Jump to content
Navv

General US Politics

Poll  

272 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you vote a third party?

    • Yes
      89
    • No
      110
    • Maybe
      73
  2. 2. Are you content with the results of the election?

    • Yes
      49
    • No
      110
    • Indifferent
      42


Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, Radiant head said:

i mean that's the point, if north korea having weapons deters us going to war, it's not really an unreasonable strategy.  

lol

tbh if there's a "marxist definition of fascism" you know much more about it than i do, so can't help you out much here.  i know leon trotsky wrote a pamphlet about fascism but i have not really read it.   it's true in germany, the rise of nazism was specifically abetted by the weimar republic to crush communism, but i wouldn't take that to be the universal definition of the word. 

No comment on the "marxist definition of facism."

...thats...

yeahhhhhhhhhh. I'm not touching that.

I'm ambivalent on all this talk of North Korea.

The dirty little secret in all of this (not even a secret--more like the 800 lb. gorilla in the room) is that America isn't holding the cards right now. This is China's sphere of influence. This is going to play out the way China wants it to play out.

Like as tough as Trump wants to talk here and as much as he loves going tit-for-tat on firey rhetoric with Kim-Jong, because its damn-good television and at the end of the day that's all Donald Trump really cares about. Short of North Korea actually attacking Japan or South Korea or a US territory, I just don't see us getting involved.

...Unless of course Trump just needs a good old-fashioned war to distract from impeachment talks, when Mueller publishes his report.

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah i don't really want to get into that stuff either, i make my views openly known, but i don't think it's worth talking about every time i enter this thread. 

as for north korea, i think chomsky is really good for explaining the context that's always left out of these discussions.  like i think everyone here can agree that north korea is a fucked up state, and the kims have done basically nothing good for their people, but that doesn't mean they're some chaotically evil government that wants to bomb japan or south korea for...no reason?  the way the us casually dehumanizes people in nk and threatens aggression, going back at least to when bush made his exis of evil speech, which put an end to the clinton nuclear deal that could have actually shown path towards peace.  

 

Edited by Radiant head

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Yeahhhhhh; No. You don't get to play that card against me. Now calm yourself and use your head for a moment.

If I were to describe a NAZI by political belief and preferred policy. Without using the word NAZI, or any national or party identification. I would be describing:

An emphatic nationalist who believes that the greatest threat facing his country is the subversive influence of diversity and multiculturalism, and who would have his government take corrective action to increase ethnic homogeneity and limit the social and political power of minority outgroups. Preferred actions against target outgroups will include mass incarceration, mass deportation, physical exclusion from national entry or admission, and broadly permissive use of lethal force by persons wielding state police power.  

This is not a trick question. What segment of the American political spectrum does that correspond with?
___________

EDIT: You know who didn't think the comparison between the nationalist right and the Nazi party was "clueless and disrespectful?" The Americans who fought the fucking Nazis.
 


^
This is a 3 minute film produced by the United States government in 1943; educating citizens on how to identify a fascist politician and stop fascists from coming to power in America.

Please watch it. Its so, so relevant to whats going on today.


 

 

And if I were to describe a Nazi from an economic standpoint, you would get something that sounds a lot like a socialist. What segment of the American political spectrum does that correspond with? Why don't we just call a spade a spade, a Republican a Republican, and a Nazi a Nazi. Because there is a HUGE difference, and it really is quite offensive to ignore it. 

Conservatives aren't racist by nature. Yeah, some of their policies affect some minorities more than others, but they don't have a platform that says that America is for white people only. They aren't campaigning to rid America of colored people. They aren't Nazis. End of story. Exaggerating things like that is how riots get started. Heck, that's how a lot of wars get started! 

If you're just referring to Trump and only inadvertently put millions of Americans in the same boat as Adolf Hitler, then you would do well to tread more carefully next time. @Lushen's post looks like it was referring to the entire right wing. I sincerely hope you weren't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, SullyMcGully said:

@Lushen's post looks like it was referring to the entire right wing. I sincerely hope you weren't. 

This is what I was responding to

8 hours ago, Radiant head said:

the gap between hitler and the american right wing has always been smaller than anyone would care to admit (how many people died in the iraq war for no reason?), trump is just making it even smaller.  if "the great awakening of nations" doesn't sound fascist as hell idk what does

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SullyMcGully said:

And if I were to describe a Nazi from an economic standpoint, you would get something that sounds a lot like a socialist.

