Political Therapy

[Photekq]

Because politics has derailed many threads in the past. Vent about your country going down the toilet, ask questions, express opinions, whatever.

My University is entirely apathetic when it comes to politics.

We're bombing Syria now.

I'm disillusioned when it comes to my generation's political ideals.

Woe is me.

[kurplop]

Thanks for starting this. When I'm in the mood , I'll be back to rant.

[HoffmanMyster]

Here's my input:

In my short time as a human with thoughts and feelings, I have grown and changed enough that my political and world views have also changed quite drastically.  What's to say that my current "best opinion" is any more right than a previous one, or a future one?  It's so heavily influenced by recent experiences and other contextual factors that it almost seems fruitless to make sweeping claims about politics.  So I just sit here gathering experience and attempting to make some sense of it all.  I've given up on trying to "debate" in a point-proving sense, and have decided instead to absorb information and experiences from others.

So in summary - I have nothing to say here.

[baldgye]

Labour have helped destroy politics in this country.

I'm not pro any party (bar the Monster Raving Luney Party) but Labor being totally weak and inept has made the Torys too strong, and David and his cronies can go about ****ing things up with little to no resistance. On top of that we have the moronic SNP to deal with who's only political agenda is '**** the English' which is a very mature approach for a country with so much power relative to its tiny population and for one that has benefitted monumentally from being apart of the U.K.

Oh yeah and then there is the whole '**** the EU' **** to deal with. You know when you have kids who argue and fight all the time, you tell them to grow up and make friends, why the **** our political elite can't do the same is a sad and pathetic reflection of the sad world we live in.

[HoffmanMyster]

Labour have helped destroy politics in this country.

I'm not pro any party (bar the Monster Raving Luney Party) but Labor being totally weak and inept has made the Torys too strong, and David and his cronies can go about ****ing things up with little to no resistance. On top of that we have the moronic SNP to deal with who's only political agenda is '**** the English' which is a very mature approach for a country with so much power relative to its tiny population and for one that has benefitted monumentally from being apart of the U.K.

Oh yeah and then there is the whole '**** the EU' **** to deal with. You know when you have kids who argue and fight all the time, you tell them to grow up and make friends, why the **** our political elite can't do the same is a sad and pathetic reflection of the sad world we live in.

Amazingly, I understood some of that.  Thank you British panel shows! 

[Photekq]

Here's my input:

In my short time as a human with thoughts and feelings, I have grown and changed enough that my political and world views have also changed quite drastically.  What's to say that my current "best opinion" is any more right than a previous one, or a future one?  It's so heavily influenced by recent experiences and other contextual factors that it almost seems fruitless to make sweeping claims about politics.  So I just sit here gathering experience and attempting to make some sense of it all.  I've given up on trying to "debate" in a point-proving sense, and have decided instead to absorb information and experiences from others.

So in summary - I have nothing to say here.

We live in a historical world. In this historical world opinions and ideologies must fall victim to mortality just as everything else does. I'm of the opinion (yes, probably not forever) that we must all just act according to what we currently see as the truth, and also must attempt to develop what is currently true for us; choosing to talk about your current views and choosing to just absorb information are both equally fair things to do. Do whichever you currently see as the best thing to do.

[HoffmanMyster]

Here's my input:

In my short time as a human with thoughts and feelings, I have grown and changed enough that my political and world views have also changed quite drastically.  What's to say that my current "best opinion" is any more right than a previous one, or a future one?  It's so heavily influenced by recent experiences and other contextual factors that it almost seems fruitless to make sweeping claims about politics.  So I just sit here gathering experience and attempting to make some sense of it all.  I've given up on trying to "debate" in a point-proving sense, and have decided instead to absorb information and experiences from others.

So in summary - I have nothing to say here.

We live in a historical world. In this historical world opinions and ideologies must fall victim to mortality just as everything else does. I'm of the opinion (yes, probably not forever) that we must all just act according to what we currently see as the truth, and also must attempt to develop what is currently true for us; choosing to talk about your current views and choosing to just absorb information are both equally fair things to do. Do whichever you currently see as the best thing to do.

Fair enough.  I should clarify that I don't never discuss politics, it's just something that I've consciously done less of over the years.  I used to be very opinionated and discuss politics all the time, but have cut back due to the reasons in my original post. 

And I do vote and have a "political opinion".    Just am less outward with it. 

I'm happy to share my views though, I didn't mean to come off as mysterious in the first post.

[fohat.digs]

We're bombing Syria now.

Although I am a bleeding-heart flower-carrying pacifist, against war 99% of the time, believe that the Afghanistan war was marginal at best, acceptable only because the UN sanctioned it, and believe that the Iraq war was 100% egregious and unconscionable, an inexcusable crime against humanity perpetrated by some of the most despicable humans on the planet (Wolfowitz, Cheney, Bush Jr, Rumsfeld, etc) .....

ISIS is even worse and nothing short of total war and obliteration and ignominy in the eyes of the world can, or will, prevent their rise in the future.

But the "moderate" Muslims of the world will never truly get behind the effort until Israel ends its horrific occupation of the Palestinian territories.

[Spopepro]

I read something recently.  It was about a country damaged by a disastrous economy and frightened by advancement of other countries' interests near their border.  They would invade a peninsula of a neighboring country.  The official reason given was that they had an obligation to protect their own citizens that were in the area and in danger.  They would win control of the area, and proclaim not to occupy, but of course the government propped up was a puppet.  They would then participate in proxy fights between revolutionary forces, established governments, and other groups in near by countries as the military and nationalist war-hawks crowded out the democratic portions of the government.


Russia in the Crimea? 



No... this was Showa Japan in the 1930s invading Manchuria and expanding into China.  Anyone remember what happened next?

[billnye]

[swimmingbird]

Be weary when you're young - I've made so many dramatic changes from left to right to left to right that I still don't know what side I align with

Ironically in college I became quite right/libertarian leaning and I became somewhat left leaning when I started working professionally which is the complete opposite of what I thought would happen to a person

[kurplop]

I heard some lyrics to a song recently that I thought summed it up pretty well.

   The more I learn, the more I learn how little that I know,
   But I'm close to understanding, just how far I have to go.
   We give our hearts, we take our chances,
     And no, the fool ain't the one with all the questions,
   To tell the truth, it's someone who, believes he has the answers.

Finally, validation for the frequent vacillating, or maybe refining, of my position.
Most people who claim absolute certainty about a matter are typically wrong. It's tends to be a sign of myopic or selective thinking.
 Remember the Scarecrow?  He thought he was brainless and he turned out to be quite wise.

I once heard a quote that was attributed to Clint Eastwood. I assume it was from a movie, but it went something like this.  "If you go far enough to the Right, or far enough to the Left, you'll find the same bunch of a******s."     Probably not true in all  cases but a pretty good generalization, don't you think?

[tp4tissue]

Politics is the same as anything else..


Make Money,,  then Buy the one you like...

[fohat.digs]

right/libertarian leaning

This recent conceptual twist has always perplexed me.

Somehow, or perhaps inevitably, the *popularly espoused* libertarian ideals of "freedom of thought" have shifted (at least in the US) with the money to try to somehow equate libertarian-ism with "no taxes on the wealthy" and unrestricted weapon ownership.

Personally, I see the left as the ideology that encourages freedom of thought and life and the right as the side that restricts it.

And, my own trajectory is to have been raised as a deeply religious Presbyterian Republican but to have arced at an ever-increasing rate towards agnosticism and the political left as I have progressed through life. And yes, that is not the common course.

[swimmingbird]

right/libertarian leaning

This recent conceptual twist has always perplexed me.

Somehow, or perhaps inevitably, the *popularly espoused* libertarian ideals of "freedom of thought" have shifted (at least in the US) with the money to try to somehow equate libertarian-ism with "no taxes on the wealthy" and unrestricted weapon ownership.

Personally, I see the left as the ideology that encourages freedom of thought and life and the right as the side that restricts it.

And, my own trajectory is to have been raised as a deeply religious Presbyterian Republican but to have arced at an ever-increasing rate towards agnosticism and the political left as I have progressed through life. And yes, that is not the common course.

In all the contexts that I have seen it seems that libertarianism is used to describe a system of low government intervention in markets, low taxes and yes low restrictions on firearms ownership

It's hard to say where fundamental freedoms like freedom of speech, religion, assembly fall on the political spectrum - both the left and right have become incredibly regressive on both though

[fohat.digs]

both the left and right have become incredibly regressive on both though

I strongly disagree with this notion that several people have put forward, painting the "left" and "right" with the same brush.

The differences are stark and huge.

How can a rational person say that the "fundamental freedoms like freedom of speech, religion, assembly" have been treated similarly by both sides?

[azhdar]

In France at the moment politics is a huge joke, only imbeciles subjected to capital are in big political position.


We had elected sarkozy in 2007, in 5years he sold a ton of French heritage (buildings, highways ... ) to outsiders (Emirates and China mainly) to get a small part of this money "under the table".





So people wanted to vote against him and voted for the opposite party, which was lead by Dominique strauss-kahn at the time who was president of the International Monetary Fund before attempting to become president. He got caught in a hotel raping the maid below. I'll let you judge how "rape-worthy" she is...



So people voted for the second sarkozy opponent on the line : Hollande who is a clown and his qualities are : not being Sarkozy, not caught in a "weird" rape incident. His popularity got down to 20% and below since he's a mollusc and has its elocution. Interesting to point out that his popularity only goes up when big incidents (Charlie & Pray for Paris) happen , conspiracy theorists love it, as it's always before big elections ...


So now that people have tried both left & right wing, they intend to vote for Marine Le Pen that is the far right and goes on a very protectionist campaign. Now that she's on top of the polls, every other politic agree that she's pretty much hitler and they want to unite against her.


Also right wing primary got rigged so the main candidate left to make his own party, Sarkozy is trying to make a rerun.
Hollande and his ministers go to the annual dinner of the CRIF and our president bows down to the CRIF's president calling him "dear president". Our prime ministery that isn't born French has said in interview that he's more attached to Israël than France. Every single one of our presidents since De Gaulle  (1965) has been dragged to court  right after their President immunity was gone . And so many other dirty things I'm forgetting.

So to make it simple, politics here are betraying friends, only to get big in politics and cash out. Long live democracy ...

______________________

On a personnal level, I still trust democracy but most of the countries under democracy are closer to an Oligarchy model.
I'm a firm believer of National-Socialism, and protectionism. Leaving the European Union would be the smartest thing France could do right now, integrating so many poop eastern country was a huge mistake.

