Political Parties and their Philosophies

Discuss Current Events, Politics, Theology, Science, Society, Philosophy, Culture, etc. Please stay on-topic. Serious discussions/debates only. No personal attacks.
User avatar
NaranjaRa
Nerd lvl: SUPA DUPA
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:53 am
Location: in the grove
Contact:

Political Parties and their Philosophies

Postby NaranjaRa » Sun Mar 05, 2017 1:07 am

[12:00:58 AM] Psy - Back from the dead.: Wow IRL I'vr beome every friend of mines token right winger. It's funny as fuck
[12:11:13 PM] Paul "Feydakin" Hurtado: Do you Brits have anything even close to the normal US "right wing" over there? I feel like I'd be considered a neo Nazi compared to your right wing and I'm pretty moderate over here. :D
[1:30:06 PM] Psy - Back from the dead.: haha well there is the Conservative party who are in power now who specialise in fucking over the poor and call it "in the name of austerity to help reduce the debt" but it does jack shit except destroy infrastructure
[7:02:26 PM] Paul "Feydakin" Hurtado: Conservatism is much more than just fiscal over here, so I guess it's quite different. That's why people need to take a closer look at details rather than just assigning labels and assuming it means the same thing no matter where you at in the world. Hell even Canada's politics are vastly different in that regard and they're right above us. :D
[7:05:54 PM] Paul "Feydakin" Hurtado: I miss classic Liberals, at least they made some sense and stood for something. The label has been coopted by far left wing loons and Marxists kooks in the US, where they've replaced the have's and have not's in classic Marxism with the "oppressors" and the "oppressed", a least as they see it...
[7:10:30 PM] nannabot (NaranjaRa): I miss classic conservatives who used reason and logic and facts instead of conspiracy theories to guide their beliefs
[7:11:09 PM] nannabot (NaranjaRa): and who's party wasn't filled with white nationalists and fundamentalist Christians. speaking of loons
[7:11:30 PM] nannabot (NaranjaRa): the left and right both have their share of tards and they've mostly taken over both sides now
[7:11:57 PM] nannabot (NaranjaRa): the left with over-sensitivity and the right with straight cruelty
[7:14:14 PM] nannabot (NaranjaRa): fucking over the poor seems to be a right-wing thing though no matter where you are. except here it's in the guise of "stopping the abuse of entitlements" even though statistics show most who get welfare of some kind are either already working, elderly, or disabled. but the welfare Queen myth Reagan started still lives! the right pour money into the military and the left pours money into wall street.
[7:15:28 PM] nannabot (NaranjaRa): and it's not Marxist to recognize oppressors and oppressed. it's fucking reality dude.
bigsexywzp
the unproven
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:08 pm

Re: Political Parties and their Philosophies

Postby bigsexywzp » Thu Mar 30, 2017 6:34 am

I'm a man without a party, right now.

I lean libertarian on most things, but libertarians tend to be purist ideologues. Especially the anarcho-capitalist wing of the libertarians.

Republicans, by and large, are inconsistent in ideology. They say they want "small government", but it only seems to apply when it comes to taxes. Big spending for militarism and big regulations for "moral issues" like abortion or sex seems to be their only schtick. Otherwise? They're essentially identical to Democrats in action, but not rhetoric.

This inconsistency is especially noticeable in the age of the Orange Bloviator in chief. "Cultural conservatism" is a bizarre combination of ethnic and economic nationalism, which neither are compatible with limited or small government, coupled with a veneer of religiosity and Christian pandering that is typical for the GOP.

Democrats, on the other hand, are generally consistent in the idea that it is government's job to enforce economic or social mores onto people, for no good reason other than some subjective idea of fairness. They mean well, but tend to hold contempt for people of wealth or privileged backgrounds, which I do not really understand.

Politics, sadly, has become excessively disgusting and discouraging to me as of late. It's all become about pandering to the lowest common denominator. How badly can I disrespect everyone who disagrees with me, and in the most crude, disrespectful way possible?
User avatar
NaranjaRa
Nerd lvl: SUPA DUPA
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:53 am
Location: in the grove
Contact:

Re: Political Parties and their Philosophies

Postby NaranjaRa » Sat Apr 01, 2017 12:29 am

bigsexywzp wrote:Republicans, by and large, are inconsistent in ideology. They say they want "small government", but it only seems to apply when it comes to taxes. Big spending for militarism and big regulations for "moral issues" like abortion or sex seems to be their only schtick.


^ this i agree with, at least in regards to the current GOP. they scream about small government, state's rights, and personal freedom, yet this only applies to things they DON'T agree with. so in essence they're hypocrites. they don't want government controlling anything...EXCEPT women's bodies, LGBTQ rights, church meddling in politics, and oh yeah, ignoring state's rights on marijuana laws. they don't want government money going to the poor, elderly, and disabled...instead it needs to go towards "keeping us safe" for the military and border security. but if the population cannot be allowed to eat and be healthy, what's the point of all the beefed-up security? oh yeah, that's right. it means NOTHING because it's merely used as a scare tactic to get votes by a fearful public. it's a bullshit party for the rich now, riding on the backs of the poor & middle class who are ignorant enough to vote against their own interests because they're too worried about abortion, gays, and the ever-persistent MYTH of the "Welfare Queen" popping out kids and buying lobsters with food stamps.

bigsexywzp wrote:Democrats, on the other hand, are generally consistent in the idea that it is government's job to enforce economic or social mores onto people, for no good reason other than some subjective idea of fairness. They mean well, but tend to hold contempt for people of wealth or privileged backgrounds, which I do not really understand.


