Random Politics Thread

[Lark]

There is absolutely distrust on both sides but the focus of distrust is very different -- the left's distrust of government is more rooted in donations from Coporations/special interests being used to coerce politicans to bypass population that benefits the masses in favor of legislation that benefits high-income earners, but for the most part the left does not distrust the concept of government in totality like the right does -- at this point it seems the right has gone full nuclear and just wants to burn the entire institution down because they inherently distrust the insitution, no matter who actually is in charge (Republican politicians run on governance by way of non-governance).

I'm not really sure what the future social and political landscape is in this country going forward when you have two sides with completely polar opposite views on social/economic issues, and with the gap between the two widening with each passing day.

I think what you're describing is what I think of as the total dominance of neo-liberalism, whether someone is defined as left or right, ie having an issue with authority (the good, bad or ugly) or an issue with taxation (but strangely not equally involuntary private exchanges), the answer will always be some sort of privatization.

Its something that seems lost on most people the extent to which the supposed left wing attack on policing and schooling could be right out of the neo-liberal playbook, defunding, cancel culture etc. Ultimately, its stuff that really, really would not be out of place coming from Republicans at a different time for reasons of containing and rolling back public expenses.

I noticed this back in the nineties when New Labour was elected in the UK, when they decided to correct historic short falls in spending on criminal justice, policing, legal aid etc. the conservatives, traditional supporters of "law and order" policies, decided that when next in office they would revive a lot of old ideas from radical criminologists about closing prisons, cutting policing by uniform officers, stepping down cold case or special investigations. That might have been contrary, simply, which in the UK certainly is the case but it certain fits the "no more taxes" neo-liberal ideas.

In the US, it could be given racist (local) colours, with taxes presented as redistribution from one ethnic group to another, free rider policies exclusively associated with one ethnic group etc. etc. but it is same idea. All the alt right ideologies, nazi stuff, other edge lord stuff, its all just thinly camoflaging the money angle. Again.

Only a certain amount of this, I think, can be down to realpolitik about old money (or even new money or politicized financial speculators) exploiting globalization to relocate the the "cheapest" tax havens money can buy.

I think a lot of it is down to an incredible shortfall in political imagination. Its like left and right both have bought lock, stock and barrel the old TINA (There Is No Alternative) idea. Its more of the same. Given the record of responses to bad weather and disease, is a huge case of too little, too late. I do think there are wider issues, a sort of maturational crisis, failure to grow and therefore naturally the insetting of decay instead but politics, in theory, is meant to be leadership of the better, brighter or elite types.

 

[Lark]

On a related tangent, I would seriously love for some journalist to attempt to corner any of these repugnant shitnecks and make them attempt to define "socialism" or "communism". They throw these words around to scare their base out of thinking too hard about anything they're saying, and they're getting away with it because no one holds them to account. Getting these assholes to try to define these spooky, spooky words (and publicly proving that they can't) might remove the nebulous/vague-but-still-incredibly-strong emotional charge that makes their base so scared stupid. We need journalists relentlessly trying to do this. I really want to believe a significant part of their base *might* glean some of the searing hypocrisy if the constant fear-mongering weren't scaring the wits right out of them.

I do definitely agree with this, although I dont think the media will ever perform this function, for a whole lot of reasons, they are motivated by money at the end of the day and it wont sell as well as sensationalizing and "what they've always done". Plus, at least in the US, I've seen A LOT of work put into discrediting the media already, "fake news" is just a recent idea but as far back as the dawn of the internet I was reading right wing complaint about a "liberal media" or "media bias". It doesnt matter if you have a critical press if no one listens to it or believes it in the first place.

Its a lot of ask but I would like to see much, much more in the way of asking people to define terms to clarify their own particular faction's thinking on things. There's a long way to go towards anyone thinking that there is no harm in this, that its not a sign of weakness, that its not all a ploy or duping by an unscrupulous opposition to think and act that way.

Personally, I think this goes as much for the left as for the right wing of politics, I think that's why if you read Orwell, hell, even Marx, there's tendencies to be as critical, or even more critical, of their own self identified faction than anything else (a good part of the communist manifesto is given over to praising capitalism and attacking other socialist writers in his day). I dont think its perfectionism to want that, I dont think its encouraging infighting with the "enemy at the gates" or weakness or self-inflicted injuries to want that.

