General US Politics

[Moblin Major General]

8 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

I'll ask you to clarify what you mean by "true Right", but the American right, which I'm defining for simplicity as the Repubican party and those who vote mainly for them, is not libertarian in the slightest. 

Republicans are slaves to PR, they would become rabbid communists if they were told to by party leaders. I'm talking about citizens. How many citizens actually care beyond themselves? They just want to be left alone, like Archie Bunker. They may not be very polite, and they might even be ignorant, but to say that Republican politicians represent their beliefs is a farce. They only vote for people who will just leave them alone.

[Time the Crestfallen]

11 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

Republicans are slaves to PR, they would become rabbid communists if they were told to by party leaders. I'm talking about citizens. How many citizens actually care beyond themselves? They just want to be left alone, like Archie Bunker. They may not be very polite, and they might even be ignorant, but to say that Republican politicians represent their beliefs is a farce. They only vote for people who will just leave them alone.

A few things;

-Fiscally speaking, Republican voters are definitely in the libertarian category, albeit the US' malformed vision of what Libertarian is. When it comes to matters of social policy however...

-Why would they bother to vote for a party if they don't represent their beliefs? The idea that they just vote for someone who will 'leave them alone' isn't even close to true, because they'd be voting for the Libertarian party if that were the case.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Mortarion

[Moblin Major General]

18 minutes ago, Mortarion said:

Why would they bother to vote for a party if they don't represent their beliefs? The idea that they just vote for someone who will 'leave them alone' isn't even close to true, because they'd be voting for the Libertarian party if that were the case.

Except that the only Libertarian in the Senate is often grouped with and sides with the Democrats. You don't live here and talk to locals, Phillius. You only understand the outside as given by the internet, your local and national news outlets, and my national news outlets. You don't talk to people face to face every day who are honest, well-meaning conservatives, at least not American conservatives. The only real representation you really see is on here, and they don't bother to see your point of view because you aren't actually speaking face to face. You actually have to live it and see it to know it.

[Time the Crestfallen]

20 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

Phillius. You only understand the outside as given by the internet, your local and national news outlets, and my national news outlets. You don't talk to people face to face every day who are honest, well-meaning conservatives, at least not American conservatives. The only real representation you really see is on here, and they don't bother to see your point of view because you aren't actually speaking face to face. You actually have to live it and see it to know it.

First of all, I find it absolutely hilarious that you tell me to get off my high-horse last page and then you go ahead and post this sanctimonious, condescending drivel. The fact that you didn't even bother trying to refute what I said in favour of this holier-than-thou crap is downright insulting. Now excuse me while I break this down;

25 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

Except that the only Libertarian in the Senate is often grouped with and sides with the Democrats.

I'm going to ask you to clarify this, because the implication you're giving here is that they won't vote for the Libertarian party purely because of the hardline-partisan bullshit that has made US politics into it's current messy and unpleasant state.

20 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

You don't talk to people face to face every day who are honest, well-meaning conservatives, at least not American conservatives.

Your first mistake is equating conservative with the GOP. There are plenty of conservatives, even in the US, who are disgusted by what the modern day GOP has become. If you want me to find specific examples, let me know, but I don't really think that's necessary.

Your second mistake is putting words in my mouth. As I said a few posts ago;

10 hours ago, Mortarion said:

Except no, if you'd bothered to read anything I posted in the last 10 pages you'd know I have a great deal of sympathy and understanding for the 120 million. What I have expressed my hatred for is the right-wing media bubble #FuckMurdoch for lying to these people and drowning them in propaganda, and I hate the GOP politicians for being at best sell-outs who don't give a shit about the American citizens who's only priority is making the rich even richer at the expense of everyone else and at worst, outright fascists.