^ this, not so much...and since you're mostly libertarian i can see why you'd think this way. "enforcing economic or social mores onto people"...because of "some subjective idea of fairness"? i'd love to understand this thinking better...do you have an example i can work with?

the "contempt" is not just a blanket held over ALL people of wealth or privilege. it's held towards those who plunder and pillage and hide their money overseas. those who get insane bonuses for failing businesses while their employees suffer and lose their jobs. it's held against corporations who wreak havoc on the environment with no repercussions. who cut corners on safety because it saves a few pennies while workers get hurt. the trend of wealth has grown so enormously unequal it is maddening. and their wealth keeps them from being prosecuted for their crimes, such as the big ecomony bust in 2008 where the perpetrators walked away with a handout instead of handcuffs. THIS is where the contempt lies. it lies in the suffering of so many while so few ride along effortlessly and do nothing but lobby for more laws to concentrate even more power and wealth at the very top.

i'm not saying everyone should be equal. that is not possible. there will always be a top of the pyramid, supported by many more at the bottom. but the level of this inequality has become disastrous to the point our middle class is disappearing. it has to stop.

as far as social mores, WHAT ON EARTH IS THE PROBLEM WITH DOING THE DECENT THING?? there IS a right and wrong way to treat other people. it's not at all subjective. and since in general, the public is an asshole, we unfortunately DO need government to help ensure people's basic rights are protected, no matter their color, sexual orientation, or religious preference. i do not understand why people have a problem with this, so if anyone can better explain how protecting everyone's rights infringes on their own basic rights - unless you really do love the right to discriminate and treat people poorly - i really want to hear.

the issue i have with Libertarian ideology is that is it has no grey area. everyone is responsible for their own lives and must lift themselves up instead of allowing government to intervene at all. individual freedom is king. self-responsibility is queen. this is a great idea...which is why it sounds appealing on the surface and attracts a lot of young voters who want to be able to smoke pot. but it does not and will not work in the real world because not everyone starts out with the same opportunities to even begin to lift themselves up. it's a great philosophy if you're rich, which many Libertarianss are, or at least the ones with the loudest voices. they think because "they" have managed to do well for themselves, everyone should be able to do the same. forget the fact they've still enjoyed all the things that society as a whole provides them...that fact is always so conveniently downplayed in favor of the "Freedom to be Self-Made" rhetoric. and if you cannot get to the same status, well then it's YOUR OWN FAULT. funny, too, how you rarely ever hear of female Libertarians. wonder why that is...why it's very much a mostly affluent-male party. it offers no help for the poor or anyone else who might start out in a bad situation and who does not have the means to do anything about it. which is why, along with the Green Socialists, its (cruel) idealistic philosophy will likely never reach beyond the fringe to become any kind of major contender.
User avatar
NaranjaRa
Nerd lvl: SUPA DUPA
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:53 am
Location: in the grove
Contact:

Re: Political Parties and their Philosophies

Postby NaranjaRa » Wed May 17, 2017 10:00 pm

from the War on Reality Thread, a bit of a debate as to whether or not Fascism is a right or left-wing ideology:

Feydakin wrote:Wow, this is some Orwellian shit. Google and Bing have changed the definition of the word "fascism" to mark it as a partisan, "Right Wing" form of government only... Guess we really can't trust anyone or any information that we find on the internet anymore.

Image

Brewtality wrote:As for the fascism definition: it is traditionally viewed as a right-wing ideology, despite the fact that it borrows much from both the traditional left and right. It is lazy as shit to say that it's a necessarily right-wing idea although the way 'fascist' is used today as a pejorative term for someone who is socially conservative can easily mislead people. I Googled a few different ideologies and Fascism was the only one which brought up synonyms like 'authoritarianism, totalitarianism' etc. Those words are certainly not synonyms for 'fascism' (although they do make up part of fascist ideology) and don't appear when searching for terms like Communism, where a totalitarian government is essentially, the end-game. But this is how it goes, I suppose. People start using a word incorrectly ('literally' probably being my most disliked example) and then everyone latches on to the inaccurate meaning, actively giving people a misrepresentation of the idea the word was originally meant to describe. That's Orwellian in itself.

Feydakin wrote:I just looked at six different dictionaries at one of the local colleges dating from 1920 to 2000, and skimmed several books there with information on the subject of the term "fascism" and where it came from. Not one of them say anything about fascism being a "right-wing" ideology... not one. Yes, I wanted to seek the truth, so instead of trusting Google, I actually took a trip to the library (that place with books), and looked up actual printed literature from the last 100 years or so... when I get a new smart phone I will go back and take pictures. I tried to find excerpts online that were legit but had no luck. I trust the printed word more anyhow.

NaranjaRa wrote:i was just remembering the days of being in school with actual books....it was always presented as mostly right-wing.

why the issue?

Return to “C&D”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests