Politics 20/20

[BruceVC]

3 hours ago, Hurlshot said:

Who do you really think this matters to, though? It would seem to just reinforce Trump's supporters beliefs, but I don't see how it sways anyone after all the investigations that Trump has been involved in. You really think one guy is worse than the other here?

I lost faith in the power of the last minute exposure stuff after Trump skated away from the kitty grabbing tapes.

But the Mueller report and the whole impeachment over Ukraine did not find Trump criminally liable. I didnt believe for a second that Trump had personally met with the Russians but several people in his campaign had definitely crossed the line in how they involved the Russians....doesnt mean Trump was personally involved ?

But there is one consideration that needs to be accepted, Bidens son shouldnt have taken the well meaning offer of accepting the position on the Ukrainian oil company, Burisma 

He is  a qualified lawyer but that doesn't mean he has the qualifications or institutional experience to be invited to sit on an Oil companies board. Its not a serious accusation as he was working in Ukraine for years but it can create conflicts of interest and raises valid criticisms from the likes of Fox .....of course there is also the normal embellishment from Fox but its a valid criticism 

[BruceVC]

15 minutes ago, ComradeMaster said:

Not really.  The U.S. is a power and powers don't copy mid-grade countries, we compete with other powers like Russia and China. 

Im unsure what you saying, what is your suggestion for a better USA system of government ?

Edited October 17, 2020 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

7 minutes ago, Gorth said:

Pretty much, yes. I also know it only works because society as a whole agrees it's worth keeping. It also helps a LOT that few governments are more under scrutiny and gets called out by free, independent press than the Scandinavian governments. They **** up, they're out. Of course the opposition parties usually wins the next election anyway, regardless of left/right affiliation. 4 years and enough dirt will have accumulated that people want "the other option". Some call it the Scandinavian Model. I think of it as a hybrid model. The socialism part is financed through high taxes and no, corporate taxes are low enough to make Danish companies very competitive internationally, ask Maersk

 

In the numerous attempts to look at other economies around the world and comparing them to the various economic problems SA have clever people I know created interesting accurate economic reports on various countries  and they included  the Nordic countries as I consider them a success story....however they work because of the real belief most citizens have in these countries about gaining from the strong government run intuitions, like free education for multiple degrees, but then people will work and contribute back towards the tax base which is needed for the next citizens. So in other words Nordic citizens do contribute back to the excellent public services...I am not sure if you agree with this around Denmark for example ?

However my experience in countries like SA, USA , Middle East , UK and other places is we simply dont have that consensus and support that means " you must pay back what you utilized " .....its not necessarily an indictment of these countries but it means I doubt social programs we see in the Scandinavian countries would be sustainable. Here is an example of failed SA " socialist " initiative 

https://allafrica.com/stories/202010120233.html

[Gromnir]

51 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

But the Mueller report and the whole impeachment over Ukraine did not find Trump criminally liable.

*sigh*

this is categorical false. 

the mueller report made clear it could not and would not find the President criminal liable because the doj would not prosecute. mueller observed that to find the President criminal liable would prejudice a potential future case and would be unfair to President as well. claim trump is criminal liable w/o a chance to defend self in court were deemed unfair to trump. nevertheless, the mueller report found considerable evidence o' obstruction o' justice and unlike the conspiracy charge, refused to reach a conclusion as to appropriateness o' charges. the only thing mueller could do was exonerate or remain silent and mueller refused exonerate. logically, what does that tell you?

also, you misunderstand criminal liability as described by mueller. insofar as conspiracy, there were indeed evidence supporting such a finding, but mueller recognized there were insufficient evidence to make a criminal prosecution likely to succeed. did trump and his campaign collude? sure, but were not enough evidence to make a criminal prosecution for conspiracy practical.

also, impeachment has nothing whatsoever to do with criminal. impeachment resolution, for example, does not result in double jeopardy if democrats decide in january to prosecute trump for actions related to ukraine.

bruce misapprehension is unacceptable but understandable which is why multiple judges lambasted barr for his summary of the mueller report. barr and republicans managed to gaslight you and many others.

STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS

anytime we see folks claim trump were proven to be free o' criminal liability by mueller report and impeachment, it has us inaudible groan. such terrible and often willful misunderstanding. is not hairsplitting by lawyers neither. this were gaslighting, pure and simple and far too many people clear wanted an excuse to believe the bs. far too many.