Your third mistake is in the last sentence, "at least not American conservatives". I know conservatives, I have conservative friends, my fucking dad is a conservative. I know plenty of of 'honest, well-meaning' conservatives and it is because of that my reaction to American conservatism is so harsh, because the US is much further to the right than the rest of the Western world and, as an outsider-looking-in, the conclusion I've drawn is (similar to many others in this thread) that the GOP brand of conservatism is very much a far-right sort.

20 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

The only real representation you really see is on here, and they don't bother to see your point of view because you aren't actually speaking face to face. 

Which is exactly what you're doing right now.

20 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

You actually have to live it and see it to know it.

The idea that my views and opinions are apparently worthless because I don't fit into your ill-defined criteria of 'living it' is absolutely ridiculous. The LNP isn't that much different than the GOP, and the area I live in is very much a Liberal safe seat, so perhaps don't start making assumptions about what my life is and isn't like.

Now if you could practice what you preach and get off your high horse and post an actual response to what I'm trying to say, that would be lovely.

[SullyMcGully]

1 hour ago, Mortarion said:

A few things;

-Fiscally speaking, Republican voters are definitely in the libertarian category, albeit the US' malformed vision of what Libertarian is. When it comes to matters of social policy however...

-Why would they bother to vote for a party if they don't represent their beliefs? The idea that they just vote for someone who will 'leave them alone' isn't even close to true, because they'd be voting for the Libertarian party if that were the case.

The Libertarian party is much too weak for most to actually consider voting for it. Most of the Libetarians I know frequently vote Republican because in their opinion, the Democrat party is doing more to take away individual rights in this country and the Republican party stands a better chance of doing something about it. I guess they'd rather have guns than pot. It's also worth noting that a lot of conservatives do, in fact, support the Republican ideals of strong military and certain social policies along with Libertarian ideals of individual freedom and such.

For instance, I have a friend who thinks that marijuana should be legal, guns should be deregulated, and gay marriage is a constitutional right (while probably thinking the government shouldn't mess with marriage at all). However, he thinks that we should have a tough foreign policy when dealing with nations like Iran and North Korea, and that any state that would prosecute a murderer should illegalize abortion. On voting day, he's going to have to choose between a Democrat candidate who stands for a few of his ideals, a Republican candidate who stands for several of his ideals, or a Libertarian candidate who stands for many of his ideals but stands little chance of being elected. My friend often compromises and goes with the Republican.

Edited September 20, 2017 by SullyMcGully

[Tryhard]

That's something that often confused me about American Libertarians - they often come from families with military backgrounds and see no problem with funding the military (not just funding the military, but in a massive way more than anything else), but take umbrage with social programs. I would think that the military and state organisations like the police would fall under that banner, but American Libertarians often love them - or at least the ones I've seen.

(The other thing is that many of them can be heavily against immigration, but they are supposedly about maximising personal freedom. Wouldn't everyone want to come to a Libertarian paradise?) 

10 hours ago, Lushen said:

I don't want war.  I just don't want to sit idley by while Syria gas's it's own people (btw people, this is what Hitler and Nazi Germany did, and Trump took steps to stop it).  And I think everyone agrees that not doing anything w/ N Korea has only escalated our issues.  N Korea is pumping out missile tests like there's no tomorrow because we sat by and allowed them to develop their weapons. 

As for the Syrian strike, many democrats were in support of the Syrian missile.  Even the democratic candidate, Clinton, said it was what needed to be done (of course, this was before Trump did it - and afterwards she didn't give him any praise).  Arabs honored Trump for standing up to the Syrian gas attacks saying things like "Trump did in 8mo what Obama could not in 8yr".  http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-39526653

What has it accomplished?  Well, I suppose we'll have to wait a few years to see exactly but I haven't heard about any more Syrian gas attacks since the missile.  And I know there were some before the one in question.  I do not wish to go to war, but if its to prevent human beings from being gassed by their gov't I think it could be an obligation.

I don't know if I would want Clinton to be more of a warmonger, but yes, I think she should have communicated that she would be hostile with countries that are hostile to humanity and not follow Obama's "Let's have dinner" retaliations.  

