Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dr. Mechano

Us and Them - The effects of political vitriol on our society

Recommended Posts

What about those of us who are (as far as they can tell anyway) actually socialist? wink.png

That's fine, of course. It may not be an economic system that I personally support (I consider myself a moderate capitalist, while still supporting welfare programs and initiatives to help the disadvantaged), but I still respect socialists for their view, and I do generally understand their reasoning.

I wasn't trying to imply that socialism was in and of itself a worthy insult. I'm merely referring to the fact that Obama (who isn't a socialist by any stretch of the imagination) is often groundlessly labeled a socialist by his opponents as some catch-all approach to discrediting him.

Edited by Egghead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is one simple fact that a lot of Americans tend to ignore: that even the Democrats are a right-wing political party. There is no left-wing political party to speak of in this country, which makes claims of communist or socialistic agendas sound all the more groundless.

Really? I need more elaboration on this plz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is one simple fact that a lot of Americans tend to ignore: that even the Democrats are a right-wing political party. There is no left-wing political party to speak of in this country, which makes claims of communist or socialistic agendas sound all the more groundless.

This is also true.

My views- while they may seem moderate or even liberal by American standards- seem rather conservative by the standards of most European nations. I'm alright with this, of course, but it really demonstrates just how relative the terms "liberal," "conservative," and even "moderate" truly are.

Though my stance in diverging viewpoints is the same across international lines; Should I discuss the merits of both economic systems with a true proponent of socialism or even communism, my personal opposition to their position needn't be a personal opposition to them as individuals.

Ultimately, I value people far more than their or my political ideologies. So I should state that while I merely dislike communism, I truly hate McCarthyism. No one should be shunned or disrespected simply for having a different economic ideology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? I need more elaboration on this plz.

Right. Political science hat on for the moment. I am writing a tale but I will take away from my time for me, political science extraordinaire, to explain the party system in the United States to you, inquiring individual in need of elaboration.

First, lets characterize Democrat and Republican. Today's modern Democrat is a firm proponent of Keynesian economic policy with less intrusive infringement of social rights. An american democrat would be inclined to vote for more regulation on the market and not a big fan of acts that invade their privacy such as the Patriot Act and shit similar to that. An American Republican supports economic liberal theory which entails less, if at all, regulated economy and would surrender their social rights for protection or whatever their beliefs incline them to believe. So a typical republican would tell the government to fuck off when it dares to regulate business and shit like that, but would glad approve of social regulations such as restricting gay marriage, etc.

The problem with this is...they are more of less two sides of the same fucking coin. Whether you believe both side smells of shit and there really isn't a choice because how the party system evolves over time. Parties are affected by their time periods, the issues that are present at the time, and are never drastically different from one another. So as much as Fox and MSNBC like to think they are completely different, their differences only amount to how much of something they want and how much of something they don't want. The two party system correlates a large mass of individuals i.e. us and try to divide and instill our beliefs into two parties which explains why they are similar because we are one nation with similar issues. Sure, they may be third parties who bring up different issues, but they really have no hope of winning only desire that their issues become absorbed by one of the two parties.

As of right now, we are in reaching an end of conservative minded politics which has been going on since Nixon, became inflamed during Reagan's nomination, and saw a little splurt in 9/11. Well, I hope it is an end because I am tired of this shit, but that is just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, I wonder what happened to you today to have to go and write this, Mechano.

I actually believe a lot of people carry what we'd call a moderate political stance, but are forced harder to one side or the other because of the sometimes violent nature of the debate. Why would we fit neatly into any category?

I think pistol duels should be legal in this country! Is this a left or right leaning opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very few people want to give the state absolute power or absolutely no power; as Pat and turbo pointed out, America's parties are relatively close to each other. The overwhelming majority of Americans want enough government intervention that it provides necessary assistance but not too much that it's intrusive in personal affairs or eclipses basic liberties. The real debate is over the edge cases as to what what constitutes necessary assistance and what defines intrusion; the controversial issues arise where the major political parties dissent on the subject, yet we can't have a civil discourse on them because the modern political stage is more strawman than substance. We see the opposition as being miles away where it's just a few feet, which is why we've barely made any progress towards settling any of them and Congress can hardly get a damn thing through.