HA! Good Fun!

ps keep in mind mueller report stressed that with the conspiracy charge the investigators were critical handicapped by 2 factors:

1) inability to direct question the President 

2) the President's insufficient and mendacious responses to written interrogatories. 

as such, the lack o' findinding o' evidence sufficient for criminal liability on conspiracy charges were anything but a strong conclusion. mueller stressed how qualified and questionable were any such conclusion given the obstacles to necessary info.

Edited October 17, 2020 by Gromnir

[ComradeYellow]

(Trump colluding with the Russians is a conspiracy theory)

[BruceVC]

3 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

*sigh*

this is categorical false. 

the mueller report made clear it could not and would not find the President criminal liable because the doj would not prosecute. mueller observed that to find the President criminal liable would prejudice a potential future case and would be unfair to President as well. claim trump is criminal liable w/o a chance to defend self in court were deemed unfair to trump. nevertheless, the mueller report found considerable evidence o' obstruction o' justice and unlike the conspiracy charge, refused to reach a conclusion as to appropriateness o' charges. the only thing mueller could do was exonerate or remain silent and mueller refused exonerate. logically, what does that tell you?

also, you misunderstand criminal liability as described by mueller. insofar as conspiracy, there were indeed evidence supporting such a finding, but mueller recognized there were insufficient evidence to make a criminal prosecution likely to succeed. did trump and his campaign collude? sure, but were not enough evidence to make a criminal prosecution for conspiracy practical.

also, impeachment has nothing whatsoever to do with criminal. impeachment resolution, for example, does not result in double jeopardy if democrats decide in january to prosecute trump for actions related to ukraine.

bruce misapprehension is unacceptable but understandable which is why multiple judges lambasted barr for his summary of the mueller report. barr and republicans managed to gaslight you and many others.

STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS

anytime we see folks claim trump were proven to be free o' criminal liability by mueller report and impeachment, it has us inaudible groan. such terrible and often willful misunderstanding. is not hairsplitting by lawyers neither. this were gaslighting, pure and simple and far too many people clear wanted an excuse to believe the bs. far too many.

HA! Good Fun!

I appreciate you going into the details around what I said, I was hoping you wouldnt comment because I know my statement was a simplification of what both these outcomes meant and I generally avoid discussions around the law unless it is  about obvious rulings

I never had a shared opinion about either of these rulings until the outcomes  except for what was obvious, the Russians had interfered in the 2016 election 

But I was just stating what the outcome of these cases was....but yes I agree that there is more nuance and relevancy to what this means for Trump. 

On CNN there was an interesting interview from  one of the lead Mueller prosecutors,  Andrew Weissmann, who just wrote a book on the Mueller report and things he feels they did wrong, like not calling Trump to testify. Weissmann comes across in a very articulate and reasonable way and literally wrote this book in the interests of the correct historical context. I imagine you would buy this book and read it 

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/13/media/andrew-weissmann-book/index.html

I also dont consider the Mueller report a failure and it was definitely necessary. Several people were arrested and jailed  and  it correctly identified that Russia had interfered which as I mentioned was never a debate for me

But its still not the same thing as saying Trump had directed colluded with Russia about there involvement 

And the impeachment was an unlikely objective from the beginning because one of the technical charges Trump was accused of was

" The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" 

But Trump made the phone call that was ostensibly evidence of this in a room full of advisors. He saw this as just an example of his normal transactional way of doing business and his intent was not criminal but just a lack of understanding or protocol around what a US president should or shouldn't say 

I would not expect a Republican senate to impeach because of this, I wouldnt have voted for that if I was in the senate 

 

 

 

 

[Agiel]

21 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Would be relevant- if I was saying that the initial Soviet war strategy was competent. But I was only saying that their political strategy was, and that it mirrored that of the allies with the exception of being successful. Sure, Soviet deployment was idiotic, Stalin actively ignoring that an attack was coming was worse than idiotic and the initial strategic response was about the worst imaginable combination of ossified theory and a top down central command devoid of connection with reality but that doesn't mean anything for the political set up, just that Stalin squandered said set up. Which was completely in character. Having said that if there was one thing that Hitler, Churchill and Stalin all had in common it was that disaster near inevitably followed when they interfered in military matters. Sheesh, Churchill would have had Britain at war with the USSR and Germany- and Norway (!)- simultaneously if he had his way but fortunately Chamberlain was still PM in early 1940.

And given all the squandering that went on it is still militarily significant that the M-R pact occurred. The Germans got within eyesight of the Kremlin from a starting point halfway through Poland, if they'd been able to launch from within spitting distance of Minsk they'd almost certainly have got to Moscow proper. Whether they'd have taken it or whether taking it would have 'won them the war' are both of course open questions.