[henz]

id consider myself a liberal scientific political person and are today really unhappy with my country's politics. I put emphasis in integrity, knowledge and culture. I am of the opinion that the government should not be  watching over people in any forms(internet,phones, cameras etc). Local politicians which are not held accountable when wasting tax payers money. The school system sucks balls, setting the standard on the people which are the worst in the class ie not giving any homework because not everyone is fortunate enough to have parents who can help them(if this **** still continues, i will hold extra classes at home for everyone who wants to come after school). I was happy with the economy, now we got a new party at throne and now that sucks too. Doing reforms on everything that was good. and  increase the tax level to waste more money on stupid **** like new statues and whatnot.

 I >hate< religion and  i am baffled that countries can be lead by religious followers adapting curriculums by their believes and then basically stupefying their own people. I think that schools should not teach young people  about stuff which are not scientific. Schools should not angle stuff, like saying the earth is flat and that Jesus Christ can walk on water.

I also believe that if you don't reach  a certain level of education, you should not be able to vote. Because uneducated people will make uneducated political choices.

I believe in gender equality, but in all aspects. Today there is too much of: im a girl i want the same pay as my male colleagues but i don't want try the same or harder(ofc if you are better than the males you should be paid more than them). And i want to be able to walk around with my tits out in the open, but i don't want anyone to stare at me.  Now governments are forcing in women onto manly dominated professions(like firemen and police officers) which is considered highly physical, and then failing on saving people because they do not have the appropriate physique to carry/wrestle a 120kg male. I like how the equality worked in the military. If you could not pass the test you would fail even if you are a short female or a tall big guy even if it was physical, mental or iq oriented test. Still did not stop most of them from complaining on stuff like: "Men have greater physique than us so we should be able to pass anyways", and no whine whatsoever when the less intelligent and unfortunate were failing the iq oriented tests". Get in if you are fit for the Job and get paid accordingly. Males needs to stop patronizing females, and women need to stop complaining and start acting(like **** riot ).

All kinds of hate crimes should be punished harder than today. Gays should be able to marry everywhere. SPREAD THE LOVE



i can continue forever but i need to stop

[trenzafeeds]

Eyyy I was going to start this when it was suggested. You beat me too it 

[fanpeople]

I also believe that if you don't reach  a certain level of education, you should not be able to vote. Because uneducated people will make uneducated political choices.

Would you care to enlighten us as to what you consider an acceptable level of education? You get that educated people are just as capable of making uneducated decisions when it comes to voting, especially if there are penalties for failing to vote and said person has no interest in politics. Have you also considered the possibility that an educated person with certain interests may vote for someone because they have put forward policies which may help them further their personal development as opposed to good of the state/nation (so an educated political choice, but made from a selfish perspective).

I kinda get where you are coming from, I just think that we shouldn't assume that someone with a certain level of education is going to put more effort into their political choices. I guess from a numbers perspective you may be correct (for example the guy that lives next door to me would probably vote for someone that would legalise drink driving, pretty sure he didn't make it past year . This is why giving an example of what level you think the cut off should be would be beneficial just to help me understand your perspective a bit better.

[henz]

I also believe that if you don't reach  a certain level of education, you should not be able to vote. Because uneducated people will make uneducated political choices.

Would you care to enlighten us as to what you consider an acceptable level of education? You get that educated people are just as capable of making uneducated decisions when it comes to voting, especially if there are penalties for failing to vote and said person has no interest in politics. Have you also considered the possibility that an educated person with certain interests may vote for someone because they have put forward policies which may help them further their personal development as opposed to good of the state/nation (so an educated political choice, but made from a selfish perspective).

I kinda get where you are coming from, I just think that we shouldn't assume that someone with a certain level of education is going to put more effort into their political choices. I guess from a numbers perspective you may be correct (for example the guy that lives next door to me would probably vote for someone that would legalise drink driving, pretty sure he didn't make it past year . This is why giving an example of what level you think the cut off should be would be beneficial just to help me understand your perspective a bit better.

I am not sure about where one should draw the line, for example i just dont want some dilly dally  person which thinks all immigrants are terrorist and reads angled media which are fed to them and they belive everythighn they read. I have the same thoughts as you do in your example. im not saying that a rocket scientist are more obliged to vote than a nurse. Both tried to be a part of the society and are equally obliged to vote.

[katushkin]

Bombing Syria is not the best way to solve the problem there. But it is far from the worst.

Inaction leads to even worse consequences. Imagine if we/USA/Russia/France/Turkey/else did NOTHING about ISIS in Syria/Iraq, and focused on security at home. Syria and Iraq would LITERALLY turn into an Islamic State run by these bastards, and hundreds of thousands of people would die. Same thing happened in Kosovo and Rwanda while the UN half assed it and sent like 200 people to police a genocide of an entire race. Twice.

I would rather have this on my conscience if I was PM than doing nothing and having **** like that happen.

[kurplop]

Do you think a minimum proficiency test might be the answer? Something like: 

How many US Senators are there?
What are the functions of the 3 branches of gov't?
Who would the candidate you're voting for be replacing?
How long are the terms for the offices being voted on? etc...

 
Even if the Q&A's were made available before the test, it would still require people wishing to vote to know a little about the system they are participating in. 

Some of the examples I made were US ones. Naturally if you vote in another country, your questions would be relevant to its gov't.

[trenzafeeds]

Do you think a minimum proficiency test might be the answer? Something like: 

How many US Senators are there?
What are the functions of the 3 branches of gov't?
Who would the candidate you're voting for be replacing?
How long are the terms for the offices being voted on? etc...

 
Even if the Q&A's were made available before the test, it would still require people wishing to vote to know a little about the system they are participating in.

The example you're giving seems quite reasonable, however the only problem is that such a system in concept could easily be manipulated into a means of preventing certain political groups from voting. While I couldn't agree more that something similar basically needs to be put in place, it's extremely difficult to come up with a system that couldn't be abused.

[katushkin]

The example you're giving seems quite reasonable, however the only problem is that such a system in concept could easily be manipulated into a means of preventing certain political groups from voting. While I couldn't agree more that something similar basically needs to be put in place, it's extremely difficult to come up with a system that couldn't be abused.

I don't think it's elitist trying to educate people in something before they go out and do it. It's like saying: "ok, I want to go out and bet money on the horses". Someone else says; "hey, don't you want to know about how well each horse has done and how it fairs on different surfaces etc etc?" "Nah, I'm ok, I'm just going to go with my gut".

You will probably make more money if you study the horses and their previous form. Like with politicians. You should probably find out if they are a racist ignoramus, or if they have any experience when it comes to running the most powerful company country in the world.

[kurplop]

That's why I didn't include questions like, "Why are all Republicans hateful?" or "Why don't Democrats just get jobs?".

If a neutral mix of people assembled a dozen generic questions with answers readily accessible, how would that restrict minimally informed people from voting?

[trenzafeeds]

The example you're giving seems quite reasonable, however the only problem is that such a system in concept could easily be manipulated into a means of preventing certain political groups from voting. While I couldn't agree more that something similar basically needs to be put in place, it's extremely difficult to come up with a system that couldn't be abused.

I don't think it's elitist trying to educate people in something before they go out and do it. It's like saying: "ok, I want to go out and bet money on the horses". Someone else says; "hey, don't you want to know about how well each horse has done and how it fairs on different surfaces etc etc?" "Nah, I'm ok, I'm just going to go with my gut".

You will probably make more money if you study the horses and their previous form. Like with politicians. You should probably find out if they are a racist ignoramus, or if they have any experience when it comes to running the most powerful company country in the world.

Did you perhaps quote the wrong post? I said that I am in favor of people being educated... the problem is just finding a system that can't be manipulated like voter ID laws.

[Sinanju]

The example you're giving seems quite reasonable, however the only problem is that such a system in concept could easily be manipulated into a means of preventing certain political groups from voting. While I couldn't agree more that something similar basically needs to be put in place, it's extremely difficult to come up with a system that couldn't be abused.

I don't think it's elitist trying to educate people in something before they go out and do it. It's like saying: "ok, I want to go out and bet money on the horses". Someone else says; "hey, don't you want to know about how well each horse has done and how it fairs on different surfaces etc etc?" "Nah, I'm ok, I'm just going to go with my gut".

You will probably make more money if you study the horses and their previous form. Like with politicians. You should probably find out if they are a racist ignoramus, or if they have any experience when it comes to running the most powerful company country in the world.

Problem being that there have been tests like this in the US's history.  Southern states used them to keep blacks from voting, so anything remotely resembling a voting test would quickly be met with backlash.

We can't even get voter ID to happen due to it being discriminatory*, so I highly doubt a test would happen. 

* Sorry, fail to see how it is.  If it is such a financial burden to go to the DMV to get an ID, then it is also a financial burden just to go to the polls to vote.

[kurplop]

I'm not sure how showing proof of ID is an unreasonable requirement. Could you explain to me how that is?  I'm not disagreeing necessarily, I just don't know why that is ripe for abuse.

[Spopepro]

My goodness people, read some history:

http://www.atlantahistorycenter.com/sites/default/files/georgia_literacy_test_1949.pdf
http://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/origins/images/al_literacy.pdf
http://www.nps.gov/miin/learn/historyculture/upload/LA-literacy-test.pdf

So who is the solicitor general of your circuit?

[henz]

I'm not sure how showing proof of ID is an unreasonable requirement. Could you explain to me how that is?  I'm not disagreeing necessarily, I just don't know why that is ripe for abuse.

What's stopping people to vote more than once if they don't have to I'd themselves? We have to do it each person get a voting card by mail along with the I'd you can vote.

[baldgye]

I'm with Henz on restricting who should be allowed to vote. People who have always voted for one particular party shouldn't be allowed to vote, as one example.

[kurplop]

My goodness people, read some history:

http://www.atlantahistorycenter.com/sites/default/files/georgia_literacy_test_1949.pdf
http://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/origins/images/al_literacy.pdf
http://www.nps.gov/miin/learn/historyculture/upload/LA-literacy-test.pdf

So who is the solicitor general of your circuit?

Your point?

[katushkin]

The example you're giving seems quite reasonable, however the only problem is that such a system in concept could easily be manipulated into a means of preventing certain political groups from voting. While I couldn't agree more that something similar basically needs to be put in place, it's extremely difficult to come up with a system that couldn't be abused.

I don't think it's elitist trying to educate people in something before they go out and do it. It's like saying: "ok, I want to go out and bet money on the horses". Someone else says; "hey, don't you want to know about how well each horse has done and how it fairs on different surfaces etc etc?" "Nah, I'm ok, I'm just going to go with my gut".