Edited by SuperStingray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to say that sometimes politics makes me really apathetic sometimes because I just there thinking whats the fucking point? sleep.png

On the one hand I don't want chaos and I want progress, but I am promised one thing and then given another.

I used have a little saying you both a right and left wing to fly a plane. But even their is a so called balance of power it never works (Just look at the coalition in the UK that seems to be a one way street).

Politics will forever be them and us, left and right, its surprising shit ever gets done. Also we are all guilty of being in one of those sides.

Edited by BW199148

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest grievance with the political spectrum is that we see it as just that- a spectrum. We don't acknowledge the amount of dimensions that come with an ideology which is what really makes us generalize and distance the opposing party's stances so easily. If it were up to me, I'd drop labels like "liberal" and "conservative", "socialist" and "capitalist" altogether so I could understand another person's point of view without my judgement being clouded by a single vague word. Language is supposed to simplify concepts so we can discuss conveniently and eloquently, yet the political lexicon is becoming so contorted and oversimplified that it's doing more harm than good at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are several political figures stateside who've jumped between parties, such as John McCain and Joe Lieberman. It's entirely possible to be liberal in some ways and conservative in others, but our current system kind of pigeonholes our politicians into associating with one collective stance if they want to hold an office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used have a little saying you both a right and left wing to fly a plane. But even their is a so called balance of power it never works (Just look at the coalition in the UK that seems to be a one way street).

May I ask why on this? Not because I am a LD voter, but why?

Is it because the LD's had to "give up" on things they said they'd do? (Tutition things spring to mind). Because if so, you think they could have ever formed a coaltion if both parties went "here's my manesfesto, we will only join you if you agree to everytihng".

I'd like to point out that besides the blundering AV referendum (Which Labour and Tories pulled very dirty tricks on) that almost all of the LD bills have actually been "for" the people? The Bill of Freedoms that has been approved to be signed by the queen is a good example.

Problem with politics is there's more than just "us". People may go "unions are terrible" or "companies are bad" or "I hate anything GREEN" but as a politician they have to consider these as well. If a Government was to soley dedicate itself on one group of people, you'd instantly fuck over the rest of country. That's the main reason why both Labour and Tories are actually classified as Centreist parties as opposed to purely left or right. Specifically Centre-Left and Centre-Right. And With Labour I use "left" very loosy. They're very much on the centre now as opposed to the left. The LD's aren't particually "left" either :V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I ask why on this? Not because I am a LD voter, but why?

Is it because the LD's had to "give up" on things they said they'd do? (Tutition things spring to mind). Because if so, you think they could have ever formed a coaltion if both parties went "here's my manesfesto, we will only join you if you agree to everytihng".

I'd like to point out that besides the blundering AV referendum (Which Labour and Tories pulled very dirty tricks on) that almost all of the LD bills have actually been "for" the people? The Bill of Freedoms that has been approved to be signed by the queen is a good example.

Problem with politics is there's more than just "us". People may go "unions are terrible" or "companies are bad" or "I hate anything GREEN" but as a politician they have to consider these as well. If a Government was to soley dedicate itself on one group of people, you'd instantly fuck over the rest of country. That's the main reason why both Labour and Tories are actually classified as Centreist parties as opposed to purely left or right. Specifically Centre-Left and Centre-Right. And With Labour I use "left" very loosy. They're very much on the centre now as opposed to the left. The LD's aren't particually "left" either :V

Nope.

Because LD are all the same, lying coward bastards with no spines.sleep.png

Edited by BW199148

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its interesting because Winston Churchill was once in the Liberal party and when got older in he was in the Conservatives. Politics is never been simple and don't think it will be. Gives me a headache sometimes.sleep.png

Actually, Churchill was a Conservtive from 1900 to 1904, a Liberal from 1904 to 1924, and a Conservative again from 1924 until his death in 1965. If anything, I would say that Churchill went where the power was, at least up until the rise of the Labour Party. Of course, the old Liberal Party of the early 20th century was, characteristically, much closer to the modern Conservatives than to its Liberal Democrat descendants. They were huge proponents of free market capitalism, industry, etc. What really separated them from the Conservatives, historically, was that they were generally opposed to a lot of Britain's imperial excesses and believed in political and economic reform, whereas the Conservatives were generally imperialists and traditionalists. The latter, at least, has not changed all that much.

The modern Liberal Democrats were formed in 1988 out of the the coalition of the old Liberal Party and the Social Democrats, a group who broke away from Labour because, they felt that Labour, while well intentioned, was too far to the left and too extreme in its socialist ideals. Of course, you couldn't sincerely refer to Labour today as a "socialist" party unless you really don't understand what socialism is. Then again, I think a lot of people really don't understand what socialism is, especially if they think Barrack Obama is one. But I digress. Among older Lib Dems, there is something of a divide when it comes to fiscal issues; those with a Social Democrat past (for instance, Charles Kennedy) tend to lean more to the economic right these days, whereas those with a Liberal past (like Sir Menzies Campbell) tend to lean more to the economic left. It's an interesting phenomenon, given that the Liberals were historically huge propnents of the free market and industry and that the Social Democrats originated in the (old) Labour Party. Still, it's not a huge rift in the party, and I would tend to place the Lib Dems no further to the right than the centre, generally speaking, at least when it comes to fiscal issues (and I'd say they're probably a little to the left of that).

Anyway, this is turning into a longer post than I intended, so I'll just say this...

Nope.

Because LD are all the same, lying coward bastards with no spines.sleep.png

Way to demonstrate the entire point of this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And indiscriminate hatred for all parties is better than selective hatred, how...?

In my opinion, it's equally unhelpful to civil political discourse. Arguably more so, given than that you appear unwilling to listen to any political perspective.

Hate? I don't hate. More like let down.

Where the hell did I say was a anarchist?

I am open to political perspective if I can find one I trust and believe in but I don't right now. Its all so black and white.sleep.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope.

Because LD are all the same, lying coward bastards with no spines.sleep.png

Except they're a Junior Party in a Coalition with minor say in matters. No Coalition would ever form if the LD's, or Tories, or whoever stood their ground and went "We'll only form a government with you if you take our entire party manifesto".

People accuse them of being spineless, but if they joined with Labour, they'd be accused of being Spineless.

And last I checked, the LD's have made true on some of their points in the manifesto (AV referendum, House of Lords reform (Which Tories only claimed they'd do to get votes, judging by backbenchers, they had no intention) and have repeatedly stamped on things that would go against the agreements they made in the coalition agreement).

But alas, we live in a country where forming a coalition as the Junior Party makes you terrible and thus you sleep with the enemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate? I don't hate. More like let down.

Where the hell did I say was a anarchist?

I am open to political perspective if I can find one I trust and believe in but I don't right now. Its all so black and white.sleep.png

Umm... who's calling you an anarchist...?

Except they're a Junior Party in a Coalition with minor say in matters. No Coalition would ever form if the LD's, or Tories, or whoever stood their ground and went "We'll only form a government with you if you take our entire party manifesto".

Unfortunately, most people don't quite grasp the concept of a junior party in a coalition government.

People accuse them of being spineless, but if they joined with Labour, they'd be accused of being Spineless.

And if they'd refused a coalition with either of them, they'd be blamed for Britain lacking a stable government that could respond to the current economic crisis. It wouldn't have mattered what the Lib Dems chose to do after the 2010 election; whatever bad situation arose from it would be have been blamed on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that is very true, and I don't hold anything against the Lib Dems for that. But they really didn't have to go back on one of their major promises, and even if it was neccesary, they shouldn't have expected to do it and not be noticed. All political parties tell porkies, but the LD's rep was based on 'We're not like Labour or the Tories', and that unsurprisingly turned out to be bogus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that is very true, and I don't hold anything against the Lib Dems for that. But they really didn't have to go back on one of their major promises, and even if it was neccesary, they shouldn't have expected to do it and not be noticed. All political parties tell porkies, but the LD's rep was based on 'We're not like Labour or the Tories', and that unsurprisingly turned out to be bogus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been a very long time since I found a political topic so interesting. I tend to keep my nose out of the putrid chaos of (American) politics, and this thread details exactly why. Political discussions always devolve to pointless name calling and personal attacks. I'm unfortunately subjugated to Fox News on a regular basis thanks to my parents, who are the exact "Obama is a Kenyan Muslim" types that were mentioned in the OP. Every time I'm forced to listen to it, it's *always* about Obama and how unfit he is for Presidency because he's Kenyan. Or Hawaiin. Or a Muslim. Or an alien. Or bigfoot. You name it, they've said it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.