I get that it was a horrible attack, but the US has ignored other horrible attacks (either because they didn't want to go to war over them or because they are the US' allies, both of which Trump has continued to do), and in fact has committed a lot of human rights violations themselves. North Korea itself you could easily point to treating its own people horribly, but what are you gonna do if you go in and "liberate" the people? They are suddenly going to become a secular democracy after years of isolation and propaganda? And if you want to go ahead and "completely destroy" North Korea like Trump said, what about the collateral damage and loss of life that is guaranteed in both North and South Korea?

Agreeing with Clinton and Obama doesn't exactly fill me with thinking that it's the right thing to do - I don't like their foreign policy. Trump was supposed to not be poking around in Syria like Clinton would surely do, his supporters said, but he went and did just that.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Tryhard

[SullyMcGully]

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

That's something that often confused me about American Libertarians - they often come from families with military backgrounds and see no problem with funding the military (not just funding the military, but in a massive way more than anything else), but take umbrage with social programs. I would think that the military and state organisations like the police would fall under that banner, but American Libertarians often love them - or at least the ones I've seen.

(The other thing is that many of them can be heavily against immigration, but they are supposedly about maximising personal freedom. Wouldn't everyone want to come to a Libertarian paradise?) 

Allow me to give you the Libertarian logic here: Libertarians, like Republicans, often see the military and the police as two major programs necessary to maintaining a Libertarian country. It's the concept of "protecting our freedom": the military wards off terrorists and invaders from outside of the country and the police protect those within the country by enforcing laws designed to maximize personal freedom. However, when it comes to something like welfare or social security, they think that the government safety net is too large and doesn't provide enough incentive for lower-class individuals to work to improve their lives. "After all, why should I pay money that I worked hard to earn so that somebody else can live without working?" They see government welfare programs as replacing traditional charities provided by churches and foundations and forcing all Americans to be generous against their will.  

The trouble with Libertarianism is that it's so hard to define. You have to look at all of the different Libertarian with a very broad spectrum in order to think that they all agree. For instance, one Libertarian might say that a mother has a right as an individual to abort whatever is in her body, but another might say that the fetus has an individual right to stay alive. Some Libertarians think the government should provide a small amount of welfare for the disabled, elderly, single moms and so on while others think that it should provide none at all. You mentioned that the Libertarians you know are very pro-military, however, there are a great many Libertarians who prefer isolationism, where we don't interfere with what happens in other countries unless America is directly in danger, in which case it is our responsibility to protect ourselves but not necessarily to rebuild the governments we destroy along the way. These Libertarians actually push for a smaller defense budget. The Iraq war was not popular with Libertarians.

Finally, Libertarians do subscribe to a certain form of nationalism. If you follow their logic, they don't see there as being anything wrong with that. "America's prosperity should be a higher priority to Americans. Let other nations worry about whether they are prosperous or not. If Mexico is a terrible place to live, that's Mexico's problem. It's not our responsibility as a nation to deal with Mexico's problems, or to accept their immigrants who are fleeing from those problems." It goes hand in hand with isolationism. Instead of Nazi nationalism, which says that Germany is the best nation and is entitled to whatever it wants, isolationism says that America is the best nation and all of the other nations should just leave it alone... or else.

This is a very simple overview and it fails to cover a lot of important tenets of Libertarianism, but I think you get the idea. It certainly is an interesting viewpoint. From my own perspective, it seems to work well enough with economics. I'm not so sure about their foreign and social policies.

 

 

Edited September 20, 2017 by SullyMcGully

[Shoblongoo]

The thing about rightward-leaning American libertarianism is that it's rooted in ideas of Constitutional Originalism and Founding Intent. So the American "libertarian" is conventionally libertarian in the spirit of limited government and federalism...UNLESS it's in a sphere of policy where the Constitution gives the federal government expansive plenary power to act (i.e. Military Deployment and Immigration). Then they display political leanings that would be more usually considered athoritarian. America is wierd like that.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Lord Raven]

13 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:

Except that the only Libertarian in the Senate is often grouped with and sides with the Democrats.