I'm sure the 25 million Soviet war dead appreciate all the British efforts to help. Shame that they didn't make a bit more of an effort to contain Hitler a few years earlier, if they had those 25 million would likely still be alive not have died.

As the opening hours of Barbarossa can attest to the acreage of the Eastern half of Poland was absolutely no obstacle for the Luftwaffe in annihilating the Soviet Air Force. Not to mention in totally abandoning the Stalin Line in order to fortify the Molotov Line, with forces there under orders to not make any defensive preparations to boot, Stalin had effectively offered large formations to the Germans on a silver-platter and if anything gave them a clearer shot at Kiev and Minsk. Had the Soviet positions in Poland been recognised to be at best a tripwire against a German invasion and that there remained a need to have a defense in depth, and once the Molotov Line collapsed had the forces the Soviets hastily mustered not been ordered to conduct piecemeal and poorly organised counter-attacks with under-equipped units into the waiting jaws of ambushes the Soviets would likely have enjoyed far better exchange ratios with the Germans and the tragedy on the Eastern Front may not have been so terrible as it is in our timeline. But of course Stalin had to believe that Hitler was someone he could work with, providing him with all the materiel he needed to prop up the German economy up until the last minute and prioritising making the Red Army look good on paper while filling its officer corps with incompetent yes-men like Budyonny and Kulik.

 

And by the same token you could ponder how those who are still with us would have fared were it not for food shipments to the Soviet Union considering the necessary mass mobilisation for both fighting and war production meant less hands working the fields, not to mention the fact that the most productive agricultural centers were no longer in Soviet hands come Case Blue, especially when undernourishment and starvation remained a perennial problem even in Soviet-controller territory.

Edited October 17, 2020 by Agiel

[BruceVC]

20 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Would be relevant- if I was saying that the initial Soviet war strategy was competent. But I was only saying that their political strategy was, and that it mirrored that of the allies with the exception of being successful. Sure, Soviet deployment was idiotic, Stalin actively ignoring that an attack was coming was worse than idiotic and the initial strategic response was about the worst imaginable combination of ossified theory and a top down central command devoid of connection with reality but that doesn't mean anything for the political set up, just that Stalin squandered said set up. Which was completely in character. Having said that if there was one thing that Hitler, Churchill and Stalin all had in common it was that disaster near inevitably followed when they interfered in military matters. Sheesh, Churchill would have had Britain at war with the USSR and Germany- and Norway (!)- simultaneously if he had his way but fortunately Chamberlain was still PM in early 1940.

And given all the squandering that went on it is still militarily significant that the M-R pact occurred. The Germans got within eyesight of the Kremlin from a starting point halfway through Poland, if they'd been able to launch from within spitting distance of Minsk they'd almost certainly have got to Moscow proper. Whether they'd have taken it or whether taking it would have 'won them the war' are both of course open questions.

I'm sure the 25 million Soviet war dead appreciate all the British efforts to help. Shame that they didn't make a bit more of an effort to contain Hitler a few years earlier, if they had those 25 million would likely still be alive not have died.

You make a good argument here but its very unfair to blame the UK for the terrible loss of Soviet lives

This was about Stalins initial terrible strategy of sending literally unprepared and ill equipped soldiers to face certain  annihilation from the vastly better trained and equipped Nazi onslaught....

The movie " enemy at the  gates "  offers a window into this reality  

[Bartimaeus]

4 hours ago, KaineParker said:

If only. What happened to Bartimaeus? Seems like he hasn't been around lately either.

I've been both busy as well as sick for the past few weeks, and I had unrelatedly been planning on cutting down on any kind of social communication with the outside world as we approached the election anyways. I really only popped on to post about a couple of the movies I'd seen recently. To be honest, I've also recently come to the realization that a number of the people I used to share interests with and enjoy conversing things about on here have unfortunately either departed or at very least seemingly become less active as I have, which has made me less eager to get back on here again even after the election is over. These forums are supposed to be an enjoyable meeting of minds, a diversion from real life, and I guess I just haven't been finding them to be a positive one for a while now. And so, an iconic quote from War Games comes to mind..:

@Malcador It's not an actress, but rather a high school photo of Ruth Bader Ginsburg that I saw and started using from when she passed last month.