Where the hell do you get that idea from? Just because they have the word 'Socialist' in their name doesn't make them actually socialist, especially considering the rampant anti-communist rhetoric

1 hour ago, SullyMcGully said:

Conservatives aren't racist by nature. Yeah, some of their policies affect some minorities more than others, but they don't have a platform that says that America is for white people only. They aren't campaigning to rid America of colored people. They aren't Nazis. End of story. Exaggerating things like that is how riots get started. Heck, that's how a lot of wars get started!

Yeah, you're right. I suppose it's just a coincidence that many GOP politicians employ racist dog-whistles, actively panders to racists, and that the current GOP President has the explicit support of White Nationalists/Supremacists and Neo-Nazis. I'm also sure that they have the best intentions in mind with their discriminatory voter-ID laws and gerrymandering, and I'm definitely sure that the numerous studies that demonstrated racism/sexism and other such beliefs were a far bigger predictor of support Trump than 'economic anxiety' are just fake news spouted by triggered libtard snowflakes who are just trying to slander our glorious God-Emperor Trump because muh safe spaces/PC Culture/EssJayDoubleUs.

Edited by Mortarion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mortarion said:

Yeah, you're right. I suppose it's just a coincidence that many GOP politicians employ racist dog-whistles, actively panders to racists, and that the current GOP President has the explicit support of White Nationalists/Supremacists and Neo-Nazis. I'm also sure that they have the best intentions in mind with their discriminatory voter-ID laws and gerrymandering, and I'm definitely sure that the numerous studies that demonstrated racism/sexism and other such beliefs were a far bigger predictor of support Trump than 'economic anxiety' are just fake news spouted by triggered libtard snowflakes who are just trying to slander our glorious God-Emperor Trump because muh safe spaces.

Your high horse looks mighty pissed right about now. I would get off. It doesn't help that the Archie Bunkers have been shouted down by the Boss Hogs. Also, which side were those built for? It wasn't the right. Which side runs most of the postsecondary education in my country? Not the right. If either side is shafted, an institution is well on its way to becoming an oppressive echo chamber of propaganda, like UC Berkeley, or Austin, Texas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Mortarion said:

Where the hell do you get that idea from? Just because they have the word 'Socialist' in their name doesn't make them actually socialist, especially considering the rampant anti-communist rhetoric

Yeah, you're right. I suppose it's just a coincidence that many GOP politicians employ racist dog-whistles, actively panders to racists, and that the current GOP President has the explicit support of White Nationalists/Supremacists and Neo-Nazis. I'm also sure that they have the best intentions in mind with their discriminatory voter-ID laws and gerrymandering, and I'm definitely sure that the numerous studies that demonstrated racism/sexism and other such beliefs were a far bigger predictor of support Trump than 'economic anxiety' are just fake news spouted by triggered libtard snowflakes who are just trying to slander our glorious God-Emperor Trump because muh safe spaces/PC Culture/EssJayDoubleUs.

There is a difference between a communist and a socialist. And the Nazis were arguably as anti-capitalist as anti-communist. A state where the state controls almost everything seems fairly socialist to me. 

And I don't really have a response for that last paragraph. If you really prefer thinking that me and 120 million other people in this country are that stupid and bigoted, then you obviously aren't going to change your mind because of anything I can say. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, SullyMcGully said:

There is a difference between a communist and a socialist. And the Nazis were arguably as anti-capitalist as anti-communist. A state where the state controls almost everything seems fairly socialist to me.

Socialism is not the state controlling everything. That's totalitarianism. Socialism is things being controlled by the community as a whole.

21 minutes ago, SullyMcGully said:

And I don't really have a response for that last paragraph. If you really prefer thinking that me and 120 million other people in this country are that stupid and bigoted, then you obviously aren't going to change your mind because of anything I can say. 

 

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.

Edited by Mortarion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, SullyMcGully said:

There is a difference between a communist and a socialist. And the Nazis were arguably as anti-capitalist as anti-communist. A state where the state controls almost everything seems fairly socialist to me. 

And I don't really have a response for that last paragraph. If you really prefer thinking that me and 120 million other people in this country are that stupid and bigoted, then you obviously aren't going to change your mind because of anything I can say. 

The state "controlling" everything can be a totalitarian one which can be left or right, and economically, crony capitalism or corporatism (you could argue how corporatism could be similar to the idea of a socialist economy in some ways, but it is definitely a corrupted form of capitalism) would fall more to the right. The Nazis are generally placed as extremely authoritarian, slightly right of center - their fascism could be considered an offshoot of fascism from Italy for example. Italian fascism however, was far-right authoritarian ideology. For example, Mussolini said:

"All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."