While I say that about the left I do recognise that its a bigger problem with the right wing in the US and elsewhere, the right never had its "clause 4 moment" (in the UK this was an apparently historic moment when the labour government revised its founding principles in a highly public gesture to try to convince conservatives they had finally dispensed with any militant tendencies once and for all). In some ways my point is that anyone who is politically interested or publically concerned, whatever their affiliation is going to need to think about how any dreams they have of public reform are going to have to involve reform of their own camp, their opposition too. In a sense its the duty of political liberals to assist conservatives to become better conservatives via clarifying their thinking and ideas. Its incredibly far removed from the whole all out war that exists at the moment.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I do definitely agree with this, although I dont think the media will ever perform this function, for a whole lot of reasons, they are motivated by money at the end of the day and it wont sell as well as sensationalizing and "what they've always done". Plus, at least in the US, I've seen A LOT of work put into discrediting the media already, "fake news" is just a recent idea but as far back as the dawn of the internet I was reading right wing complaint about a "liberal media" or "media bias". It doesnt matter if you have a critical press if no one listens to it or believes it in the first place.

Its a lot of ask but I would like to see much, much more in the way of asking people to define terms to clarify their own particular faction's thinking on things. There's a long way to go towards anyone thinking that there is no harm in this, that its not a sign of weakness, that its not all a ploy or duping by an unscrupulous opposition to think and act that way.

Personally, I think this goes as much for the left as for the right wing of politics, I think that's why if you read Orwell, hell, even Marx, there's tendencies to be as critical, or even more critical, of their own self identified faction than anything else (a good part of the communist manifesto is given over to praising capitalism and attacking other socialist writers in his day). I dont think its perfectionism to want that, I dont think its encouraging infighting with the "enemy at the gates" or weakness or self-inflicted injuries to want that.

While I say that about the left I do recognise that its a bigger problem with the right wing in the US and elsewhere, the right never had its "clause 4 moment" (in the UK this was an apparently historic moment when the labour government revised its founding principles in a highly public gesture to try to convince conservatives they had finally dispensed with any militant tendencies once and for all). In some ways my point is that anyone who is politically interested or publically concerned, whatever their affiliation is going to need to think about how any dreams they have of public reform are going to have to involve reform of their own camp, their opposition too. In a sense its the duty of political liberals to assist conservatives to become better conservatives via clarifying their thinking and ideas. Its incredibly far removed from the whole all out war that exists at the moment.

Naw bro, we just need Liz Cheney to dominate the Republican party and everything will be fine. The Cheney family has done nothing but good for the American people, even if I don't agree with it. After all they weren't dangerous "populists".

Pragmatic like me and responsible conservatives need to join together to stop dangerous populists like Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, and AOC. The worst thing about Donald Trump is that the talked about being against the elites, who have never steered us wrong before. They're elites for a reason; they're qualified to make all the best decisions.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

It’s a weird world when even Pat Robertson comes out against police brutality and shows sympathy for George Floyd.

His solution (just pay cops better) seems flawed and limited, but the fact he of all people has spoken up about this problem is astonishing. Hopefully a good chunk of his audience will start to open their eyes as well.

 

[Tellenbach]

Obviously, there are bad cops just as there are bad politicians, doctors, engineers, and programmers. The people who focus on police behavior and ignore the root causes of criminality in Dem run cities like Minneapolis are not interested in solving the problem. The problem is that George Floyd was a violent career criminal who did not follow police orders. Floyd was raised by a single-mom and we know the very strong association between criminality and lack of fathers. We know that roughly 80% of prisoners were raised by single mothers, so shouldn't that be the primary focus instead of gun regulation and police brutality?

If you eliminate the cause that creates criminals, the secondary problems of gun violence and police brutality will drastically diminish on its own.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Obviously, there are bad cops just as there are bad politicians, doctors, engineers, and programmers. The people who focus on police behavior and ignore the root causes of criminality in Dem run cities like Minneapolis are not interested in solving the problem. The problem is that George Floyd was a violent career criminal who did not follow police orders. Floyd was raised by a single-mom and we know the very strong association between criminality and lack of fathers. We know that roughly 80% of prisoners were raised by single mothers, so shouldn't that be the primary focus instead of gun regulation and police brutality?

If you eliminate the cause that creates criminals, the secondary problems of gun violence and police brutality will drastically diminish on its own.

I can't take seriously any libertarian who supports police brutality.

 

[Tellenbach]

You know... there are classes in reading comprehension.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

You know... there are classes in reading comprehension.

How can I take seriously the idea that you believe that government should be "off your back" when you support government being on a guy's neck because he "didn't follow orders"? Such contradictions are pretty standard among self-described libertarians, unfortunately. When government is literally on a guy's neck, you decide to side with the goernment.

 

[Tellenbach]

Dude, where exactly did I say I supported the government being on a guy's neck? Stop lying.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Dude, where exactly did I say I supported the government being on a guy's neck? Stop lying.

You pretty much said all the standard cop apologetics and placed the blame on George Floyd not having a dad around. You barely addressed how cops might have had some responsibility for the situation at all. It's as though "personal responsibility" doesn't apply to them.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

GOP: "we're going to get government off your back and onto your neck!"

 

[Tellenbach]

You pretty much said all the standard cop apologetics and placed the blame on George Floyd not having a dad around. You barely addressed how cops might have had some responsibility for the situation at all. It's as though "personal responsibility" doesn't apply to them.

In other words, you just lied about my posting that I supported police brutality. You didn't post the part where I described police brutality as a "secondary problem". If I view police brutality as a problem, how is that an expression of support? Again, stop lying about people just because you disagree with them.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

In other words, you just lied about my posting that I supported police brutality. You didn't post the part where I described police brutality as a "secondary problem". If I view police brutality as a problem, how is that an expression of support? Again, stop lying about people just because you disagree with them.

You described police brutality as a "secondary problem" compared to single mothers. I don't think I misinterpreted anything at all.

In other words... the goevernment standing on a guy's neck is not nearly as big as a problem as not enough dads. You'd be willing to overlook the former if you thought something could be done about the lack of dads. I fail to see how that's misinterpreting what you said.

 

[Tellenbach]

You didn't misinterpret. You deliberately lied because you can't defend any of your positions.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

You didn't misinterpret. You deliberately lied because you can't defend any of your positions.

What would you do to stop cops from standing on a guy's neck? How would you get government off your neck? Provide a solution that doesn't place the blame on the guy whose neck is being trampled on.

 

[Tellenbach]

Provide a solution that doesn't place the blame on the guy whose neck is being trampled on.

Minneapolis is run by Democrats. Their police chief is a black man. Why don't you ask why Democrat run cities can't train their police force properly?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Minneapolis is run by Democrats. Their police chief is a black man. Why don't you ask why Democrat run cities can't train their police force properly?

I think perhaps we shouldn't have a militarized police force (which is something many Democrats and Republicans happen to support... a true "bipartisan consensus" issue like the Iraq war, so electing Republicans won't fix that), and that would be an ideal situation. I'm not for getting rid of cops entirely. Are you in favor of a millitarized police force? Your statements placing the blame on single mothers as the real problem suggests that you are. Am I incorrect? Do you in fact believe the police should be demilitarized?

If you do not, then I would say you don't have much of a problem with the government being on your neck.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Better flag for libertarians/ancaps

 

[Tellenbach]

Your statements placing the blame on single mothers as the real problem suggests that you are. Am I incorrect?

You are usually incorrect. The blame isn't squarely on single-parenthood; it's on the government policies that lead to this. The welfare/government assistance policies encourage single parenthood and people who live in 2 parent homes get less welfare. Democrats created this mess.

The stats speak for themselves.

 

[Lark]

Minneapolis is run by Democrats. Their police chief is a black man. Why don't you ask why Democrat run cities can't train their police force properly?

You cant seriously think this is an occasion to try and score points against the Democrats?

I doubt this has anything to do with whether or not the city is run by democrats or republicans, in respect of this type of thing I'd say there's a consensus between the parties.

I still find it surprising Telle the extent to which you, a libertarian, decide to defend the Republicans, its not your party surely, I didnt think libertarians had any party.