Edited October 17, 2020 by Bartimaeus

[BruceVC]

7 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

I've been both busy as well as sick for the past few weeks, and I had unrelatedly been planning on cutting down on any kind of social communication with the outside world as we approached the election anyways. I really only popped on to post about a couple of the movies I'd seen recently. To be honest, I've also recently come to the realization that a number of the people I used to share interests with and enjoy conversing things about on here have unfortunately either departed or at very least seemingly become less active as I have, which has made me less eager to get back on here again even after the election is over. These forums are supposed to be an enjoyable meeting of minds, a diversion from real life, and I guess I just haven't been finding them to be a positive one for a while now. And so, an iconic quote from War Games comes to mind..:

@Malcador It's not an actress, but rather a high school photo of Ruth Bader Ginsburg that I saw and start using from when she passed last month.

Well a break is never a bad thing Barti 

But who has left this forum that you miss, I  noticed volo has been very absent and I am worried ?

Edited October 17, 2020 by BruceVC

[Malcador]

7 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

These forums are supposed to be an enjoyable meeting of minds

Uh...since when ?

[BruceVC]

4 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Uh...since when ?

Yes I must add these forums have never been that for me generally but you do learn interesting things all the time and certain members have excellent knowledge of games and historical games which is always interesting for a gamer 

[ComradeYellow]

I honestly think Trump's gonna win again.  America almost always re-elects.  After engaging with deep blue liberal elitist types I'm starting to think they deserve another loss.  They've turned into such snobs.  FDR and JFK would be ashamed of the current Democratic Party.

[BruceVC]

42 minutes ago, ComradeMaster said:

I honestly think Trump's gonna win again.  America almost always re-elects.  After engaging with deep blue liberal elitist types I'm starting to think they deserve another loss.  They've turned into such snobs.  FDR and JFK would be ashamed of the current Democratic Party.

Do you have any polling data  to support this view ? I only ask this because it is very difficult at the moment to read accurately into what the current numbers are telling us around early voting ....what we do know is

• there are unprecedented numbers of citizens using the early voting system in certain states, this is to be expected considering the pandemic 
• the general view is most of these early voters are Biden supporters as many Trump supporters believe these systems allow voting tampering 
• we are also seeing a much more galvanized and committed Democrat " coalition " that did not exist in the last election where certain groups that were suppose to vote for Clinton and the Obama legacy , which should have mattered for various reasons, simply did not vote for her.....this lead to the expected Democrat support base not having all the numbers they should have had 

 

I do have some concerns with some of the general views some Democrats make .....they can be a little condescending if they suppose to win people over

Edited October 17, 2020 by BruceVC

[Zoraptor]

We are having our own little election here and it's been an utter massacre. Jacinda Ardern is currently toasting the party with a cup fashioned from the hollowed out skull of her opponent and filled with the tears of the National Party faithful. No news on the two referenda (euthanasia and cannabis legalisation) for two weeks sadly. 2 million early votes, and we'll know the result in we already know the result, for all practical purposes.

4 hours ago, Agiel said:

..

Would be relevant- if I was saying that the initial Soviet war strategy was competent. Think I'll just leave it at that this time.

[Darkpriest]

7 hours ago, ComradeMaster said:

Do you not know what Fascism is or what?  Nazi Germany was a far right hypermasculine anti-semetic vehemently anti-communist social-darwinist monopoly capitalist state (Only teh strongest most loyal Germans shall be successful entrepreneurs).

Don't know why people are trying to spin this, it's like historically calling the Confederates "Actually Yankees" or something in an attempt to make the U.S. look bad.

Depends how you place the axis of the main arm of the left-right divide 

It used to be amount of state, where minumum state with focus of personal rights and property rights was the right wing policy, and the left wing was the large state aparatus, which had regulation on all aspects of life as the state knows best, how to allocate resources for the good of citizens. 

Then you'd have another axis of social aspects, cultural superiority vs cultural equity, so the extreme forms of the left wing society, are fascism and communism, while extreme forms of right wing policies are directorate/oligarchy and libertarianizm

And there is an outside form out of that map, and its called an anarchy, which goes something like "**** everyone else, I take and do what I want. There are no rights unless i make them" 

[Gromnir]

4 hours ago, ComradeMaster said:

I honestly think Trump's gonna win again.  America almost always re-elects.  After engaging with deep blue liberal elitist types I'm starting to think they deserve another loss.  They've turned into such snobs.  FDR and JFK would be ashamed of the current Democratic Party.

if there is one thing jfk could not abide it were snobs

oh, and the soviet union. 

jfk's Presidential platform were almost complete foreign policy focused and he were the hawk compared to the republican doves who were not sufficient responding the red threat.

National Defense
The new Democratic Administration will recast our military capacity in order to provide forces and weapons of a diversity, balance, and mobility sufficient in quantity and quality to deter both limited and general aggressions.

When the Democratic Administration left office in 1953, the United States was the pre-eminent power in the world. Most free nations had confidence in our will and our ability to carry out our commitments to the common defense.

Even those who wished us ill respected our power and influence.

The Republican Administration has lost that position of pre-eminence. Over the past 7 1/2 years, our military power has steadily declined relative to that of the Russians and the Chinese and their satellites.

This is not a partisan election-year charge. It has been persistently made by high officials of the Republican Administration itself. Before Congressional committees they have testified that the Communists will have a dangerous lead in intercontinental missiles through 1963—and that the Republican Administration has no plans to catch up.

They have admitted that the Soviet Union leads in the space race—and that they have no plans to catch up.

They have also admitted that our conventional military forces, on which we depend for defense in any non-nuclear war, have been dangerously slashed for reasons of "economy"—and that they have no plans to reverse this trend.

As a result, our military position today is measured in terms of gaps—missile gap, space gap, limited-war gap.

To recover from the errors of the past 7 1/2 years will not be easy.

This is the strength that must be erected:

1. Deterrent military power such that the Soviet and Chinese leaders will have no doubt that an attack on the United States would surely be followed by their own destruction.

2. Balanced conventional military forces which will permit a response graded to the intensity of any threats of aggressive force.

3. Continuous modernization of these forces through intensified research and development, including essential programs now slowed down, terminated, suspended, or neglected for lack of budgetary support.

A first order of business of a Democratic Administration will be a complete re-examination of the organization of our armed forces.

A military organization structure, conceived before the revolution in weapons technology, cannot be suitable for the strategic deterrent, continental defense, limited war, and military alliance requirements of the 1960s.

We believe that our armed forces should be organized more nearly on the basis of function, not only to produce greater military strength, but also to eliminate duplication and save substantial sums.

We pledge our will, energies, and resources to oppose Communist aggression.

Since World War II, it has been clear that our own security must be pursued in concert with that of many other nations.

The Democratic Administrations which, in World War II, led in forging a mighty and victorious alliance, took the initiative after the war in creating the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the greatest peacetime alliance in history.

This alliance has made it possible to keep Western Europe and the Atlantic Community secure against Communist pressures.

Our present system of alliances was begun in a time of an earlier weapons technology when our ability to retaliate against Communist attack required bases all around the periphery of the Soviet Union. Today, because of our continuing weakness in mobile weapons systems and intercontinental missiles, our defenses still depend in part on bases beyond our borders for planes and shorter-range missiles.

If an alliance is to be maintained in vigor, its unity must be reflected in shared purposes. Some of our allies have contributed neither devotion to the cause of freedom nor any real military strength.

The new Democratic Administration will review our system of pacts and alliances. We shall continue to adhere to our treaty obligations, including the commitment of the UN Charter to resist aggression. But we shall also seek to shift the emphasis of our cooperation from military aid to economic development, wherever this is possible.

national defense is FIRST for the democrats in 1960 and the soviet union and china are the threats being identified. 

scroll down the platform to see what he has to say 'bout the communist world.

*chuckle*

jfk as an icon o' the 2020 democratic party is curious and not much o' the adoration is based on history.

that said, am thinking jfk would feel extreme confortable hobnobbing with snobs, perhaps on one o' his many yachts or maybe at a martha's vineyard estate, as he planned ways to destroy the evil soviet empire.

oh, and 'cause a day can't go by for trump w/o a new dumpster fire conflagration... or two.

More Than 1,000 Current and Former CDC Officers Criticize U.S. Covid-19 Response

alternative link

“The absence of national leadership on Covid-19 is unprecedented and dangerous,” said the letter, signed by current and former officers of the CDC’s Epidemic Intelligence Service of outbreak investigators. “CDC should be at the forefront of a successful response to this global public health emergency.”

also

$421 Million in Debt: Trump Calls It ‘a Peanut,’ but Challenges Lie Ahead

keep in mind many o' trump's biggest properties, which is endemic losing money which is why he don't pay taxes, is mortgaged to the hilt.  in fact, uae has a 100% mortgage on trump's turnberry property. 

for folks who do not understand how trump could be perpetual under audit and other basic trump tax questions, am recommending the following npr podcast. well worth the 20-minute investment.

HA! Good Fun!

ps avoiding double-post

U.S. judge: Do Trump’s tweets or White House lawyers speak for president on declassifying entire Russia probe?

A federal judge rebuked the Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office on Friday for dismissing without explanation President Trump’s “emphatic and unambiguous” tweets ordering the declassification of all documents in the government’s probe of Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. election.

“I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History, the Russia Hoax,” the president tweeted Oct. 6. “Likewise, the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal. No redactions!”

...

At Friday’s hearing, however, Judge Reggie B. Walton of the U.S. District Court in D.C. expressed bafflement at the claim that President Trump’s words were not to be believed.

“I think the American public has a right to rely on what the president says his intention is,” Walton said.

“It seems to me when a president makes a clear, unambiguous statement of what his intention is, that I can’t rely on the White House Counsel’s Office saying, ‘Well, that was not his intent,’ ” the judge said in a hearing conducted by videoconference because of the coronavirus pandemic.

is possible trump's reflex double-down has boxed the President into a corner. either he needs do as he claimed and release a p00p-ton o' documents which the democrats has been fighting to get ahold of for years, or he need admit he were talking out his keister. either way, we will have some kinda response by next tuesday.

 

 

Edited October 17, 2020 by Gromnir

[Guard Dog]

6 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

I've been both busy as well as sick for the past few weeks, and I had unrelatedly been planning on cutting down on any kind of social communication with the outside world as we approached the election anyways. I really only popped on to post about a couple of the movies I'd seen recently. To be honest, I've also recently come to the realization that a number of the people I used to share interests with and enjoy conversing things about on here have unfortunately either departed or at very least seemingly become less active as I have, which has made me less eager to get back on here again even after the election is over. These forums are supposed to be an enjoyable meeting of minds, a diversion from real life, and I guess I just haven't been finding them to be a positive one for a while now. And so, an iconic quote from War Games comes to mind..:

@Malcador It's not an actress, but rather a high school photo of Ruth Bader Ginsburg that I saw and started using from when she passed last month.

I hope you stay active here. You're a good dude and your posts are a constribution to this board. I'd hate to see you fade away.

[Elerond]

2 hours ago, Darkpriest said:

Depends how you place the axis of the main arm of the left-right divide 

It used to be amount of state, where minumum state with focus of personal rights and property rights was the right wing policy, and the left wing was the large state aparatus, which had regulation on all aspects of life as the state knows best, how to allocate resources for the good of citizens. 

Then you'd have another axis of social aspects, cultural superiority vs cultural equity, so the extreme forms of the left wing society, are fascism and communism, while extreme forms of right wing policies are directorate/oligarchy and libertarianizm

And there is an outside form out of that map, and its called an anarchy, which goes something like "**** everyone else, I take and do what I want. There are no rights unless i make them" 

Left-right divide is what anybody doing the divide wants to it to be.

Origins of the divide comes from  French Revolution, wikipedia has pretty good article about origins of left-right political spectrum:    

"The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left.

...

The terms "left" and "right" were not used to refer to political ideology per se, but only to seating in the legislature. After 1848, the main opposing camps were the "democratic socialists" and the "reactionaries" who used red and white flags to identify their party affiliation. With the establishment of the Third Republic in 1871, the terms were adopted by political parties: the Republican Left, the Centre Right and the Centre Left (1871) and the Extreme Left (1876) and Radical Left (1881). The beliefs of the group called the Radical Left were actually closer to the Centre Left than the beliefs of those called the Extreme Left.

Beginning in the early twentieth century, the terms "left" and "right" came to be associated with specific political ideologies and were used to describe citizens' political beliefs, gradually replacing the terms "reds" and "the reaction". Those on the Left often called themselves "republicans", while those on the Right often called themselves "conservatives". The words Left and Right were at first used by their opponents as slurs. By 1914, the Left half of the legislature in France was composed of Unified Socialists, Republican Socialists and Socialist Radicals, while the parties that were called "Left" now sat on the right side. The use of the words Left and Right spread from France to other countries and came to be applied to a large number of political parties worldwide, which often differed in their political beliefs. There was asymmetry in the use of the terms Left and Right by the opposing sides. The Right mostly denied that the left–right spectrum was meaningful because they saw it as artificial and damaging to unity. However, the Left, seeking to change society, promoted the distinction. As Alain observed in 1931: "When people ask me if the division between parties of the Right and parties of the Left, men of the Right and men of the Left, still makes sense, the first thing that comes to mind is that the person asking the question is certainly not a man of the Left." In British politics, the terms "right" and "left" came into common use for the first time in the late 1930s in debates over the Spanish Civil War. The Scottish sociologist Robert M. MacIver noted in The Web of Government (1947):

The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, the left the sector expressive of the lower economic or social classes, and the centre that of the middle classes. Historically this criterion seems acceptable. The conservative right has defended entrenched prerogatives, privileges and powers; the left has attacked them. The right has been more favorable to the aristocratic position, to the hierarchy of birth or of wealth; the left has fought for the equalization of advantage or of opportunity, for the claims of the less advantaged. Defence and attack have met, under democratic conditions, not in the name of class but in the name of principle; but the opposing principles have broadly corresponded to the interests of the different classes."

Ideological groupings
Generally, the left-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism" while the right-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism". Political scientists and other analysts regard the left as including anarchists, communists, socialists, democratic socialists, social democrats, left-libertarians, progressives and social liberals. Movements for racial equality and trade unionism have also been associated with the left.

Political scientists and other analysts regard the right as including conservatives, right-libertarians, neoconservatives, imperialists, monarchists, fascists, reactionaries and traditionalists. A number of significant political movements do not fit precisely into the left-right spectrum, including Christian democracy, feminism, and regionalism. Though nationalism is often regarded as a right-wing doctrine, many nationalists favor egalitarian distributions of resources. There are also "liberal nationalists". Populism is regarded as having both left-wing and right-wing manifestations in the form of left-wing populism and right-wing populism, respectively. Green politics is often regarded as a movement of the left, but in some ways the green movement is difficult to definitively categorize as left or right."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left–right_political_spectrum

But now days left-right division is become easier. As you need only to pick either left or right and then everything that you like is either left or right depending on what you pick and then everything you don't like belong to other option.

Edited October 17, 2020 by Elerond

[Gorth]

@Elerond

 

I remember this from my Danish history classes. In the 19th century, Denmark had 4 political parties "Right" (later renamed to The Conservatives), "Left", "Social Democrats" and a tiny party that is politically centrist, but got seats allocated to the left of the social democrats, so they got name "Radical Left" (having the left most seats)

 

Ironically the conservative party were the only ones to change their name the last 150 years.

 

Edit: But agreed, typically communism and anarchy are "left wing" ideologies and fascism and nationalism are "right wing" ideologies.

[Guard Dog]

Political self segregation. After all, it’s hard to have a Civil War without clear lines of who lives where

[BruceVC]

5 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

We are having our own little election here and it's been an utter massacre. Jacinda Ardern is currently toasting the party with a cup fashioned from the hollowed out skull of her opponent and filled with the tears of the National Party faithful. No news on the two referenda (euthanasia and cannabis legalisation) for two weeks sadly. 2 million early votes, and we'll know the result in we already know the result, for all practical purposes.

Would be relevant- if I was saying that the initial Soviet war strategy was competent. Think I'll just leave it at that this time.

Zora are you saying she should win and if  isnt going to win why not? I never knew NZ had a women prime minister but from what  I have seen she has handled some serious issues in the country like that craven attack on Muslims by that Internet attention seeking so called " right winger " ......he was wearing a camera if I am not mistaken 

Also the way she dealt with the overall pandemic is impressive....yes NZ is an island and theoretically easy to control but there are islands out there where they have been hit relatively hard by the virus like Madagascar 

A couple of months the president of Madagascar claimed he a " cure " for the virus based on a known African herbal tonic. ....it had not gone through any live trials yet he was making these ridiculous claims. When the WHO politely explained it cannot be a cure until it has been verified through proper clinical trials.....he then played the classic " because its from Africa and not Europe people dont want to accept it " ......

https://nypost.com/2020/05/08/madagascar-coronavirus-herbal-mix-draws-demand-from-across-africa-despite-who-misgivings/

 

 

 

[BruceVC]

7 hours ago, Elerond said:

Left-right divide is what anybody doing the divide wants to it to be.

Origins of the divide comes from  French Revolution, wikipedia has pretty good article about origins of left-right political spectrum:    

"The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left.

...

The terms "left" and "right" were not used to refer to political ideology per se, but only to seating in the legislature. After 1848, the main opposing camps were the "democratic socialists" and the "reactionaries" who used red and white flags to identify their party affiliation. With the establishment of the Third Republic in 1871, the terms were adopted by political parties: the Republican Left, the Centre Right and the Centre Left (1871) and the Extreme Left (1876) and Radical Left (1881). The beliefs of the group called the Radical Left were actually closer to the Centre Left than the beliefs of those called the Extreme Left.