You will probably make more money if you study the horses and their previous form. Like with politicians. You should probably find out if they are a racist ignoramus, or if they have any experience when it comes to running the most powerful company country in the world.

Did you perhaps quote the wrong post? I said that I am in favor of people being educated... the problem is just finding a system that can't be manipulated like voter ID laws.

Oh ok. I thought you were saying that it's wrong to ask people questions about who they are voting for in the view to exclude them from voting, because it's seen as elitist, or excluding the poorer people in society. My bad.

[HoffmanMyster]

The example you're giving seems quite reasonable, however the only problem is that such a system in concept could easily be manipulated into a means of preventing certain political groups from voting. While I couldn't agree more that something similar basically needs to be put in place, it's extremely difficult to come up with a system that couldn't be abused.

I don't think it's elitist trying to educate people in something before they go out and do it. It's like saying: "ok, I want to go out and bet money on the horses". Someone else says; "hey, don't you want to know about how well each horse has done and how it fairs on different surfaces etc etc?" "Nah, I'm ok, I'm just going to go with my gut".

You will probably make more money if you study the horses and their previous form. Like with politicians. You should probably find out if they are a racist ignoramus, or if they have any experience when it comes to running the most powerful company country in the world.

Problem being that there have been tests like this in the US's history.  Southern states used them to keep blacks from voting, so anything remotely resembling a voting test would quickly be met with backlash.

This was exactly my first thought.  You'd have a helluva time implementing that.

[fanpeople]

The example you're giving seems quite reasonable, however the only problem is that such a system in concept could easily be manipulated into a means of preventing certain political groups from voting. While I couldn't agree more that something similar basically needs to be put in place, it's extremely difficult to come up with a system that couldn't be abused.

I don't think it's elitist trying to educate people in something before they go out and do it. It's like saying: "ok, I want to go out and bet money on the horses". Someone else says; "hey, don't you want to know about how well each horse has done and how it fairs on different surfaces etc etc?" "Nah, I'm ok, I'm just going to go with my gut".

You will probably make more money if you study the horses and their previous form. Like with politicians. You should probably find out if they are a racist ignoramus, or if they have any experience when it comes to running the most powerful company country in the world.

Problem being that there have been tests like this in the US's history.  Southern states used them to keep blacks from voting, so anything remotely resembling a voting test would quickly be met with backlash.

This was exactly my first thought.  You'd have a helluva time implementing that.

Considering a large portion of election time is devoted to developing a personality/cult following what if you made it a blind system similar to what they use for accepting papers into peer reviewed journals. Have a summary of a parties policies itemised on a sheet and label them group 1, group 2 etc. Votes based of what polices you like as opposed to religiously voting for the same party based off brand recognition.

I have had similar conversations before with regard to the Australian system, which requires you to register and then you must attend a voting station for every federal, state and local election. If you don't, you get fined which some people agree with I personally don't. A great deal of people turning up to the voting station are doing it just to avoid the fine, so imagine how much thought is going into their selection. Some people feel that the ability to vote on its own is a privilege that many people do not get, therefore the system should be honoured and you should always go and vote. There is also the argument that to truly reflect society in government you need everyone to vote.

I think that the current system is stacked against long term planning and that there are so many external forces at work that the physical results produced by the two major parties is probably not that great. I also think that there is a trend starting to develop in Australia where our prime minister is becoming a sacrificial lamb for that party, where they are used to absorb the blame for the public's dissatisfaction with policy. Then at the right moment they are internally voted out and a new figurehead is put in to make that party seem better than it is and increase the chances of re-election.

I don't think that there is ever a perfect system and there will always be some issues, I just wish the system was geared towards long term goals as opposed to short term electorate pleasing.

But then its Australia so who cares  )

[billnye]

I think there should be a fine for not voting.

Recently there has been a bunch of drama in Charlotte because a new toll road is being built. People complain and moan about it, and then when the time comes around the elect a new city council that could stop the construction of the toll lanes, only a fraction of people actually vote. It makes no sense to complain about something, and then when you get your chance to make your opinion worth something, you squander that opportunity.

I also think that some form of photo ID should be required to vote, such as a driver's license or a passport. It doesn't make sense to me that you can walk into a voting location without any proof of who you are and cast your vote, but apparently that's "racially disparate."

[Spopepro]

My goodness people, read some history:

http://www.atlantahistorycenter.com/sites/default/files/georgia_literacy_test_1949.pdf
http://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/origins/images/al_literacy.pdf
http://www.nps.gov/miin/learn/historyculture/upload/LA-literacy-test.pdf

So who is the solicitor general of your circuit?

Your point?

Cicero can take it from here.

Nescire autem quid ante quam natus sis accident, id est semper esse puerum.

[azhdar]

I think there should be a fine for not voting.

Recently there has been a bunch of drama in Charlotte because a new toll road is being built. People complain and moan about it, and then when the time comes around the elect a new city council that could stop the construction of the toll lanes, only a fraction of people actually vote. It makes no sense to complain about something, and then when you get your chance to make your opinion worth something, you squander that opportunity.

I also think that some form of photo ID should be required to vote, such as a driver's license or a passport. It doesn't make sense to me that you can walk into a voting location without any proof of who you are and cast your vote, but apparently that's "racially disparate."

In the US you just show up to the voting location and that's all ? How do they know you haven't voted twice?
Here we have to show voter card + ID.

Also is it true that in the US you vote during the week ? Why so ? I know I wouldn't have the time to vote during the week while I'm able to vote in France because it's during weeekend.

Your point on forcing people to vote is so wrong. This just bring random voting. People voting for wrong reasons isn't better but voting is a right, not an obligation.

[trenzafeeds]

In the US you just show up to the voting location and that's all ? How do they know you haven't voted twice?
Here we have to show voter card + ID.

No, we have a voter registry system that works very well, voter fraud is a basically nonexistent problem, although the republican party would have you think otherwise. I should clarify as well that I totally support working voter ID laws, that's all good, unfortunately the ones people are trying to pass right now are deliberately badly made to allow for exploitation.

Also is it true that in the US you vote during the week ? Why so ? I know I wouldn't have the time to vote during the week while I'm able to vote in France because it's during weeekend.

Yes, this is true, and it's about as stupid as it sounds. A part of the platform for one of the US presidential candidates right now is to make at least national elections a national holiday, so (basically) everyone has work off.

[kurplop]

Just because a policy was done in the past for wrong reasons doesn't make it wrong. The Founders of the American Constitution often referred to the need for its constituency to be both educated and virtuous.  Educated no doubt, so they could wisely choose their representatives.  By virtue I suspect they meant having the common good in mind. I think Alexis de Tocqueville understood the true unbridled nature of man when he wrote, "The AmericanRepublic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money".

Although there is probably little that a government can do to inspire good will in its people, much can and has been offered, in this day, to educate the people of the US. This leaves its citizens with little excuse to not know at least a small amount about the issues they are asked to decide on. Maybe 10 simple questions with at least 7 answered correctly.

I'm probably sounding like I'm trying to make a case when in reality I'm not very passionate about it.  I do think, however, that its not in any country's best interest to be steered by old folks with alzheimer whose children wheeled them to the voting booth or by some, not all, 18 year olds who know nothing about functioning governments but showed up at the polls because someone told them they needed to rock the vote. I don't think that this is what Adams and Madison had in mind almost 230 years ago.



   

[Phirr]

I think states and countries should pretty much divide into micro-nations with free exit and guarded entry of citizens, so that people can live in a political system that makes sense to them (as long as the current population there is willing to let them in). In such a way, these micronations could compete against one another in a form of social capitalism. Think immigrants are the key to a country's future, guns should be banned and socialism  enacted? Move to Californiastan. Want mandatory gun ownership, religious educational co-ops and low tax/low benefits? Move to the the Texican Republic etc. Basically devolve federal governance to the control of the states, or even smaller entities. In such a way, you would have a wider variety of governance models, giving the people more choice in the way they live. Failing governance models would also be easier to spot. If people want to live in a constitutional monarchy rather than a democracy, a la Singapore, I think that should be their choice. Overall the right to speech is less important to me than the right to exit. I'd rather walk out the door of a restaurant that only served crow rather than be able to choose it fried or baked.

Political musings somewhat inspired by The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson as well as Hoppe's Democracy: The God that Failed. By the way, don't check the latter out of a public library. Ever since I did, I've been "randomly selected" by the TSA for additional screening, on 5 out of 5 of my last flights.

[fanpeople]

I think there should be a fine for not voting.

Recently there has been a bunch of drama in Charlotte because a new toll road is being built. People complain and moan about it, and then when the time comes around the elect a new city council that could stop the construction of the toll lanes, only a fraction of people actually vote. It makes no sense to complain about something, and then when you get your chance to make your opinion worth something, you squander that opportunity.

I also think that some form of photo ID should be required to vote, such as a driver's license or a passport. It doesn't make sense to me that you can walk into a voting location without any proof of who you are and cast your vote, but apparently that's "racially disparate."

Do you think that a different city council would have not gone with the plans for toll lane? Serious question, I am not trying to be Tp, I am curious how your system works? Is the council getting payment for the building or do they just approve the process?

In Sydney pretty much our main road to the city is a toll road, you can take back streets but bad traffic. Oh wait you can take the toll road but bad traffic during peak hour. Either way there is bad traffic. Off peak it is generally ok.

That is a good point though, if you don't bother voting do you have the right to complain about a government? I guess if you vote at least you had input into the process.

[kurplop]

In the US you just show up to the voting location and that's all ? How do they know you haven't voted twice?
Here we have to show voter card + ID.

No, we have a voter registry system that works very well, voter fraud is a basically nonexistent problem, although the republican party would have you think otherwise. I should clarify as well that I totally support working voter ID laws, that's all good, unfortunately the ones people are trying to pass right now are deliberately badly made to allow for exploitation.

I don't know how much voter fraud there is but I know that the opportunity is there. During the last election cycle, next to my name and my wife's in the register, were my three daughters and a neighbor. This is to be expected since the names are listed by addresses. What was disturbing was that none of my daughters were  living with us anymore and were voting at other polling places with their new addresses. What was even more alarming is that my neighbor had been deceased for about 10 years at the time. Like I said, I didn't witness any fraud, but the opportunity is there.

[billnye]

I think there should be a fine for not voting.

Recently there has been a bunch of drama in Charlotte because a new toll road is being built. People complain and moan about it, and then when the time comes around the elect a new city council that could stop the construction of the toll lanes, only a fraction of people actually vote. It makes no sense to complain about something, and then when you get your chance to make your opinion worth something, you squander that opportunity.

I also think that some form of photo ID should be required to vote, such as a driver's license or a passport. It doesn't make sense to me that you can walk into a voting location without any proof of who you are and cast your vote, but apparently that's "racially disparate."

Do you think that a different city council would have not gone with the plans for toll lane? Serious question, I am not trying to be Tp, I am curious how your system works? Is the council getting payment for the building or do they just approve the process?

In Sydney pretty much our main road to the city is a toll road, you can take back streets but bad traffic. Oh wait you can take the toll road but bad traffic during peak hour. Either way there is bad traffic. Off peak it is generally ok.

That is a good point though, if you don't bother voting do you have the right to complain about a government? I guess if you vote at least you had input into the process.

Yes. There have been many propositions to expand the normal lanes on the interstate instead of adding toll lanes. The toll lanes won't even really solve the problem of traffic because they only have a few access points and are made for people who travel from the farther away suburbs into the city. The current highway only has 2 lanes once you get ~15 miles from the city. During rush hour, it can take about 45 minutes to travel 10 miles in the worst spot.

They city council had a vote whether or not to sign the contract with the Spanish company (another reason people are unhappy with the toll road) to build the road. The contract also includes a $100 million fine if it is terminated....

[fohat.digs]

The modern world is insanely complicated and everything is ridiculously expensive.

Nobody is happy and people are afraid, thus many of them want to withdraw into their shells like turtles and yearn for "simpler times"

Ain't gonna happen.

It's time to accept the fact that we are hurtling headlong into the future, and the only 2 choices are to steer the train or to de-rail it.

Progressives fear the Luddites who want to de-rail because they can't foresee any positive benefit of their actions.

But it is still important to always seek the "least bad" of all the bad choices and vigorously defend it. That's as good as it gets.

I am reading "Six Amendments" by retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and so should every other US citizen.

[vivalarevolución]

Wake me up next November.  Thanks.

[TimIsABat]

Social media has ruined politics. I find that my peers (20-25) are opinionated and base their opinions on what they read on social media. None of them even know what happens to B if A happens. I hate talking to people even in my own ethnicity (Filipino) about politics because they are brainwashed like crazy. The whole two-party system here in America is the most broken system ever. You can't be side A because you believe in X, but you can't be side B because you believe in Z. You can't be in the middle because the middle has to either fully agree with side A or B. It drives me crazy. To think one side is better than the other is absurd. Social media makes it 100x worse. I just really hate politics at the moment.

[fohat.digs]

The whole two-party system here in America is the most broken system ever.

The Founding Fathers clearly saw the dangers of the 2-party system and saw how egregious its influence would be.

They assumed that the population would see it, too, and the Constitution was written specifically to a non-2-party system of government.

Washington and Adams were appalled to see how quickly the feud between Federalists and Republicans grew, and by the election of 1800 the system was pretty well entrenched.

[kurplop]

The modern world is insanely complicated and everything is ridiculously expensive.

Nobody is happy and people are afraid, thus many of them want to withdraw into their shells like turtles and yearn for "simpler times"

Ain't gonna happen.

It's time to accept the fact that we are hurtling headlong into the future, and the only 2 choices are to steer the train or to de-rail it.

Progressives fear the Luddites who want to de-rail because they can't foresee any positive benefit of their actions.

But it is still important to always seek the "least bad" of all the bad choices and vigorously defend it. That's as good as it gets.

I am reading "Six Amendments" by retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and so should every other US citizen.

I understand and agree with you that the more interdependent we become as the world changes, both as a nation and globally, social structure must adapt. I think you misrepresent me and my fellow "Luddites" however and would offer this.  Instead of derailing we are simply applying the brakes to slow the train so that we don't derail.

[fohat.digs]

we are simply applying the brakes to slow the train so that we don't derail.

Not a realistic option.

Republicans have been standing on the brakes ever since Reagan took office, and all that has been accomplished is that the the rest of the developed world is leaving the US behind to languish in the quagmire of trivial squabbles over minutiae like "religion" and "morals" instead of nation-building (our own nation, that is).

[Spopepro]

we are simply applying the brakes to slow the train so that we don't derail.

Not a realistic option.

Republicans have been standing on the brakes ever since Reagan took office, and all that has been accomplished is that the the rest of the developed world is leaving the US behind to languish in the quagmire of trivial squabbles over minutiae like "religion" and "morals" instead of nation-building (our own nation, that is).

I don't think you're altogether wrong, but I think you might be confusing party prominence with certain actions and policy. It's true that the profile of party membership and partisanship in general went on the rise starting around when Regan got elected. But you might also recall a fractured republican party being somewhat adrift allowing Ross Perot to gather ~20% of the popular vote. You would probably enjoy this essay: http://web.stanford.edu/~mfiorina/PARTIES%20AND%20PARTISANSHIP.pdf

However, I would say the "give me what I want or I'll shut it down" tantrum politics has been a more recent phenomenon, say the last 10 years or so. Neither side has been immune, with house republicans threatening (and sometimes executing) shutdowns over funding bills, democratic state legislators fleeing the state to prevent laws from being passed... Regardless of if you agree with the policy reasons for doing such things, using a spanner-in-the-works approach only fuels discontent and frustration, making it harder to negotiate in good faith in the future.

And very possibly a turning point could be identified in the 2000 presidential primaries. At the time, McCain was building momentum, was moderate on a lot of issues (being a POW puts a damper on wanting to sent soldiers into conflict everywhere) and was looking good for the nomination. Bush the Second brought out the nasty and mobilized the evangelicals in South Carolina (and many other places) and rode the wave of "I'm the moral Christian candidate" to the win. This particular event was largely responsible for the ensuing years of bat-****-crazy McCain, who now believed you needed the "moral-right" to win an election. I'm sure many others have received the same playbook.

But hey, at least we aren't electing fascists? (I'm looking at you UKIP, Lega Nord, Front national...)

[kurplop]

I strongly disagree with this notion that several people have put forward, painting the "left" and "right" with the same brush.

The differences are stark and huge.

Of course you would. People on the extreme right or left tend to not see the folly in their own positions.

These are generalizations and not every extremist is guilty of these, but here are some of the similar characteristics I've noticed:

1. They are prone to speaking in sometimes irrational absolutes.
2. They have a blind inability to even consider the other side's perspective.
3. They display an unwillingness to compromise in order to move forward.
4. They tend to assume the worst intentions to explain their opposition's actions.
5. They are frequently volatile, irritable, accusing, and fear and hate mongering.
6. People at dinner parties try to avoid them because of their loud ranting and threatening gesticulations.
7. Doctors warn them that their elevated blood pressure will surely lead to a shortened life and suggest deep breathing exercises.

Sound familiar?

[Spopepro]

I strongly disagree with this notion that several people have put forward, painting the "left" and "right" with the same brush.

The differences are stark and huge.

Of course you would. People on the extreme right or left tend to not see the folly in their own positions.

These are generalizations and not every extremist is guilty of these, but here are some of the similar characteristics I've noticed:

1. They are prone to speaking in sometimes irrational absolutes.
2. They have a blind inability to even consider the other side's perspective.
3. They display an unwillingness to compromise in order to move forward.
4. They tend to assume the worst intentions to explain their opposition's actions.
5. They are frequently volatile, irritable, accusing, and fear and hate mongering.
6. People at dinner parties try to avoid them because of their loud ranting and threatening gesticulations.
7. Doctors warn them that their elevated blood pressure will surely lead to a shortened life and suggest deep breathing exercises.

Sound familiar?

Fohat can defend himself, but if you think his comments have been extremist, I worry about those you will meet in the future.

Besides, the whole "intellectual moderation" crowd seems to largely present argument for sport on the internet (and would you look at those demographics!) I mean, if it wasn't just navel-gazing, you could surely elect *someone*, right?



Source: https://voteviewblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/04/alpha-nominate-on-the-114th-house-update/

[fohat.digs]

Sound familiar?

If you are accusing me of these things, then I resent it but mostly feel sorry for you.

But, of course, I see myself as a middle-of-the-road moderate, and see people like Cruz and Ryan as racing down the road taken by all the failed totalitarians and ideologues down through history, with the cowering lapdogs of the remainder of the Republican party in tow.

This is not a scenario where "compromise" and "working together" are really possible, since the former "left" has already granted massive concessions and moved too far to the center, if not somewhat right-of-center, in recent years in its efforts to appease and work with the "New Right". But that is a significant victory for the "Tea Party, etc" nonetheless, in shifting of the entire spectrum dramatically rightwards, and we moderates (Republicans and Democrats alike) resent it greatly.

As a very mature, well-educated, well-read, and thoughtful man whose has seen and learned a lot in my lifetime to get to where I am today, I have found the majority of your emotion-based arguments weak to the point of being lame. If you cannot start backing up your opinions with something better than Bible quotes, Fox-esque platitudes, and accusations of prejudice on my part, I cannot engage in any more of this banter with you.

In the US today, while the "Radical Right" insists on attempting to take the "moral high ground" their behavior, in general, anything but "moral".

I consider the "Radical Right" in the US today to be the 2nd-greatest threat that the US has ever faced in its history, behind only the Institution of Slavery, to which it bears a deeply troubling resemblance.

[kurplop]

If you are accusing me of these things, then I resent it but mostly feel sorry for you.

I do appreciate your concern but stand by my earlier analysis with one correction stated below.

Fohat can defend himself, but if you think his comments have been extremist, I worry about those you will meet in the future.

I think I should have better stated what I meant by extremists. I should have wrote extremists on the right and left instead of extreme left and extreme right. One  speaks to policy positions the other to behavior.

I'm actually open to different options left or right. I just don't have an appetite for being force fed closed minded dogma and bullying manipulations from either position. It's the difference between a calm discussion and chants at a rally.

Regarding your link to the report analyzing the changes in partisanship since the early 80's. It was an interesting read. Was there something in particular you wanted us to glean from it?

[Spopepro]

Regarding your link to the report analyzing the changes in partisanship since the early 80's. It was an interesting read. Was there something in particular you wanted us to glean from it?

