partisan?
Quote from: Baruch on April 20, 2018, 01:05:54 PM
FBI chief is supposed to be politically neutral. If the FBI, DoD etc are not ... then I vote for ending democracy permanently. So it would be OK with you, if the heads of these agencies were blatantly partisan?
It's hard to prove that Comey was being partisan when he reopened the Hillary investigation. Superficially, it looked that way, but he would of course argue that it was purely investigative and without motive. I've heard this discussed on NPR, some saying it was inappropriate as it would impact the elections results, which would be a violation of protocol (intervention from a supposedly neutral government agency), some saying that it would have little impact anyway, and some saying it appeared to be a violation of protocol at best, but possibly not an actual criminal act.
At the other extreme you would have Republicans arguing that reopening the investigation was absolutely necessary at that exact time. I don't know what Democrats were thinking, other than, "Ouch! This is not going to be good for us," but that's just a guess. To me I'll speculate that reopening the investigation, and then closing it less than a week later a couple of days before the election could have been a panicky cluster fuck at the FBI with a bunch of agents running around in circles like the Keystone Cops.
This is probably one of those things the public will never know.
The FBI was going to investigate the Clinton bribe fund in late 2015, and they put the kibosh on that. They were going to make serious charges against Hillary for email server-gate in early 2016, and they put the kibosh on that. They had Huma and her husband with criminal, salacious documents on his laptop, possibly stuff taken from Hillary's server or other DNC computers as "insurance", and they put the kibosh on that. The FBI did everything, short of destroying evidence (except maybe they did with the DWS/Awan laptop and the Weiner/Huma laptop), to prevent the Hillary clown train from crashing into the Sun ... but they are just disinterested parties, yes? Nixon was completely innocent, then ... never partisan at all, the Watergate burglars were just in the wrong office of the Watergate that night, had a totally different and legitimate National Security target in mind ... not the DNC.
Yes, we will never know. So never ever indict a R person or a D person ... because the Deep State will withhold what they know, so they can't get a fair trial then.
Quote from: Jason78 on April 19, 2018, 01:38:01 PM
And here I was thinking that a courts job was to allow people to argue their cases and meet out justice impartially!
How naive of me!
Well, yes, actually. Judges are appointed by political views too often lately. It should stop.
Quote from: Jason78 on April 17, 2018, 01:15:58 PM
I've never understood the american idea of lobbying. It seems like sanctioned bribery.
I would call it sanctioned sedition. How silly of me to think that Americans care.
BTW bribery is one of those impeachable offenses that the Constitution requires said offender to be impeached. 50%+ of Congress guilty as charged.
J Comey should be staying quiet right now. I think his yapping is going to compromise Mueller’s investigation. I thought he was smart enough to know that. Makes me wonder what his motivations are.
Quote from: fencerider on April 21, 2018, 05:09:02 PM
I would call it sanctioned sedition. How silly of me to think that Americans care.
BTW bribery is one of those impeachable offenses that the Constitution requires said offender to be impeached. 50%+ of Congress guilty as charged.
J Comey should be staying quiet right now. I think his yapping is going to compromise Mueller’s investigation. I thought he was smart enough to know that. Makes me wonder what his motivations are.
Motivation in Washington DC? Money. Mueller has done much to compromise Mueller's investigation ;-( Reminds me of the 1930s Stalin show trials.
Campus Bad Time Tales
@pr126https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10798
The SDS rides again ... or not. Or did Soros forget to pay anti-Fa this week?
Yes, Virginia ... there is a Futurama Santa Claus hiding under your bed, he was hired by your parents ... bwahaha.
All the young Americans I know, are the ones I work with. Very patriotic and hard working, and they don't want to throw their lives away for stupid government policy. Even the college educated ones. LBJ ... threw away countless lives both ours and theirs ... and he was a D. Nixon and Ford would have kept us there, contrary to their public agenda, but Congress, to be anti-R, took us out of SE Asia. Sometimes blind opposition is a good thing. But that didn't mean that the D leadership became pacifist ... other than Carter of course. The Clintons and Obama were almost cut from the same cloth as LBJ.
Quote from: fencerider on April 21, 2018, 05:09:02 PM
J Comey should be staying quiet right now. I think his yapping is going to compromise Mueller’s investigation. I thought he was smart enough to know that. Makes me wonder what his motivations are.
I'm skeptical that he might compromise an FBI investigation. Browsing some of the Amazon user reviews, I noticed a consensus that there is nothing of importance in his book that has not been already dissected in the news. The rave reviews outnumbered the others by a wide margin, but centered mostly on praising his integrity, rather than providing any new information to the public. The few negative reviews were one liners like "boring," but didn't address anything of substance.
Who knows how being publicly humiliated and fired from a job as director of anything, even if you are fired by a known dunce, could alter your judgment. I try to look at how I would respond. I might want revenge on the dunce that fired me, but I would not want to undermine the system I tried to build and nurture. But then people have been known to flip out and self destruct now and then.
On the side, this whole thing reminds me of the Watergate investigation, when Nixon fired the special prosecutor that was investigating him. It struck me as Nixon saying to the public, "Americans, I am guilty, but this is the last thing I can think of to save my ass."