In regards to what he said, it's just that American conservatism (or specifically, the modern GOP) goes so far beyond the pale of traditional conservatism that it makes me think that compared to conservatives in other countries they lack even a basic sense of compassion or understanding why you would want to help other people. I just can't support the GOP in any way. 

7 hours ago, Lushen said:

The Syrian missile was a really great move.  Of course, Syria's closet allies condemned it but the rest of the world praised it.  Trump even got praise from the Muslim community.  There's a huge misconception where people seem to believe that Muslims don't want the US to fight terrorism or call out Muslim extremism.  Muslims are being oppressed by Islamic exterminates just as much as everyone else and many of them have been very vocal whenever the US treats them with aggression.

I think what he's doing with Israel and Palestine is promising.  Some critics are saying peace will never happen but I remember (I can't find a link to it) a situation where world leaders from both said Trump could be the first one to orchestrate true peace between them.  Wish I could find a link, it was quite a while ago.  

Sending more troops to Afghanistan doesn't really mean much.  Obama had originally planned to pull out but clearly that was not possible.  I think it was only natural to see more troops under any presidency.  And IIRC, despite Obama pulling more troops out the amount of US troop deaths skyrocketed under him.

Today him calling on the UN to participate more in the fight against terrorism could lead to some interesting developments.

He's also teased changes with the Iranian nuclear deal, but we won't know what those are for a while.  

I thought the adjective used to describe Clinton, 'the hawk' was rather concerning as well.  To me, I imagine a hawk firmly siting on a perch watching what's going on and doing nothing.  Basically, I expected her to do exactly what Obama did.

This post makes it seem as though you want the US to get involved in more war than its global status already is. Like, are you criticising Hillary for not being enough of a warmonger?

Who was pleased with the Syria strike? I mean Syria's enemies would be of course, and Assad probably isn't exactly well-liked, but what did it actually accomplish? I'm actually glad no on-the-ground war occurred because of it, but I don't even know what it achieved. The rebels, not the Assad government who is fighting the rebels, are the ones that are more likened with Muslim extremism.

The jury's out on it, but I don't think Trump has the solution to the deep seated Palestinian-Israeli conflict. They should have already left Afghanistan under Obama but sending more troops there seems like the last thing to do. What is the winning condition in Afghanistan? Isn't any progress just going to crumble when (if?) the US eventually pull out finally?

If Trump wanted to take a harsh stand against terrorism, he very well could have started by stopping the supply of Saudi Arabia with a massive arms deal. Instead, it was the foreign trip he seemed most excited for, even though they are committing illegal atrocities against Yemen at this moment.

I think US foreign policy has been a tragic mistake for a long time, and Obama certainly gets no praise from me there.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:

The true Right of the US is and always has been Libertarian to the extreme. They only vote for people that they feel will do nothing more than leave them be. As much as the mainstream media likes to say otherwise (and the internet likes to dramatize), the authoritarian Right in America is fringe and getting smaller as the ignorance is (very slowly) being educated out of people, and that those that find themselves unwelcome in modern society become recluses and seldom talk in public at all.

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. This is a party that is recently associated with:

-Laws punishing the use of drugs
-Mandatory minimum jail sentences (which result in the US having one of the highest per-capita prison populations in the world)
-Extending police (read: state use of force) power in general
-Increased military spending
-Laws which make it harder to vote
-Being anti-immigration and favouring deportation as a solution
-Laws governing who can marry whom
-Laws governing what bathroom people can use

The current Republican president goes even harder authoritarian than his party's average, supporting such things as greater trade barriers and building a literal fucking wall. Yes, you can come up with some issues where Republicans take a more libertarian stance than the Democrats (e.g. environmental regulations and gun control, for all that the practical difference between the parties is not that large on the latter), but they're the minority.

Totally contrary to what your opening statement implied, there's actually a fairly clear correlation between the economic right-wing and authoritarianism in the US. About the only prominent ccounter-example I can think of in recent years is Ron Paul, and he's definitely an exception to the Republican norm.

Given that they're basically unrepresented in US politics, I would argue that if anything it is the right-wing libertarians who are a fringe group in the US. Which is unfortunate, speaking as someone who leans libertarian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

Totally contrary to what your opening statement implied, there's actually a fairly clear correlation between the economic right-wing and authoritarianism in the US. About the only prominent ccounter-example I can think of in recent years is Ron Paul, and he's definitely an exception to the Republican norm.

I mean, even the libertarian GOP members don't cleanly fit into the libertarian label. They're closer to Objectivism more than anything, which brings Paul Ryan saying Atlas Shrugged is required reading in his office to mind.

Edited by Mortarion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

This post makes it seem as though you want the US to get involved in more war than its global status already is. Like, are you criticising Hillary for not being enough of a warmonger?

Who was pleased with the Syria strike? I mean Syria's enemies would be of course, and Assad probably isn't exactly well-liked, but what did it actually accomplish? I'm actually glad no on-the-ground war occurred because of it, but I don't even know what it achieved. The rebels, not the Assad government who is fighting the rebels, are the ones that are more likened with Muslim extremism.

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.  

 

Edited by Lushen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Radiant head, my main problem with the idea that Capitalists abetted the Nazis is that the subtext is that the Capitalists had the power in the relationship. Basically, I think the Nazis could have come to power without the help of people like Papen I certainly don't think the Nazis were leftist, but I also wouldn't call them hard Capitalists. In economic policy Hitler was probably most similar to FDR, tbh.

2 hours ago, Mortarion said:

Socialism is not the state controlling everything. That's totalitarianism. Socialism is things being controlled by the community as a whole.

3 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:

Not exactly true. Socialism is the Marxist phase of Dictatorship of the Proletariat where the state prepares society for a classless, stateless utopia. Communism is that utopia. All Communists are Socialists but not all Socialists are Communists; some want to stay in the dictatorship phase indefinitely. Either way the Nazis were by no means whatsoever Communist or Socialist; the Socialist part comes from when the party was more left wing under the Strassers and Ernst Rohm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a not all rectangles are squares, but all squares are rectangles type deal.  Conservatism is not inherently fascist. But fascism is inherently conservative.

There are plenty of conservative schools of thought that attract good people and that aren't fascist; "conservatism" is a broad label for a number of loosely affiliated political ideas that sometimes overlap and sometimes don't.

...you've got your religious conservatives, and they don't necessarily give a shit about the nationalists or the fiscal conservatives
...you've got your fiscal conservatives, and they don't necessarily give a shit about the religious conservatives or the nationalists
...you've got your nationalists, and they don't necessarily give a shit about the religious conservatives or the fiscal conservatives

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

10 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:

And if I were to describe a Nazi from an economic standpoint, you would get something that sounds a lot like a socialist.

You would be describing government control of land, labor, capital, and means of production. This could be a description of Communism. Nazism. A tinpot dictatorship. A theocratic church-state. A feudal monarchy.

Pretty much any authoritarian government, left or right, ever devised by human minds. A common feature of authoritarianism is government control of land, labor, capital, and means of production...its what the people in charge in an authoritarian state do...

Framing fascism in this matter is  like being asked "What is a human?" and answering: "A hairy, milk-producing animal."

Okay. You're not technically wrong. But you just gave an answer that describes something like 5,000 different kinds of animals. You haven't described a human. You've described mammals. A BETTER answer would set forth the unique attributes that make humans--different. Distinguishable. Not just another big dumb animal. Maybe something about tools or complex language or abstract thought.

So what then is unique to fascism? We move beyond the blanket similarities in command-and-control economics common to every form of authoritarian and that does nothing to distinguish any of them into fascism's more defining traits: what is it that clinically makes a fascist a fascist?

...its that marriage of hypernationalism and outgroup scapegoating with the power of the authoritarian state.

Its: "[Country] is the greatest country, because it has the greatest people. We don't win. We have the greatest people; why don't we win? Its because THOSE PEOPLE are screwing you. The [insert litany of outgroups here]. We're gonna crack down on THOSE PEOPLE because we care about REAL [country]. The politicians...the media...the academics...all the guys telling you our ideas aren't serious--you know they're part of the problem, right? They don't care about REAL [country]."

...and then the policy of the fascist state flows from this manner of thinking. Thats what makes fascism different then other forms of authoritarian government; this overarching goal of the authoritarian state.

It is a distinct creature of the nationalist right. That is the ideological point-of-origin. That is where fascism comes from.

And this isn't just me being nitpicky. its important to get this right, because if you don't know where its coming from then you don't see it coming. That's how it sneaks up on you. And that's how you get a Donald Trump; when you have an electorate that knows its supposed to hate facism. But doesn't remember what fascism looks like or why it's bad.


 





 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Mortarion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by SullyMcGully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by SullyMcGully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...