There's a perception among many that the political "game" drastically changed starting with Regan. Fohat's observations are particularly valuable because he's speaking from first hand experience as one of our more stately members. The perception of change is correct, but what exactly changed and the effect on political action is not. The essay (note that while academic in nature, and well cited, it is not peer-reviewed) does a good job of confirming the rise of partisanship, but also recognizing the limited effect of party on policy in the 80s and 90s. Therefore it's a response to fohat tracing a bad political fight to a point in time that I don't agree with. He puts it around Regan's win, I put it around the 2000 South Carolina primary. Ultimately, we agree that there's a political faction in the USA that is outright dangerous wielding not insignificant power. But to fully follow that argument, you would need to understand how radicalized militants in the Middle East are being recruited and trained, and then look at the types of relationships that exist between certain governments and non-uniformed combatents and then carefully look at the policy and open position among a certain set of people in power in this country and see the connection to the planned parenthood attack, the Giffords assassination attempt, and so on.  But there's more reading to be done around this than can reasonably be asked in a keyboard forum (and I'm reaching my "someone's wrong on the Internet" comic moment) and I worry that the "intellectual moderate" will automatically recoil at the suggestion that there may be political and public action in the states with the same intended effect as the powers we (USA) are fighting in other parts of the world.

[kurplop]

Thanks for the clarification. I read the report and got the gist of it but must admit that some of it went over my head.

[fohat.digs]

I worry that the "intellectual moderate" will automatically recoil at the suggestion that there may be political and public action in the states with the same intended effect as the powers we (USA) are fighting in other parts of the world.

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/10/10/electoral-integrity/

TL;DR version:

[azhdar]

So yesterday (sunday), France was voting for regionals. In a lot of regions, the Front National ("far right") came first and already won some regions (when they were above 50% ).
We're voting the second round upcoming sunday, both left wing and right wing formed an alliance: in some regions there are still 3 peoples to vote (left,right,far right). So if the right or the left is third, they surrender to decrease the chances of the Front National to win. And they tell their voters to vote against Front National.

Mfw democracy.

[HoffmanMyster]

So yesterday (sunday), France was voting for regionals. In a lot of regions, the Front National ("far right") came first and already won some regions (when they were above 50% ).
We're voting the second round upcoming sunday, both left wing and right wing formed an alliance: in some regions there are still 3 peoples to vote (left,right,far right). So if the right or the left is third, they surrender to decrease the chances of the Front National to win. And they tell their voters to vote against Front National.

Mfw democracy.

Welcome to the two-party system.

[fohat.digs]

Welcome to the two-party system.

That is it, precisely.

The worst thing that you can possibly do is to  *NOT*  vote for the least of the 2 evils.

[swimmingbird]

So yesterday (sunday), France was voting for regionals. In a lot of regions, the Front National ("far right") came first and already won some regions (when they were above 50% ).
We're voting the second round upcoming sunday, both left wing and right wing formed an alliance: in some regions there are still 3 peoples to vote (left,right,far right). So if the right or the left is third, they surrender to decrease the chances of the Front National to win. And they tell their voters to vote against Front National.

Mfw democracy.

Welcome to the two-party system.

Welcome to the world

Pepsi or Coke?

[Oobly]

So yesterday (sunday), France was voting for regionals. In a lot of regions, the Front National ("far right") came first and already won some regions (when they were above 50% ).
We're voting the second round upcoming sunday, both left wing and right wing formed an alliance: in some regions there are still 3 peoples to vote (left,right,far right). So if the right or the left is third, they surrender to decrease the chances of the Front National to win. And they tell their voters to vote against Front National.

Mfw democracy.

Welcome to the two-party system.

Welcome to the world

Pepsi or Coke?

But I want Fanta.

I'm quite satisfied with how politics works here in Finland (8 main parties with a number of other minority ones). Although right now, we've got a bit of a problem with the three main elected parties trying to come to some kind of agreement over the new employment contract conditions for workers. It's needed for financial relief, to help save the economy of the country. And yet we're still spending huge sums on helping the refugees. I don't think that should stop, but I do think it's interesting that a country that has absolutely nothing to do with the situation there, is many thousands of kilometers distant and has no real political "responsibility" is helping out despite the economy being in trouble. Finland is good people.

And US is doing this: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/16/world/paris-attacks-syrian-refugees-backlash/

The absolutely massive difference in culture and climate also creates tensions that are hard to resolve (particularly amongst those who don't recognise that they should respect the culture of the country that's giving them sanctuary). And crime statistics (particularly rapes) show some unsettling trends.

[vivalarevolución]

Donald Trump, wtf.

[trenzafeeds]

Donald Trump, wtf.

Lol. Getting at the real questions

[Photekq]

Donald Trump, wtf.

I mean he's not any worse than any of the other candidates.

Cuz erryone a raciss

[trenzafeeds]

I mean he's not any worse than any of the other candidates.

You don't even live in america.

[Photekq]

You don't even live in america.

But the American presidential election affects me and everyone else in the world, since America insists on having a substantial global presence, so my forming an opinion on the candidates is perfectly reasonable.

I'm torn between Sanders and Trump for who I'd like to come out on top. I hope it's between them.

[trenzafeeds]

You don't even live in america.

But the American presidential election affects me and everyone else in the world, since America insists on having a substantial global presence, so my forming an opinion on the candidates is perfectly reasonable.

haha, no, I know. I think that Donald Trump wouldn't honestly make a huge difference for you in the UK versus the other candidates maybe, because he thinks of you folks as an ally, but can you imagine what he'd do to the citizens and some other countries he dislikes? I can totally relate to the jaded every candidate is the same position, but while others wouldn't really make an change, Trump would actively change things in an insane (not right wing, but insane) direction.

[Photekq]

haha, no, I know. I think that Donald Trump wouldn't honestly make a huge difference for you in the UK versus the other candidates maybe, because he thinks of you folks as an ally, but can you imagine what he'd do to the citizens and some other countries he dislikes? I can totally relate to the jaded every candidate is the same position, but while others wouldn't really make an change, Trump would actively change things in an insane (not right wing, but insane) direction.

It doesn't matter if he sees the UK as an ally. Name one presidential candidate who doesn't.. I'm not worried about any of the presidential candidates wanting to attack the UK, I'm worried about what we might get dragged into as an ally. Trump was against the war in Iraq, and is against Obama's disastrous military intervention in Syria. I agree with him wholeheartedly.

Besides, if you think that any one person becoming the President of the United States will significantly reduce or increase your involvement abroad you're overestimating the power of the president and underestimating the true power : money power.

Out of curiosity, what are the insane things that Trump is proposing? Reduced immigration? That isn't insane.

[vivalarevolución]

Donald Trump, wtf.

Lol. Getting at the real questions

Seriously though.  Despite that Trumps acts in a manner that is self serving, attention seeking, narcissistic, sociopathic, xenophobic, sexist, and generally hateful, he is only a symbol of the problem.  The problem is that he has so much support.  It is indicative of the widespread culture of fear and paranoia and misdirected hate that still boils strongly in the USA.

Of course, he is only a symptom of the problem, as our political system and democracy are very sick, if they were ever that healthy at all.

[trenzafeeds]

Out of curiosity, what are the insane things that Donald  Trump is proposing? Reduced immigration? That isn't insane.

Mandating identification badges on all muslims? Specifically turning away immigrants based on religion? Sounds like fascism to me.

[Photekq]

Mandating identification badges on all muslims? Specifically turning away immigrants based on religion? Sounds like fascism to me.

Ehhh, this is the one area where he's gone over the top after the Paris attacks. I have severe doubts that he would ever actually consider doing the former; I think it's just him attempting to get more attention (and succeeding). The latter is more realistic, but considering his attitudes towards immigration on the whole I doubt it would make much difference even if implemented. Also, I very much doubt that it would be anywhere near as severe as that description. It's more likely to be that more attention and scrutiny will be paid towards potential immigrants of certain religions.

It doesn't sound like fascism to me. It sounds like authoritarianism, but not fascism. The two are often confused, and the words fascist/fascism are misused even more often.

[trenzafeeds]

It doesn't sound like fascism to me. It sounds like authoritarianism, but not fascism. The two are often confused, and the words fascist/fascism are misused even more often.

I actually meant to ask you, which part of the right wing do you lean towards? Libertarianism or fascism?

[hwood34]

I'm torn between Sanders and Trump for who I'd like to come out on top. I hope it's between them.

Sanders has basically no chance whatsoever

[Signature]

I'm torn between Sanders and Trump for who I'd like to come out on top. I hope it's between them.

Sanders has basically no chance whatsoever

Not with that attitude

[hwood34]

I'm torn between Sanders and Trump for who I'd like to come out on top. I hope it's between them.

Sanders has basically no chance whatsoever

Not with that attitude

not with any attitude

[kurplop]

Out of curiosity, what are the insane things that Donald  Trump is proposing? Reduced immigration? That isn't insane.

Mandating identification badges on all muslims? Specifically turning away immigrants based on religion? Sounds like fascism to me.

Keep in mind that this is the latest of many extreme statements that Trump has used to dominate the press. After the dust settles, he usually modifies his position (he would say clarify) to make it sound more acceptable to the press and public. I am personally disappointed by the size of his following. I think it's an overreaction to the overall dissatisfaction to our current situation and even more, the fragmented and impotent Republican party.

Based on his past positions, I question whether Trump  really has strong conservative leanings. I think he's a great rabble rouser and could have tailored his message to be equally effective in either party. Either way, I'm cautious of anyone whose methods are so pragmatic.

[Photekq]

I actually meant to ask you, which part of the right wing do you lean towards? Libertarianism or fascism?

I agree absolutely and completely with the economic aspect of fascism. The state exerts a strong influence over all investment, some industries are nationalized, and most importantly private individuals being able to own businesses/land/property hinges on whether or not it benefits the country on the whole, both socially and economically. This would stamp out globalism if executed on a global scale (of course this will never happen).

My thoughts on the social aspect of fascism are ongoing. I have always strongly believed that in a democracy everyone should have absolute free speech; without it there cannot be the free flow of ideas and opinions, and therefore there can be no true democracy. However, I can see the disadvantages of free speech and also the advantages of fascism.

That said, fascism has the potential to create the strongest and most happy country, and it also has the potential to create the most oppressive country. An example of the former would be Nazi Germany prior to the war. For the German people it was the most prosperous and happy nation in the recent history of Europe.

[Signature]

It doesn't sound like fascism to me. It sounds like authoritarianism, but not fascism. The two are often confused, and the words fascist/fascism are misused even more often.

I actually meant to ask you, which part of the right wing do you lean towards? Libertarianism or fascism?

Does it matter? Can't you have opinions and not be branded into a specific group?

[fohat.digs]

Donald Trump, wtf.

I love Donald Trump and I hope that he stays in the race as long as possible.