This is incorrect. There are 0 Libertarians in the Senate, unless you count Rand Paul who is Republican.

Rand Paul is an actual Libertarian btw, but he joined the Republican party because it's clear the Libertarian Party sucks. And he caucuses with the Republicans.

Unless you mean Bernie Sanders, who was always an Independent and never a libertarian.

[Moblin Major General]

30 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

This is incorrect. There are 0 Libertarians in the Senate, unless you count Rand Paul who is Republican.

Rand Paul is an actual Libertarian btw, but he joined the Republican party because it's clear the Libertarian Party sucks. And he caucuses with the Republicans.

Unless you mean Bernie Sanders, who was always an Independent and never a libertarian.

What is Joe Lieberman then? I know he's independent, but I thought he was a Libertarian.

[Rapier]

22 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

...and then you've got your Nazis. They're not THE right-wing. But the right-wing is their home. They live there.
 

Sorry about the sudden, stupid question, but aside from history books answering that nazism is contained within the right-wing, I don't really grasp the reasoning behind it. Communism and nazism are so similar in their structures that it's easier to claim they're ideological twins than that they're complete polar opposites of each other. So how come they're classified that way? Is it just because Hitler financed private business corporations while Stalin was more about a centralized State economy? For all I know, the only difference is that Hitler "commanded" the economy indirectly through his cronies, which, in practice, doesn't seem much different.

[blah the Prussian]

7 hours ago, Rapier said:

Sorry about the sudden, stupid question, but aside from history books answering that nazism is contained within the right-wing, I don't really grasp the reasoning behind it. Communism and nazism are so similar in their structures that it's easier to claim they're ideological twins than that they're complete polar opposites of each other. So how come they're classified that way? Is it just because Hitler financed private business corporations while Stalin was more about a centralized State economy? For all I know, the only difference is that Hitler "commanded" the economy indirectly through his cronies, which, in practice, doesn't seem much different.

Truth be told I would call Naziism more of a Third Way than right wing, but yes, it is a significant difference that Hitler allowed German industrialists to retain, essentially, the means of production. In truth, that does make a difference in everyday life even if it didn't on paper. The Nazis also completely lacked the class warfare aspect of Communism; they didn't have any class enemies like the Kulaks under Stalin.

[Shoblongoo]

15 hours ago, Rapier said:

Sorry about the sudden, stupid question, but aside from history books answering that nazism is contained within the right-wing, I don't really grasp the reasoning behind it. Communism and nazism are so similar in their structures that it's easier to claim they're ideological twins than that they're complete polar opposites of each other. So how come they're classified that way? Is it just because Hitler financed private business corporations while Stalin was more about a centralized State economy? For all I know, the only difference is that Hitler "commanded" the economy indirectly through his cronies, which, in practice, doesn't seem much different.

This is where you’re getting tripped up: remember there’s two (2) dimensions to the political spectrum:

1)  Liberal (i.e. “Left”) vs. Conservative (i.e. “Right”)

2)  Libertarian vs. Authoritarian

This yields a classification scheme of four (4) broad categories of political ideology, by which we can categorize various forms of government and schools of political thought:

1)  Authoritarian Left

2)  Authoritarian Right

3)  Libertarian Left

4)  Libertarian Right

Communism and Fascism (Nazism is a sub-category of fascism) are both authoritarian systems. They share traits common to all authoritarian systems in the scope of power exercised by the state, and the extent of state’s interference in private enterprise and civil liberties.

Authoritarian similarities notwithstanding; they are ideologically opposite on the left/right spectrum.