Quote from: SGOS on April 22, 2018, 08:38:45 AM
I'm skeptical that he might compromise an FBI investigation. Browsing some of the Amazon user reviews, I noticed a consensus that there is nothing of importance in his book that has not been already dissected in the news. The rave reviews outnumbered the others by a wide margin, but centered mostly on praising his integrity, rather than providing any new information to the public. The few negative reviews were one liners like "boring," but didn't address anything of substance.
Who knows how being publicly humiliated and fired from a job as director of anything, even if you are fired by a known dunce, could alter your judgment. I try to look at how I would respond. I might want revenge on the dunce that fired me, but I would not want to undermine the system I tried to build and nurture. But then people have been known to flip out and self destruct now and then.
On the side, this whole thing reminds me of the Watergate investigation, when Nixon fired the special prosecutor that was investigating him. It struck me as Nixon saying to the public, "Americans, I am guilty, but this is the last thing I can think of to save my ass."
Soy-boy fan-boys will buy up all the copies, to help fund his defense from the Twitter attacks of the Orange Hitler ;-))
Integrity = Death to the R party? Just say no to partisanship, or get on the cattle car to the FEMA camp.
Quote from: Baruch on April 20, 2018, 01:05:54 PM
FBI chief is supposed to be politically neutral. If the FBI, DoD etc are not ... then I vote for ending democracy permanently. So it would be OK with you, if the heads of these agencies were blatantly partisan?
There is no evidence that Comey acted in a partisan manner. Irresponsible, but not partisan.
It was the responsible thing to delay the announcement about Clinton investigation a week, until after the elections. Comey is surely not naive not to expect his announcement to harm Clinton and benefit Spanky, even if he pretends to be on national television.
Furthermore, how do you determine political neutrality? Everyone has their own opinions. Comey is no doubt ideologically Republican. But that is not enough to draw a conclusion that the man is not neutral. Neutrality is best established by assessing conduct.
Comey is the same man who averted the signing of a domestic surveillance program when AG Gonzales (appointed by Bush II) tried to get Ashcroft to sign approval paperwork while in critical condition in the hospital.
He's the same man who helped thousands of families in NY by taking down the Gambino crime family.
He's been a storybook Boy Scout who served his country well for his entire career, one that was inspired by a break-in at his house while a teenager and a deep desire to protect other families and help children feel safe.
He is also human, and humans make mistakes.
But all of the above are evidence that his conduct is patriotic and in service to this country and its people regardless of their political delineations.
Quote from: fencerider on April 21, 2018, 05:09:02 PM
I would call it sanctioned sedition. How silly of me to think that Americans care.
BTW bribery is one of those impeachable offenses that the Constitution requires said offender to be impeached. 50%+ of Congress guilty as charged.
J Comey should be staying quiet right now. I think his yapping is going to compromise Mueller’s investigation. I thought he was smart enough to know that. Makes me wonder what his motivations are.
There are easy ways around bribery and politicians know them all. Political campaign funds that stay with the politician are a simply example. Good "loans" are another. Investments in politicians' businesses are hard to prove as bribery ("hey, I thought it was a good investment").
Any lobbiest who offers actually cash is a fool and the politician who accepts cash is an idiot deserving jail time.
And I agree that Comey should have kept his book ready to publish AFTER the current investigation. I understand that he is now a private citizen and can write any book he wants, but his declarations of "public duty" suggests he might have waited.
Quote from: Cavebear on April 24, 2018, 01:44:02 AM
There are easy ways around bribery and politicians know them all. Political campaign funds that stay with the politician are a simply example. Good "loans" are another. Investments in politicians' businesses are hard to prove as bribery ("hey, I thought it was a good investment").
Any lobbiest who offers actually cash is a fool and the politician who accepts cash is an idiot deserving jail time.
And I agree that Comey should have kept his book ready to publish AFTER the current investigation. I understand that he is now a private citizen and can write any book he wants, but his declarations of "public duty" suggests he might have waited.
I haven't finished reading Coney's book, but so far he has not revealed anything we do not already know.
While on Stephen Colbert, Comey reiterated as much and also revealed that the book was reviewed by the FBI for classified information before being published.
Quote from: Sylar on April 25, 2018, 01:26:52 AM
I haven't finished reading Coney's book, but so far he has not revealed anything we do not already know.
While on Stephen Colbert, Comey reiterated as much and also revealed that the book was reviewed by the FBI for classified information before being published.
Yes, he did better with his book, then when he initially leaked his "memos". If he had released anything in the book, that was classified, I would have him waterboarded.
Quote from: Sylar on April 25, 2018, 01:26:52 AM
I haven't finished reading Coney's book, but so far he has not revealed anything we do not already know.
While on Stephen Colbert, Comey reiterated as much and also revealed that the book was reviewed by the FBI for classified information before being published.
That's a good point also. No real surprises in Comey's book. I won't bother to read it (as I haven't any president's book since Grant)
Quote from: Cavebear on May 01, 2018, 10:58:14 PM
That's a good point also. No real surprises in Comey's book. I won't bother to read it (as I haven't any president's book since Grant)
I respect Grant. He wrote to feed his family. No fancy Presidential library funds back then.