Politics (formerly Election 2012)

[Fetzie]

Running for office is really hard to do while trying to actually do "the right thing". Doing whats right for an administered region (be that county, country or other) will, inevitably, be unpopular with a significant portion of possible voters, which means that doing "the righ thing" can doom your own reelection - there is a reason second term presidents have an easier time doing the big stuff, they don't have to worry about getting reelected.

Which is why local politicians tend to be more popular than national politicians.

[Lieris]

You Americans might be so desensitised to the GOP hateful rhetoric that you give a free pass to such shameless bigotry but that's why their views are so mainstream in polite society, because you legitimise them instead of calling them out for being racist/misogynist etc. I might be blunt but at least I don't make excuses for the American Taliban.

Out of curiosity, do you paint the American Left with as broad brush associating the entire spectrum with their worst elements, or do you truly believe that rhetoric of "American Taliban"?

Can you explain what the Taliban are? Why do you call the GOP the American Taliban?

I'm honestly curious if you've given it some thought and came to your position independently, or if you're just repeating talking points and memes because that's all you know or have been exposed to, where you live.

America doesn't have a discernible left wing movement; the democrat party are centre-right.

FWIW I think "Obamacare" is a bad joke and that Obama is a gigantic douche nozzle for not closing Guantanamo and for the indiscriminate drone strikes that are murdering civilians.

BTW it was a group of Republican politicians who dubbed themselves the American Taliban, it's not something I made up but given their contempt for women and neocon love of warfare the glove kind of fits.

[Lieris]

I'm probably getting into something that might not be my business but I am guessing that Lieris had to deal with a lot of discrimination in their life, judging from the strong reactions to specific topics.

I'd say if someone is a victim of something, of course you are gonna lash out at anyone that defends similar behaviors to the one you were a victim of. Or at least that you perceive as defending such actions.

I am fortunate in that because of other factors I am insulated from a lot of the discrimination that I would otherwise be subjected to. It's important to recognise ones privileges and how pervasive they are, to work on dismantling that and to speak up in solidarity for others.

[Lieris]

Wanting women to have the final say over their body
Wanting all people to be allowed to be married regardless of if their significant other is the same sex
Wanting to make sure that education, mental health, and health care are taken care of for all of our citizens,
and making sure that public assistance is available for those in need

is somehow trying to take away people's rights? Really? Man, I'm such a bastard for thinking that way.

I'm not telling people that they can't get married because it violates the teachings of my religion. I'm not telling women that even though SCOTUS gave them control over their bodies that I'm actively fighting against that. I'm not even telling Evangelicals and Fundamentalists that they are stupid for believing in God.

I want EVERYONE regardless of age, race, sex, and orientation to enjoy the same rights. I'm not telling people of faith that I want to close their churches. I'm telling them to stop trying to run everyone else's life by their beliefs. I'm telling them that this nation is not a theocracy, and it shouldn't be run as one. This nation isn't even founded as a Christian Nation, as was specifically noted, signed, and ratified in a treaty by one of the founding fathers, and unanimously ratified by congress at the time.

I'm saying, that if the Republican party truly still stood for less government intrusion in the private lives of it's citizens as is one of the foundational parts of their platform, they would stop being so fucking stupid about abortion, and gay marriage.

But yeah, I'm totally over here on the left telling people that they can't live their life how they want.

Well said.

[Fridmarr]

It's also important too hold up individual rights and analyze events objectively on their own merits, not through the myopic lens of a political position. Lest we fall victim to the same logic used to justify atrocities the world over.

We can't sacrifice the process in the name of a desired result, or the process becomes moot, and that result quickly shifts to the will of those with power and influence.

Well said

Indeed, welcome to the Libertarian party Shoju

[fuzzygeek]

BTW it was a group of Republican politicians who dubbed themselves the American Taliban, it's not something I made up but given their contempt for women and neocon love of warfare the glove kind of fits.

Do you have a cite for why you believe this to be the case -- who was this group of politicians?