The core ideology of the Communist state guiding the exercise of authoritarian state power is Marxism, and the Marxist vision of a classless society where private wealth and private property does not exist. The Marxist state has no vision for an ethnically or state-exclusive national creed; to the contrary, Communism is a globalist ideology which seeks to facilitate the global spread of communism. The Stalinists had no notion that communism was exclusively Russian, the Maoists had no notion that Communism was exclusively Chinese, and the Castro’s had no notion that Communism was exclusively Cuban. Communism in its purest form was seen to be a global movement that would supplant nationalism, on a theory that people are more divided by class then by nationality . The Marxist creed was: "Workers of the World; Unite!"

 That is a fundamentally liberal ideology.

The core ideology of the Fascist state is nationalism and ethnocentrism. The fascist state puts forth a narrow definition for purity of “REAL” countrymen. Posits that those who fall outside this definition must be working at cross-purposes to the country; this is why so great a country has so many problems. And that the way to fix those problems is to crackdown on the out-groups, to the benefit of “REAL” countrymen. The fascist state has no vision for a classless society or for the denial of private wealth; it only provides that wealth and opportunity belong in the hands of “REAL” countrymen. Not in the possession of globalists and foreigners, or the “traitors” who think that they should be co-equals in an open, multicultural society.   

That is a fundamentally conservative idea.  

EXAMPLE:  The government decides that it needs to produce more guns and ammunition.

Under Communism:  The government assigns more of its citizens to produce guns and ammunitions. They go to work in a government facility, where they produce guns and ammunition under the supervision of a State Commissar. Everything they produce is the property of the government, which proceeds to take the guns.  The worker’s compensation is whatever food, housing, and money the government has decided is the uniform standard-of-living for its citizens.

Under Fascism:  You go to work for a private company that produces guns and ammo. You are paid by your boss to work in his private manufacturing plant; he can fire you and you can quit. The guns produced belong to the company, which sells them to the government. The boss keeps the difference between the sales price and the material-and-labor costs of production as PROFIT, which becomes private wealth.

If the state isn’t happy with how you’re running your company, however. Say: if you employee Jews and Immigrants. If it comes out that the boss is a known homosexual. If the government says “Make More Guns” and the boss says “No; I’m not going to make more guns. We make enough guns. We’re pursuing other business—we’re making cars and television.”

...Well then the state police are going to get involved. The local concentration camp is going to get some new inhabitants. And the company’s day-to-day operations and private profits are going to very quickly find themselves in the hands of more—cooperative—management.

Edited September 21, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Time the Crestfallen]

'Repeal and go fuck yourself' indeed.

[Lord Raven]

On 9/20/2017 at 7:34 PM, Hylian Air Force said:

What is Joe Lieberman then? I know he's independent, but I thought he was a Libertarian.

Democrat. He was Gore's VP pick in 2000, and he was suspected to be McCain's VP pick in 2008 until it was derailed by Palin.

[Shoblongoo]

Just in case it wasn't clear from the previous post that Donald J. Trump is a fascist.

His new thing today is that he's calling upon the NFL to fire players who refuse to stand during the national anthem.

Edited September 23, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[eclipse]

2 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Just in case it wasn't clear from the previous post that Donald J. Trump is a fascist.

His new thing today is that he's calling upon the NFL to fire players who refuse to stand during the national anthem.

I believe the NFL, which is a private entity, can tell the president where he can shove that order.

[Tryhard]

to quote a song

Only approved questions get answered
Now stand your ass up for that national anthem

Really though, was there a reason that triggered this? I'm not really sure how this could be top of anyone's priorities right now.

[Time the Crestfallen]

5 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Just in case it wasn't clear from the previous post that Donald J. Trump is a fascist.

His new thing today is that he's calling upon the NFL to fire players who refuse to stand during the national anthem.

Which is stupid, because people get upset whenever so much as 0.01% of a peaceful demonstration do something violent, but when actors give speeches or athletes don't stand for the anthem, they get told to go fuck themselves. It's almost as if they don't want them protesting at all.