Beginning in the early twentieth century, the terms "left" and "right" came to be associated with specific political ideologies and were used to describe citizens' political beliefs, gradually replacing the terms "reds" and "the reaction". Those on the Left often called themselves "republicans", while those on the Right often called themselves "conservatives". The words Left and Right were at first used by their opponents as slurs. By 1914, the Left half of the legislature in France was composed of Unified Socialists, Republican Socialists and Socialist Radicals, while the parties that were called "Left" now sat on the right side. The use of the words Left and Right spread from France to other countries and came to be applied to a large number of political parties worldwide, which often differed in their political beliefs. There was asymmetry in the use of the terms Left and Right by the opposing sides. The Right mostly denied that the left–right spectrum was meaningful because they saw it as artificial and damaging to unity. However, the Left, seeking to change society, promoted the distinction. As Alain observed in 1931: "When people ask me if the division between parties of the Right and parties of the Left, men of the Right and men of the Left, still makes sense, the first thing that comes to mind is that the person asking the question is certainly not a man of the Left." In British politics, the terms "right" and "left" came into common use for the first time in the late 1930s in debates over the Spanish Civil War. The Scottish sociologist Robert M. MacIver noted in The Web of Government (1947):

The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, the left the sector expressive of the lower economic or social classes, and the centre that of the middle classes. Historically this criterion seems acceptable. The conservative right has defended entrenched prerogatives, privileges and powers; the left has attacked them. The right has been more favorable to the aristocratic position, to the hierarchy of birth or of wealth; the left has fought for the equalization of advantage or of opportunity, for the claims of the less advantaged. Defence and attack have met, under democratic conditions, not in the name of class but in the name of principle; but the opposing principles have broadly corresponded to the interests of the different classes."

Ideological groupings
Generally, the left-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism" while the right-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism". Political scientists and other analysts regard the left as including anarchists, communists, socialists, democratic socialists, social democrats, left-libertarians, progressives and social liberals. Movements for racial equality and trade unionism have also been associated with the left.

Political scientists and other analysts regard the right as including conservatives, right-libertarians, neoconservatives, imperialists, monarchists, fascists, reactionaries and traditionalists. A number of significant political movements do not fit precisely into the left-right spectrum, including Christian democracy, feminism, and regionalism. Though nationalism is often regarded as a right-wing doctrine, many nationalists favor egalitarian distributions of resources. There are also "liberal nationalists". Populism is regarded as having both left-wing and right-wing manifestations in the form of left-wing populism and right-wing populism, respectively. Green politics is often regarded as a movement of the left, but in some ways the green movement is difficult to definitively categorize as left or right."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left–right_political_spectrum

But now days left-right division is become easier. As you need only to pick either left or right and then everything that you like is either left or right depending on what you pick and then everything you don't like belong to other option.

Elerond I am concerned that you may have a misunderstanding of what myself and others raise as examples of far left politics or  "socialist " policies. I may be wrong which is even better because then I dont need to worry but what is your view around "socialism " and how it can work or should work? And what would be your concern, if any, with the EU which is the worlds trading bloc

6 hours ago, Gorth said:

@Elerond

 

I remember this from my Danish history classes. In the 19th century, Denmark had 4 political parties "Right" (later renamed to The Conservatives), "Left", "Social Democrats" and a tiny party that is politically centrist, but got seats allocated to the left of the social democrats, so they got name "Radical Left" (having the left most seats)

 

Ironically the conservative party were the only ones to change their name the last 150 years.

 

Edit: But agreed, typically communism and anarchy are "left wing" ideologies and fascism and nationalism are "right wing" ideologies.

Gorthfuscious I was thinking about that debate we were having around that poem " then they came for us " and I reread what  I was trying to say and I think I was not making my point properly because it wasnt suppose to be about the poem but rather a view that sometimes you come across that really does suggest if you are concerned with inimical socialist polices like we have seen in Brazil, Venezuela and Cuba then you are supporting right wing views or you actually privately believe them

But I shouldn't have quoted the poem which was just about why I was directly sharing my view around that a  person is not necessarily right wing at all if they are concerned with far left influence . In fact ensuring the sustainability of the free market and understanding how we can incorporate more countries into the benefits of the global system IMO would not be possible for any right wing country that I know of ?

And just to clarify, I asked Elerond a question around what do you believe is the best system that countries should follow around socialism or do you respect the current common structures that are about Democratically elected governments that all follow the same rules of the free market. ? Do you think countries like Cuba have had an unfair history and response from countries like the US

And also we dont want to unintentionally conflate the success of the Nordic countries to believing Cuba could have been the same because the history and political decisions and outcome of what makes the Nordic countries success stories is very different to Cuba

But I am always interested in peoples views on interesting debates around Capitalist countries and sometimes there internal issues around poverty or inequality and how a socialist system would somehow fix that ?

[Elerond]

@BruceVCThere is not best system. Ideological purity always causes more problems than it solves. When it comes to policies you should go with ones that work best in big picture instead of trying to force policies that don't work because they belong ideology you like generally. 

[Raithe]