The more his mouth moves, the more likely the apathetic majority will understand what the Radical Right really stands for.

[trenzafeeds]

It doesn't sound like fascism to me. It sounds like authoritarianism, but not fascism. The two are often confused, and the words fascist/fascism are misused even more often.

I actually meant to ask you, which part of the right wing do you lean towards? Libertarianism or fascism?

Does it matter? Can't you have opinions and not be branded into a specific group?

No, and Photekq gave me exactly what I expected from him, a complex answer that describes his ideology. However, that answer would have been a lot longer if he had explained exactly what the economic aspects of fascism are, instead of just saying what he did and having me generally understand.

[trenzafeeds]

For the German people it was the most prosperous and happy nation in the recent history of Europe.

My ancestors weren't too stoked about their shower system though. 

As for your economic section, that's very interesting, because what you described is very similar in some aspects to the earlier-middle stages of socialism. It never ceases to amuse me how the "right" and "left" labels we put on things end up being a circle that converges at both ends, rather than a spectrum.

[Spopepro]

I actually meant to ask you, which part of the right wing do you lean towards? Libertarianism or fascism?

That said, fascism has the potential to create the strongest and most happy country, and it also has the potential to create the most oppressive country. An example of the former would be Nazi Germany prior to the war. For the German people it was the most prosperous and happy nation in the recent history of Europe.

Happy for all except those who, you know, were systematically killed as part of ethnic cleansing and property seizure.

With all due respect: **** you Photekq.

[Photekq]

Happy for all except those who, you know, were systematically killed as part of ethnic cleansing and property seizure.

With all due respect: **** you Photekq.

Did you fully read what I said?

I said it was the most prosperous and happy nation for the German people.

Ok, perhaps I could have been a little more specific. For the indigenous German people who did not oppose Nazism. The other guys didn't have a very nice time of it, and I never said otherwise. I didn't mention them since it was not relevant in regards to what I was saying.

[trenzafeeds]

For the indigenous German people who did not oppose Nazism.

I don't really want to argue about this, because I know it's not your point in the fascism thing, but you're treading on some pretty thin ice here man. I have ancestors who can trace back their family very far as both germans and jews. I think what you mean to say is the regime was best for the people it was intended to be best for. Now I hope this can be the end of this.

[Photekq]

I don't really want to argue about this, because I know it's not your point in the fascism thing, but you're treading on some pretty thin ice here man. I have ancestors who can trace back their family very far as both germans and jews. I think what you mean to say is the regime was best for the people it was intended to be best for. Now I hope this can be the end of this.

And excluding Jews of course. How could I ever forget.

As for your economic section, that's very interesting, because what you described is very similar in some aspects to the earlier-middle stages of socialism. It never ceases to amuse me how the "right" and "left" labels we put on things end up being a circle that converges at both ends, rather than a spectrum.

I think my description is perhaps where the similarities end. To expand a bit further: big business is generally encouraged under fascism, so long as it is still economically and socially beneficial to the country and its people, therefore unions tend to disappear. The state often aids businesses rather than the people under the thought process that it is better to create jobs rather than give hand outs. The state favours the strong rather than the weak.

Every form of Fascism that has manifested has been different, but I'll use the British Union of Fascists as an example. Oswald Mosley proposed isolationalism: that Britain should focus inwards rather than outwards, prohibiting trade outside of the British Empire. This was in response to the coming of global business and cheap "Coolie" labour which has now changed the world immeasurably. I imagine this would have been the attitudes of other Fascist states, but Germany and Italy didn't really need to worry about international trading, as they never did much to begin with aside from trading with neighbouring countries.

[trenzafeeds]

As for your economic section, that's very interesting, because what you described is very similar in some aspects to the earlier-middle stages of socialism. It never ceases to amuse me how the "right" and "left" labels we put on things end up being a circle that converges at both ends, rather than a spectrum.

I think my description is perhaps where the similarities end. To expand a bit further: big business is generally encouraged under fascism, so long as it is still economically and socially beneficial to the country and its people, therefore unions tend to disappear. The state often aids businesses rather than the people under the thought process that it is better to create jobs rather than give hand outs. The state favours the strong rather than the weak.

Every form of Fascism that has manifested has been different, but I'll use the British Union of Fascists as an example. Oswald Mosley proposed isolationalism: that Britain should focus inwards rather than outwards, prohibiting trade outside of the British Empire. This was in response to the coming of global business and cheap "Coolie" labour which has now changed the world immeasurably. I imagine this would have been the attitudes of other Fascist states, but Germany and Italy didn't really need to worry about international trading, as they never did much to begin with aside from trading with neighbouring countries.

Yes, you make a good point. Many political ideas will sound similar enough when described in exceedingly general terms.
Of course, fascism is state focused enough that at the end of the day it comes down to whether or not the state is people-focused. As for isolationism, I think it ofter depends heavily on the resources (especially natural ones) of the nation in which you are trying to implement a system. Not every nation has the means to isolate.

[fohat.digs]

It sounds like authoritarianism, but not fascism.

Or Totalitarianism.

Discussions of the political philosophies of Socialism or Communism rarely last more than a few minutes before somebody freaks out and points to all of the examples in the modern world where even what was, at the outset, a "pure and clean" socialist system very rapidly devolved into a totalitarian environment that was usually far worse than whatever it had replaced.

The Founding Fathers looked at the US as an "experiment in democracy" and for over 2 centuries it has generally been successful, if not without its fair share of problems, and has served as a model for the world.

There has not been a successful "experiment in socialism" so far, in the modern world, because, for whatever reasons, the power elites have always seized control quickly and wielded an iron hand. Unfortunately, this also started to happen with ever-increasing momentum even here in the US since the mid-late-1970s.

Modern Europe has spawned a number of extremely successful systems of democratic socialism and this is what Bernie Sanders would strive to emulate here. I agree, this is the way of a rational sophisticated modern society in the "global village".

And, as I always add, there needs to be a viable and realistic world government.

[trenzafeeds]

world government.

Literally one piece.

There has not been a successful "experiment in socialism" so far, in the modern world

Take a look at mandrigan, although it may be too small scale to really count.
As for the socialist experiments you're undoubtably referring to, you have to keep them in context. Lenin took an extremely poor, spread-out nation that was stuck in a feudal system, and pulled it out of war, industrialized it, and significantly increased the quality of living for the average citizen. Sure, they were still much worse off than the US, but this is after only a couple years of the system. You just can't compare capitalism in its finest moments to communism in its worst, which is what I feel like people often do.

[Photekq]

And, as I always add, there needs to be a viable and realistic world government.

Why do you think there needs to be one?

[swimmingbird]

And, as I always add, there needs to be a viable and realistic world government.

Why do you think there needs to be one?

Because many problems facing the world are global in nature and if governments act in their own interests it will be a tragedy of the commons

Doesn't mean that they should legislate everything but maybe some things

Emissions trading schemes/ climate change is a good example of this

[fohat.digs]

Why do you think there needs to be one?

Disagreements are inevitable and the final arbiter needs to be something besides warfare.

[fohat.digs]

Lenin took an extremely poor, spread-out nation that was stuck in a feudal system, and pulled it out of war, industrialized it, and significantly increased the quality of living for the average citizen.

I agree, particularly the part about "this is after only a couple years of the system" at which point Stalin turned it into a hideous abomination.

Likewise, Hitler oversaw the rebuilding of an even more devastated Germany into a superpower in a mere decade.

Could these efficiencies could be maintained without an inevitable descent into a hellish Orwellian "1984" world? Who knows?

That is why I believe that the "democratic" and "socialist" components must be carefully applied in equal measure.

[Oobly]

ANY political system that works well in one country is not guaranteed to work in another. Countries have individual identity and culture and it should stay that way. People should have more respect for each others' cultural identity and culture, though. I strongly believe every country should have it's own governance and something like the UN is the closest to a "world government" as we should get.

I've lived in three different countries with very different cultures and know for a certainty that what works so well politically in Finland has very little chance of working in South Africa for instance. Every country has it's own political needs and they should be tailored for the populace. There are some political systems and ideals that simply won't work in any country long term, though. Fascism and communism being two of these. People will eventually want more self-governance and independence. One person or party can only decide what's best for the country in certain "top level" systems. In the lower levels there needs to be autonomy and self-governance, or efficiency will be lost and people will rebel.

America is an interesting case. It is very diverse and has such a large population and land area that having a single ruling party that has systems that work for everyone is pretty difficult. Perhaps local state governance should have more control and national goverment less, with only the "core" ideals and systems that make sense for a united group of states. Like a mini version of UN. The balance of benefits for particular groups from national and state elections should be roughly equal.

In essence, for a large country a two-level democracy is closest to ideal, IMHO, but there need to be more than two parties and "systems of ideals". For small countries, a single level democracy can suffice. In all political systems and all countries, though, education should be a priority, along with a certain level of social support, especially for health.

[baldgye]

Lenin took an extremely poor, spread-out nation that was stuck in a feudal system, and pulled it out of war, industrialized it, and significantly increased the quality of living for the average citizen.

I agree, particularly the part about "this is after only a couple years of the system" at which point Stalin turned it into a hideous abomination.

Likewise, Hitler oversaw the rebuilding of an even more devastated Germany into a superpower in a mere decade.

Could these efficiencies could be maintained without an inevitable descent into a hellish Orwellian "1984" world? Who knows?

That is why I believe that the "democratic" and "socialist" components must be carefully applied in equal measure.

..but Hitler bankrupted his country in the process, the UK after the war was in financial trouble and took out massive loans to get its self back on its feet, loans our generation is now paying for. You can't simply turn around a country just like that without there being massive downsides.

[Oobly]

Just wanted to add a couple things..

I believe strongly in personal land ownership, separation of church and state and a policing system that includes a small task force that has rights to investigate and charge ANYONE, up to and including the president. Also a law system that places judgment of case merits in the hands of judges so ridiculous claims get thrown out and commonsense has a chance to prevail.

In one sense an authoritarian state can do well, but only if the leader is "perfect". Since no leader is "perfect", the system cannot work in the way the idealists claim and hope for it to. Corruption and greed are quite often present in the highest levels of these types of governments. Just take a look at Zimbabwe, or many other African nations.

[baldgye]

Just wanted to add a couple things..

I believe strongly in personal land ownership, separation of church and state and a policing system that includes a small task force that has rights to investigate and charge ANYONE, up to and including the president. Also a law system that places judgment of case merits in the hands of judges so ridiculous claims get thrown out and commonsense has a chance to prevail.

In one sense an authoritarian state can do well, but only if the leader is "perfect". Since no leader is "perfect", the system cannot work in the way the idealists claim and hope for it to. Corruption and greed are quite often present in the highest levels of these types of governments. Just take a look at Zimbabwe, or many other African nations.

You mean working like Italy? Which operates it's laws and also has 'gods laws' which cannot change and that prevent Italy from allowing gay marriages etc?

[Oobly]

Just wanted to add a couple things..

I believe strongly in personal land ownership, separation of church and state and a policing system that includes a small task force that has rights to investigate and charge ANYONE, up to and including the president. Also a law system that places judgment of case merits in the hands of judges so ridiculous claims get thrown out and commonsense has a chance to prevail.

In one sense an authoritarian state can do well, but only if the leader is "perfect". Since no leader is "perfect", the system cannot work in the way the idealists claim and hope for it to. Corruption and greed are quite often present in the highest levels of these types of governments. Just take a look at Zimbabwe, or many other African nations.

You mean working like Italy? Which operates it's laws and also has 'gods laws' which cannot change and that prevent Italy from allowing gay marriages etc?

Separation of church and state... as in the churches have no political influence and are governed and administered independently.

[baldgye]

Just wanted to add a couple things..

I believe strongly in personal land ownership, separation of church and state and a policing system that includes a small task force that has rights to investigate and charge ANYONE, up to and including the president. Also a law system that places judgment of case merits in the hands of judges so ridiculous claims get thrown out and commonsense has a chance to prevail.

In one sense an authoritarian state can do well, but only if the leader is "perfect". Since no leader is "perfect", the system cannot work in the way the idealists claim and hope for it to. Corruption and greed are quite often present in the highest levels of these types of governments. Just take a look at Zimbabwe, or many other African nations.

You mean working like Italy? Which operates it's laws and also has 'gods laws' which cannot change and that prevent Italy from allowing gay marriages etc?

Separation of church and state... as in the churches have no political influence and are governed and administered independently.

I was just trying to clarify, I wasn't sure if you meant the church is separated by there own laws etc...

[Oobly]

Just wanted to add a couple things..

I believe strongly in personal land ownership, separation of church and state and a policing system that includes a small task force that has rights to investigate and charge ANYONE, up to and including the president. Also a law system that places judgment of case merits in the hands of judges so ridiculous claims get thrown out and commonsense has a chance to prevail.

In one sense an authoritarian state can do well, but only if the leader is "perfect". Since no leader is "perfect", the system cannot work in the way the idealists claim and hope for it to. Corruption and greed are quite often present in the highest levels of these types of governments. Just take a look at Zimbabwe, or many other African nations.

You mean working like Italy? Which operates it's laws and also has 'gods laws' which cannot change and that prevent Italy from allowing gay marriages etc?

Separation of church and state... as in the churches have no political influence and are governed and administered independently.

I was just trying to clarify, I wasn't sure if you meant the church is separated by there own laws etc...

Ah, okay. What I mean is that all members and leaders of the church have to follow the laws of the state (are not permitted special privilege or exempt from any state laws) and that the church does not have any political power, except in governing its own organisation. Also that the state has no power over the internal governance of the church, except where it would violate a state law.

I have no problem with members of any church being members of parliament or in fact church leaders being also political leaders as long as the actual governance is separated and independent.

[baldgye]

Just wanted to add a couple things..

I believe strongly in personal land ownership, separation of church and state and a policing system that includes a small task force that has rights to investigate and charge ANYONE, up to and including the president. Also a law system that places judgment of case merits in the hands of judges so ridiculous claims get thrown out and commonsense has a chance to prevail.

In one sense an authoritarian state can do well, but only if the leader is "perfect". Since no leader is "perfect", the system cannot work in the way the idealists claim and hope for it to. Corruption and greed are quite often present in the highest levels of these types of governments. Just take a look at Zimbabwe, or many other African nations.

You mean working like Italy? Which operates it's laws and also has 'gods laws' which cannot change and that prevent Italy from allowing gay marriages etc?

Separation of church and state... as in the churches have no political influence and are governed and administered independently.

I was just trying to clarify, I wasn't sure if you meant the church is separated by there own laws etc...

Ah, okay. What I mean is that all members and leaders of the church have to follow the laws of the state (are not permitted special privilege or exempt from any state laws) and that the church does not have any political power, except in governing its own organisation. Also that the state has no power over the internal governance of the church, except where it would violate a state law.

I have no problem with members of any church being members of parliament or in fact church leaders being also political leaders as long as the actual governance is separated and independent.

Don't those two things contradict one another?

[jdcarpe]

America is an interesting case. It is very diverse and has such a large population and land area that having a single ruling party that has systems that work for everyone is pretty difficult. Perhaps local state governance should have more control and national goverment less, with only the "core" ideals and systems that make sense for a united group of states. Like a mini version of UN. The balance of benefits for particular groups from national and state elections should be roughly equal.

That's pretty much exactly how our Constitutional Republic is supposed to work. And how libertarians like me want it to be. Having a large, powerful Federal government which ruled over everyone with autonomy was a strong fear of many of our Founding Fathers.

[fohat.digs]

Likewise, Hitler oversaw the rebuilding of an even more devastated Germany into a superpower in a mere decade.

without an inevitable descent into a hellish Orwellian "1984" world?

Hitler bankrupted his country in the process,

You can't simply turn around a country just like that without there being massive downsides.

Hitler was insane.

Instead of "quitting while he was ahead" and nurturing the country back to health with its new-found prosperity, he started wars.

And even when he was succeeding in that venture, temporarily, he suddenly decided to back-stab Russia, with whom he had an alliance.

Hello!

He might have learned something from Napoleon. But then Bush Jr might have learned something from Brezhnev, for that matter.

[baldgye]

Likewise, Hitler oversaw the rebuilding of an even more devastated Germany into a superpower in a mere decade.

without an inevitable descent into a hellish Orwellian "1984" world?

Hitler bankrupted his country in the process,

You can't simply turn around a country just like that without there being massive downsides.

Hitler was insane.

Instead of "quitting while he was ahead" and nurturing the country back to health with its new-found prosperity, he started wars.

And even when he was succeeding in that venture, temporarily, he suddenly decided to back-stab Russia, with whom he had an alliance.

Hello!

He might have learned something from Napoleon. But then Bush Jr might have learned something from Brezhnev, for that matter.

Stop

with

the

double line

spacing

please

[jdcarpe]

Stop

with

the

double line

spacing

please

BUT WHAT ABOUT...

...DOUBLE LINE SPACING...

...AND ELLIPSES...

...AND ALL CAPS?

[hwood34]

Stop

with

the

double line

spacing

please

BUT WHAT ABOUT...

...DOUBLE LINE SPACING...

...AND ELLIPSES...

...AND ALL CAPS?

but what about this

[jdcarpe]

but what about this

Communist

[fohat.digs]

double line

spacing

Double line spacing is like commas and other punctuation, which I employ deliberately and specifically.

When I separate expressions and thoughts, I do so with for a reason. Think of it as something more than a full stop.

And yes, I read "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" and while I agree with many of the points of the book, and even find many of the British conventions more desirable than the corresponding American ones, I do think that "standard" punctuation is weak and some marks are underemployed, in contrast to Truss's conclusion that punctuation is overused.

PS - my ancestors hailed from Oxfordshire and I consider the Oxford comma to be almost mandatory

[hwood34]

Double line spacing is like commas and other punctuation, which I employ deliberately and specifically.

When I separate expressions and thoughts, I do so with for a reason. Think of it as something more than a full stop.

Hitler was insane.

Instead of "quitting while he was ahead" and nurturing the country back to health with its new-found prosperity, he started wars.

And even when he was succeeding in that venture, temporarily, he suddenly decided to back-stab Russia, with whom he had an alliance.

Hello!

He might have learned something from Napoleon. But then Bush Jr might have learned something from Brezhnev, for that matter.

This is one connected idea, I don't see why you'd make a point to separate all these points.

[fohat.digs]

This is one connected idea, I don't see why you'd make a point to separate all these points.

To give time for reflection on the ramifications of each piece of it. I advocate writing in the same voice as you speak.

[baldgye]

PS - my ancestors hailed from Oxfordshire and I consider the Oxford comma to be almost mandatory

Laugh

Out

Loud

[Phirr]

Having read my fair share of Johnson and Carlyle, I'm aware that nontraditional punctuation has been, and can be, used to great effect. That said, fohat, your double line spacing drives me crazy for some reason.

Clearly someone needs to make a new thread for punctuation therapy.

[Spopepro]

My last comment, and then I should probably leave this thread forever.  It is remarkably difficult to have any meaningful discussion when so many are stating blatant historical inaccuracies.  For example: a reasonable discussion could be had about whether the heavy deficit spending of the Third Reich into public works and military production would have ultimately pulled the economy through confirming the Keynesian theories prevalent at the time, and whether or not such works could have been sustained without the approximately 1 billion usd¹ it plundered from interned or executed residents and occupied lands... but then I read "decade of prosperity before war".  The entire existence of the Third Reich was 10 years start to finish.  Sure, it's a detail, but it's an important one.  The Third Reich had 3 years before invading and capturing land.  There was essentially no period of magical peaceful prosperity people here are imagining, and it's impossible to have reasonable discussions with people's imaginations.

Furthermore, if you knew your history, you would know that the Weimar Republic was making good steps towards stabilization until the great depression hit (ultimately having a longer period of stable prosperity than the Third Reich would enjoy), and they couldn't make payments on loans and reparations.  The creditors and governments refused to negotiate other terms, and Weimar instituted a massive currency devaluation that lead to runaway hyperinflation that created the unrest needed to pave the way for the installment and consolidation of power around Hitler.  It's critical to understand this, as it would inform the demands and monetary policies after the second world war.  And if you followed *that* history you would wonder why Germany would be the one's to hold Greek feet to the fire over defaulting (excuse me, being "in arrears" as they preferred to say) after having so much of their own debt forgiven while rebuilding in the years after the war.

Many people here remind me of the high school student who loves philosophy because they like to tell other people what they think.  They arrive at university and quickly find out that no one gives a **** about what they think, now go read.  There should be considerably more reading done and much less opining based on half-formed, or strictly inaccurate facts, by many of the participants in the thread.



¹ This is a number that won't every be fully agreed upon due to accounting inaccuracies, intentional obfuscation, and invaluable objects like artwork.

[fohat.digs]

the Weimar Republic was making good steps towards stabilization until the great depression hit

runaway hyperinflation that created the unrest needed to pave the way for the installment and consolidation of power around Hitler.

You are right about this. I apologize for reacting emotionally and making an invalid statement relative to the acceptance of totalitarianism.

[Photekq]

Many people here remind me of the high school student who loves philosophy because they like to tell other people what they think.  They arrive at university and quickly find out that no one gives a **** about what they think, now go read.  There should be considerably more reading done and much less opining based on half-formed, or strictly inaccurate facts, by many of the participants in the thread.

Don't worry, I'm well aware that nobody cares what I think. My opinions are no more significant than the opinions of others. I don't like philosophy either, the only exception thus far being The Decline of the West by Oswald Spengler, although that's probably because it's largely concerned with history.

I will continue reading.

[HoffmanMyster]

America is an interesting case. It is very diverse and has such a large population and land area that having a single ruling party that has systems that work for everyone is pretty difficult. Perhaps local state governance should have more control and national goverment less, with only the "core" ideals and systems that make sense for a united group of states. Like a mini version of UN. The balance of benefits for particular groups from national and state elections should be roughly equal.

That's pretty much exactly how our Constitutional Republic is supposed to work. And how libertarians like me want it to be. Having a large, powerful Federal government which ruled over everyone with autonomy was a strong fear of many of our Founding Fathers.

+1

[calmfries]

I'm pretty sure my country is going downhill 
Worst is that currency conversion rate, more expensive keycaps, more expensive keyboards 

[Oobly]

I'm pretty sure my country is going downhill 
Worst is that currency conversion rate, more expensive keycaps, more expensive keyboards 

Sorry to hear that, my "old" country (South Africa) is also in a pretty bad decline. Our esteemed leader's latest brain fart was to replace the current finance minister who was doing a pretty good job of managing the mess he has created and keeping the economy somewhat alive. I fear SA is going to end up like Zimbabwe.

America is an interesting case. It is very diverse and has such a large population and land area that having a single ruling party that has systems that work for everyone is pretty difficult. Perhaps local state governance should have more control and national goverment less, with only the "core" ideals and systems that make sense for a united group of states. Like a mini version of UN. The balance of benefits for particular groups from national and state elections should be roughly equal.

That's pretty much exactly how our Constitutional Republic is supposed to work. And how libertarians like me want it to be. Having a large, powerful Federal government which ruled over everyone with autonomy was a strong fear of many of our Founding Fathers.

+1

It just seems logical and reasonable to me. Especially considering some of the decisions made in the last few terms. I do disagree with some Libertarian policies, though, but I don't think I could find an American party that I agree with ALL major policy points. I have here in Finland, but as I said, it's quite a small country and with the 8 or so most popular parties they cover a wide range of "similar" policies, due to the similarity in general of Finnish people's standpoints. With the number of seats in parliament balanced according to vote percentages, most decision making is fairly representative. Then again, at least 19 of the US states have higher populations than the whole of Finland.

[vivalarevolución]

Hey guys.  Watch this, regardless of what you think of the man.  Bernie Sanders is so real, I think he is popping off the screen.  I feel like every other national politician is bull****ting us for their own ego, but I'm not sure if Bernie even has an ego.

I don't like how he vilifies and generalizes the rich, but nobody is perfect.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/watch-killer-mikes-six-part-interview-with-bernie-sanders-20151215

[fohat.digs]

Bernie Sanders is so real, I think he is popping off the screen.  I feel like every other national politician is bull****ting us for their own ego

Bernie Sanders is the real deal.

He is the first truly honest  look-you-straight-in-the-eye-and-tell-you-the-truth  candidate since Jimmy Carter.

[tp4tissue]

Bernie Sanders is so real, I think he is popping off the screen.  I feel like every other national politician is bull****ting us for their own ego

Bernie Sanders is the real deal.

He is the first truly honest  look-you-straight-in-the-eye-and-tell-you-the-truth  candidate since Jimmy Carter.

I want to believe it will work..

But the economic powers and responsibilities are so much greater than a president's POWERS and IDEAS..


How much will he really be able to do in office, as one person..

SURELY ALLL the presidents are good people and wanted to do good for his people,   but he just can't   because  every layer of a capitalist economy has a tinge-of-selfishness  which leads to this reverse-Pyramidal distribution of wealth and power..


And even if equality sounds great on paper..


Can people really handle that state of organization..


If no one has significantly more power than I do..  **** hell, I'm not gonna do what he tells me to do.. **** him..


How will you actively and cheaply motivate ANYONE  in such a state of equality.

[vivalarevolución]

Bernie Sanders is so real, I think he is popping off the screen.  I feel like every other national politician is bull****ting us for their own ego

Bernie Sanders is the real deal.

He is the first truly honest  look-you-straight-in-the-eye-and-tell-you-the-truth  candidate since Jimmy Carter.

At 6:55 in this video, from the mouth of Killer Mike, talking about the NRA: "They got a great token black guy..." 

[tp4tissue]

I'm watching the videos..

I like the guy...


But in the back of my mind..   the only possible way any of these ideas can happen... regardless of who's in office...

is if SUDDENLY,,  Every-Rich-Person, gets BORED of being RICH...



How is that ever going to happen...

[tp4tissue]

sigh.......


THe problem isn't ideas.. or -the right thing- ...

All the guyzus are arguing about who's -doing right- ,  they're all doing Right...

Every president has done right..



The problem is the way we measure our wealth, and the fact that all wealth TODAY is purely the creation of Debt to be paid by a -growing- population..


well, ****,  our population does not grow,  so now who pays,  the growing populations of other nations..

What happens when THEY don't grow..


sigh..............


Everyone wants to talk about ideas,  ****, we all know the right thing to do..


But when the problem is something far more fundamental... a Mathematical ERROR in my opinion...   NOTHING will alter the cold hard fact that the structure is no longer compatible to incentivize progress.

[tp4tissue]

I feel like regardless of these Button words...

Here's what's gonna happen..

Lets say Bernie wins..

He gets in there..   He's got the great idea..


Then his advisors are gonna be like,  ok bernie,  but who's gonna pay for that..

Then Bernie is going to realize.. Crap I forgot about that...

Then he goes and talks to the People with money,  and they're like, hahahha, NO, we're not gonna pay for that..


Then they negotiate,   and all the promises will be broken, because ultimately MONEY SPEAKS...

[hwood34]

Bernie Sanders is so real, I think he is popping off the screen.  I feel like every other national politician is bull****ting us for their own ego

Bernie Sanders is the real deal.

He is the first truly honest  look-you-straight-in-the-eye-and-tell-you-the-truth  candidate since Jimmy Carter.

0 chance of even winning the democratic nom though

[tp4tissue]

Bernie Sanders is so real, I think he is popping off the screen.  I feel like every other national politician is bull****ting us for their own ego

Bernie Sanders is the real deal.

He is the first truly honest  look-you-straight-in-the-eye-and-tell-you-the-truth  candidate since Jimmy Carter.

0 chance of even winning the democratic nom though

It really depends on how much money he haz...   and what his 'PLAN" is to make the power-that-be m0ar money..

That's the bottom line..

You don't play ball,  you don't get to be president..

[vivalarevolución]

I like Bernie and his philosophies and the fact he stays away from a lot of the political games. But I'm not sure he knows much about what it takes to create and accumulate personal wealth or offers much in terms of economic policies beyond populist ideas.  I see him categorizing the wealthy just like Donald Trump categorizes everyone (except white people, of course, unless I missed something).

I don't think it is a good idea to paint broad strokes for all those that wealthy, because not every billionaire is a **** like the Koch brothers, but at least he recognizes the growing wealth gap in this country and actually is willing to have a respectful conversation about social issues with guys like Killer Mike.  You don't see that everyday from a national level politician.

[fohat.digs]

because not every billionaire is a **** like the Koch brothers,

You don't see that everyday from a national level politician.

Did you see that Warren Buffet came out in favor of Hillary the other day?

Bernie does not attack people, he condemns damaging conditions and processes.

If elections stayed focused on issues and principles rather than personalities, they would come out a lot better.

[hwood34]

If elections stayed focused on issues and principles rather than personalities, they would come out a lot better.

So what do you think about his foreign policy? Because that's really the one area the president is a major factor and one of the areas he has little knowledge in.

[tp4tissue]

because not every billionaire is a **** like the Koch brothers,

You don't see that everyday from a national level politician.

Did you see that Warren Buffet came out in favor of Hillary the other day?

Bernie does not attack people, he condemns damaging conditions and processes.

If elections stayed focused on issues and principles rather than personalities, they would come out a lot better.

Every rich person is exactly the same..

That's the whole point of being rich..

one... get rich

two... STAY rich..

three... get Richer....


If this did not happen,  that person wouldn't be rich..

[tp4tissue]

It also doesn't make any difference at all, WHO you tax..

America PRINTS MONEY, by creating DEBT.....


The end result is the same, SOMEONE ELSE pays for what we have..


Everything we have is built more on the shoulders of others than our own..


Someone making your shoe got a cookie for his efforts,  you worked maybe 20 minutes in exchange for that..  and Nike took 17 minutes, the material is worth 2min 49 seconds, and the last 11 seconds payed for the cookie in the mouth of the guy that made the shoe.

[hwood34]

If elections stayed focused on issues and principles rather than personalities, they would come out a lot better.

Personality and charisma are both incredibly important for a leader, Merkel being the exception

[baldgye]

If elections stayed focused on issues and principles rather than personalities, they would come out a lot better.

Personality and charisma are both incredibly important for a leader, Merkel being the exception

Politicians have to impress the idiots who vote for them, after all.

[trenzafeeds]

Merkel being the exception

Lol

[vivalarevolución]

because not every billionaire is a **** like the Koch brothers,

You don't see that everyday from a national level politician.

Did you see that Warren Buffet came out in favor of Hillary the other day?

Bernie does not attack people, he condemns damaging conditions and processes.

If elections stayed focused on issues and principles rather than personalities, they would come out a lot better.

He subscribes to the age-old adage, one of the keys to understanding and accepting the world and achieving personal happiness: DON'T HATE THE PLAYA, HATE THE GAME.

If elections stayed focused on issues and principles rather than personalities, they would come out a lot better.

So what do you think about his foreign policy? Because that's really the one area the president is a major factor and one of the areas he has little knowledge in.

I haven't looked much into his foreign policy, which is important as the leader of the most imperialist nation on the planet.  I figure that if he decides to treat people from all corners of the world as human beings, rather than throw them all is some category of brown people or whatever and starting bombing them for political points, that is a good start.