[Moblin Major General]

21 minutes ago, Magus of Flowers said:

Which is stupid, because people get upset whenever so much as 0.01% of a peaceful demonstration do something violent, but when actors give speeches or athletes don't stand for the anthem, they get told to go fuck themselves. It's almost as if they don't want them protesting at all.

It's called "civil disobedience" for a reason.50 years ago, moderates and conservatives were saying what they're saying now. The only difference is the kind of people who are celebrities now versus  50 years ago. They are famous and are being, for the most part, "civilly" disobedient. Will it net them the same change? I don't think so, but they won't stop until they get it, even if they have to do what their grandparents did.

[Time the Crestfallen]

8 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

It's called "civil disobedience" for a reason.50 years ago, moderates and conservatives were saying what they're saying now. The only difference is the kind of people who are celebrities now versus  50 years ago. They are famous and are being, for the most part, "civilly" disobedient. Will it net them the same change? I don't think so, but they won't stop until they get it, even if they have to do what their grandparents did.

Yeah, it kinda hurts when you realise a lot of the things critics say of protests and the movements behind them are almost exactly the same as what was said about past protests and movements.

[Lord Raven]

6 hours ago, eclipse said:

I believe the NFL, which is a private entity, can tell the president where he can shove that order.

And they did!

Donald Trump is a giant piece of shit

[Shoblongoo]

19 hours ago, Tryhard said:

Really though, was there a reason that triggered this? I'm not really sure how this could be top of anyone's priorities right now.

For a while now, certain (mostly African American) players have been refusing to participate in the salute-the-flag pageantry and instead taking the knee during the national anthem as a show of solidarity with BLM, and a form of protest against the lack of progress on issues of overpolicing and police brutality. A lot of these guys come from communities that are heavily affected and experienced it growing up; they get what its about.

The League allows this. It does not expect its players to be silent on issues facing their communities.

Recently--obscured by all the news of the Hurricanes and Healthcare and North Korea--America just had its first major BLM flare-up, in St. Louis (hi Lushen), following the acquittal of a white officer who killed a black suspect and was then found [not guilty] at trial under a rather dubious set of circumstances. 

As a show of solidarity with the protestors, players again took the knee during the national anthem and refused to look at the American Flag. 

Now past presidents have known to just ignore this sort of thing and issue a measured statement on the underlying issue of public policy. Because it isn't any of the Presidents damn business in a free country whether or not private businesses want to agree with him or speak against him, and it isn't the president's job to tell them what they can and cannot say.

Trump of course, being Trump, decided he as president of the United States had to give a speech making it known that anyone who refuses to stand for the national anthem is a "Son of a Bitch." And that it would be so great if refusing players were just yanked off the field and told "You're Fired! YOU'RE FIRED!!!"  

There was also recently an incident where an African American ESPN sports commentator called Trump a White Supremacist; the White House issued a press statement calling upon ESPN to fire the commentator. Trump himself threatened: "ESPN paying really big price for its politics and bad programming" and called on the network to "Apologize for untruth!"

ESPN not only ignored the White House, but issued an official statement in defense of its employee explaining: the reason so many people think Donald Trump is a white supremacist is because of things that Trump himself has said.

So Trump was already pissy about being belittled and blown off and treated in a way that you're not supposed to treat Dear Leader before the latest player protests.

-------

EDIT: Trump today just issued two (2) new "presidential" statements:

"If NFL fans refuse to go to games until players stop disrespecting our Flag & Country, you will see change take place fast. Fire or suspend!"

AND

"NFL attendance and ratings are WAY DOWN. Boring games yes, but many stay away because they love our country. League should back U.S."

...The word "fascist" gets overused alot on the internet. Often inappropriately and without proper context...

In the most clinical sense of the word; Donald J. Trump is a fascist.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Dark Holy Elf]

Demanding private businesses fire their employees because the employees are engaging in peaceful protest. Tell me more about how Trump is libertarian.

[Shoblongoo]

...Also...this is happening with the NBA...