I don't think this is accurate. The term was first coined to describe John Walker Lindh, who is an American citizen who was captured in Afghanistan fighting with Al-Qaeda in 2001. The term was hugely popularized and applied to the Right as a derogatory term at Daily Kos; its founder Markos Moulitsas authored the book "American Taliban: How War, Sex, Sin and Power Bind Jihadists and the Radical Right."

Markos is not really a Republican politician.

[Lieris]

You won't get nationalised medicine, free education and a liveable benefits system under a libertarian government.

Libertarianism is the most morally bankrupt and naive political ideologies around, putting the needs of "the market" ahead of human beings and the welfare of the planet with its poisonous "boot-straps" rhetoric. There's a reason why libertarians are almost exclusively male and white.

[Lieris]

BTW it was a group of Republican politicians who dubbed themselves the American Taliban, it's not something I made up but given their contempt for women and neocon love of warfare the glove kind of fits.

Do you have a cite for why you believe this to be the case -- who was this group of politicians?

I don't think this is accurate. The term was first coined to describe John Walker Lindh, who is an American citizen who was captured in Afghanistan fighting with Al-Qaeda in 2001. The term was hugely popularized and applied to the Right as a derogatory term at Daily Kos; its founder Markos Moulitsas authored the book "American Taliban: How War, Sex, Sin and Power Bind Jihadists and the Radical Right."

Markos is not really a Republican politician.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLBiqrxpehk

[Fridmarr]

You won't get nationalised medicine, free education and a liveable benefits system under a libertarian government.

Libertarianism is the most morally bankrupt and naive political ideologies around, putting the needs of "the market" ahead of human beings and the welfare of the planet with its poisonous "boot-straps" rhetoric. There's a reason why libertarians are almost exclusively male and white.

Well it was said tongue in cheek. I know quite little about the actual formal party here in the US to be honest. I know many small gov't conservatives (like myself) though that are about the only people really serious about equal rights, the political left here most certainly is not. And that while that's a much more varied group, gov't schools, medicine, and social welfare are entirely consistent with it, just not necessarily at a federal level in each case.

Out of curiosity, what is the reason that the people with the most morally bankrupt political ideology are almost exclusively white men?

[fuzzygeek]

But yeah, I'm totally over here on the left telling people that they can't live their life how they want.

Good for you, and it would be nice if more people shared your viewpoint. From what I've seen your way of thinking is about as representative of all of the Left as Rush Limbaugh is representative of all of the Right.

Why do you feel the need to insert the sarcasm and dismissive eyeroll? Do you think that adds anything to the discussion?

Pretending that people who don't fully agree with your point of view are all idiots, assholes, or racists is a good way to add a lot of heat to the mix, but does very little in the way of productivity. Attributing the worst motivations to the Other and attacking them for their alleged thought processes is a great way to feel no small amount of self-satisfaction, but it's a far cry from getting anything done.

For example, I would argue the entire abortion debate is two (or more) conversations happening at the same time; any points made by one camp are disregarded by the other camp because they're not even in the same forest.

[fuzzygeek]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLBiqrxpehk

Video published in 2013; the phrase was used as a pejorative long before. Actually watching the video, I think what you're trying to reference is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... ehk#t=256s

and it refers specifically from learning from the Taliban "...the way they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire process. ... And these Taliban -- is an example of how you go about to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that Insurgency may be required when [dealing with] the other side."

The quote speaks specifically of Insurgency, and in a very specific context. I don't see this as a bunch of idiot Republican politicians putting on funny hats and saying "We are the American Taliban! Go 'Murica or go home! Yee haw."

I don't think this video supports your contention. Do you have another cite?

[Lieris]

You won't get nationalised medicine, free education and a liveable benefits system under a libertarian government.

Libertarianism is the most morally bankrupt and naive political ideologies around, putting the needs of "the market" ahead of human beings and the welfare of the planet with its poisonous "boot-straps" rhetoric. There's a reason why libertarians are almost exclusively male and white.

Well it was said tongue in cheek. I know quite little about the actual formal party here in the US to be honest. I know many small gov't conservatives (like myself) though that are about the only people really serious about equal rights, the political left here most certainly is not. And that while that's a much more varied group, gov't schools, medicine, and social welfare are entirely consistent with it, just not necessarily at a federal level in each case.

Out of curiosity, what is the reason that the people with the most morally bankrupt political ideology are almost exclusively white men?

Because it exclusively protects their interests.

Women are far more likely to work in the public sector than men and be the recipients of state benefits. We're not going to vote for a political system whose main reason of existing attacks these two things.

It's an ideology that preaches that "you get what you deserve", completely ignoring all advantages and disadvantages people have just because of who they were born to and that real wealth is almost always inherited. It ignores that class, race, gender, education and disability are all factors in how successful you will be. Most white men are sadly blind to this.

It's also naive in that it expects corporations to behave responsibly and demonises any state intervention as "nanny state" even if it's in the best interests of civilians. A libertarian would argue for smoking in public spaces and be okay with tobacco advertising aimed at teenagers or for letting betting shops expand as much as they want and advertise whenever and wherever because hey, let the market decide! Nevermind the social and health cost.

[Lieris]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLBiqrxpehk

Video published in 2013; the phrase was used as a pejorative long before. Actually watching the video, I think what you're trying to reference is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... ehk#t=256s

and it refers specifically from learning from the Taliban "...the way they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire process. ... And these Taliban -- is an example of how you go about to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that Insurgency may be required when [dealing with] the other side."

The quote speaks specifically of Insurgency, and in a very specific context. I don't see this as a bunch of idiot Republican politicians putting on funny hats and saying "We are the American Taliban! Go 'Murica or go home! Yee haw."

I don't think this video supports your contention. Do you have another cite?

My reason for calling them that is entirely different. I just thought it was funny that they invoked the taliban themselves without a hint of irony.

[Klaudandus]

In other news: http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20 ... ?p=1&tc=pg

Goldsberry wasn't arrested or shot despite pointing a gun at a cop, so Wiggins said, “She sure shouldn't be going to the press.”

Not sure I like a US Marshall saying things like this.

[Koatanga]

You won't get nationalised medicine, free education and a liveable benefits system under a libertarian government.

Libertarianism is the most morally bankrupt and naive political ideologies around, putting the needs of "the market" ahead of human beings and the welfare of the planet with its poisonous "boot-straps" rhetoric. There's a reason why libertarians are almost exclusively male and white.

Well it was said tongue in cheek. I know quite little about the actual formal party here in the US to be honest. I know many small gov't conservatives (like myself) though that are about the only people really serious about equal rights, the political left here most certainly is not. And that while that's a much more varied group, gov't schools, medicine, and social welfare are entirely consistent with it, just not necessarily at a federal level in each case.

Out of curiosity, what is the reason that the people with the most morally bankrupt political ideology are almost exclusively white men?

1: White people make up the vast majority of the 1% of richest people in the US, who directly hold roughly 40% of the wealth of the US and indirectly control far more of it via their influence.
2: In traditionally conservative families, the men look after the money while the women look after the family.
3: People in the top 1% tend to be more conservative than the rest of the population.

People in the top 1% are largely concerned with how they can protect their wealth. Yes, you can quote me figures on charitable donations until the sun goes down, but many such donations are to A: dodge taxes, and B: advance their ideology. There are exceptions, of course, but in general rich people don't get rich, and stay rich, by giving all their money away with no expectation of return.

Which leads to

4: They make the rules.

They are the influential senators and PAC funders. They stack the deck for their own benefit. They own the military-industrial giants to whom are awarded the lucrative contracts. They own the businesses that accept the government bailout money and then shift their manufacturing overseas, or sell to foreign companies, eliminating US jobs and being arguably responsible for the eventual bankruptcy of Detroit. They own the companies that take US products and have them made in China in violation of the US patent for the item, knowing they can crush the small-business patent-owner under the weight of legal costs on an extended trial (see: Sears and the story of the "bionic wrench"). They own the companies that flood the US market with cheap Chinese goods, without a care for the US trade deficit. They own the companies that fight against the same kind of social medicine that works in the rest of the western world. They fight against knowledge and science, because an informed population is less easily herded by boogeymen. They seek to control the lives of others, attempting to legislate their own brand of morality as the law of the land. They oppose the metric system (I can't prove that, but it sounded good).