US Election 2016, part II

[Malcador]

Nope. Am looking at sunshine right now. Pretty sure that is reality.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Here's what some California voters think

[Namutree]

Here's what some California voters think

Interesting, but this line in particular caught my attention.

 

Despite popular belief, America has been pulled to the right for the past 30 years. That has to change.

 

On what planet has America been pulled to the right? WTF is this guy talking about? We haven't had a genuinely right wing president since Coolidge; just moderates and a few leftists.

 

All policies have been moving to the left as well. We got the interventionist foreign policy the left wanted and we went from a capitalist economy to a mixed one. In what area, any at all; have the right won anything in not only the 30 years, but even the last 60? Pretty much ever since FDR got elected it's either the left getting what it wants, or a compromise that slightly favors the left.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

 

Here's what some California voters think

 

Interesting, but this line in particular caught my attention.

 

Despite popular belief, America has been pulled to the right for the past 30 years. That has to change.

 

On what planet has America been pulled to the right?

Not this one, because America has always been fundamentally on the right in terms of governance and the state since inception. This hasn't changed because the function of the state is still primarily the preservation of property and the dominant ideology is liberalism, albeit conservative and Keynesian strains.

 

WTF is this guy talking about?

If I had to guess the shift of the Democratic Party from New Deal/Keynesian reformists to whatever the Republicans were two decades ago and the Republicans from to Chicago School to Chicago School with more Austrian influences.

 

We haven't had a genuinely right wing president since Coolidge; just moderates and a few leftists.

We haven't had a leftist president at all. The closest we had were the progressives and FDR, and that new deal and square deal stuff was mostly to appease the labor movement who were ready to lynch the owners of capital. The only serous leftist candidate for President we've had was Debs and he's been gone a long time.

 

All policies have been moving to the left as well. We got the interventionist foreign policy the left wanted and we went from a capitalist economy to a mixed one. In what area, any at all; have the right won anything in not only the 30 years, but even the last 60? Pretty much ever since FDR got elected it's either the left getting what it wants, or a compromise that slightly favors the left.

The interventionist policy has historically been used to prop up anti-socialist governments, the economy is thoroughly capitalist in America, and the right has managed to control the political process completely. If you think the left has gotten anything it wants, let alone has been steering, you probably have confused Keynesian Liberalism for Leftism.

 

The organized Left in the US is dead. The reformists have fallen to complacency and the insurgents have been shattered by Cointelpro. It could very well come back , likely in an anarchist form, with the current economic turbulence and authoritarian measures enacted to protect the interests of the bourgeois, but it isn't alive now.

[Namutree]

 If you think the left has gotten anything it wants, let alone has been steering, you probably have confused Keynesian Liberalism for Leftism.

 

That's probably because it is leftist. Perhaps not as radical or even having the same ultimate goals as your leftist variant, but it's not in-line with America's founding principles. That is for certain.

 

Leftism is not socialism, it's anti-traditionalism. Socialism isn't traditional so it's leftist by default, but not all leftists are socialists. A right-winger in the US would have a philosophy akin to Benjamin Franklin, Adam Smith, or John Locke. Any other way of thinking is not right-wing, because those are idealists who established the country's entire premise and those are the values that are the foundation of this society. 

Edited June 7, 2016 by Namutree

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Leftism is not socialism, it's anti-traditionalism.

That has to be the most special snowflake version of the left-right dichotomy I've heard.

 

Socialism isn't traditional so it's leftist by default, but not all leftists are socialists. A right-winger in the US would have a philosophy akin to Benjamin Franklin, Adam Smith, or John Locke. Any other way of thinking is not right-wing, because those are idealists who established the country's entire premise and those are the values are foundation of this society.

 

But if the country was established as a break in tradition(from monarchism to republicanism), wouldn't that mean it was (your conception) of leftist from the beginning? If not, if hypothetically the US fell and was reorganized as a monarchical dictatorship, would a movement to topple that and restart a republic be left-wing?

[Meshugger]

A friendly reminder that the neo-cons who flocked to the Republican party in the 80's were all either ex-Trotskyists or Straussianists. They have no interest in conserving anything.

[Namutree]

 

Leftism is not socialism, it's anti-traditionalism.

That has to be the most special snowflake version of the left-right dichotomy I've heard.

 

It is?

 

 

 

Socialism isn't traditional so it's leftist by default, but not all leftists are socialists. A right-winger in the US would have a philosophy akin to Benjamin Franklin, Adam Smith, or John Locke. Any other way of thinking is not right-wing, because those are idealists who established the country's entire premise and those are the values are foundation of this society.

But if the country was established as a break in tradition(from monarchism to republicanism), wouldn't that mean it was (your conception) of leftist from the beginning? 

 

It was. Revolutionaries (which they were, obviously) are leftists in my mind.

 

Here's the definition of a conservative: con·serv·a·tive

kənˈsərvədiv/

adjective

 

1. 1.

   holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

 

It's all about tradition. 

 

Here's the definition of a revolution: rev·o·lu·tion

ˌrevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/

noun

 

1. 1.

   a forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system.

 

It's an old system being thrown out in favor of a new one.

 

On the left-to-right scale ultra-far leftists are usually regarded as revolutionaries, are they not?

 

IIRC the left-right concept comes from the French revolution. The people who supported the traditional system of monarchy sat to the king's right, and those who wanted to overthrow the traditional order sat to his left. Some of those on his left were classical liberals. Others were ardent socialists. What made them all leftist was their opposition to the traditional system of monarchy.

 

Heck, you're a leftist, you should know better than anyone that there is no set ideology for the left. It's whole slew of contradicting and mutually exclusive ideologies.

 

Anyway, what does the notion of left-right seem to mean to you?

[Guard Dog]

Well she couldn't do it honestly (pledged delegates) but she did do it (via superdelegates). Hillary has crossed the finish line. It would be amusing if Bernie wins California but it really won't matter. Actually it wouldn't have anyway. The fix was always in on this one.

[Hurlshort]

Well she couldn't do it honestly (pledged delegates) but she did do it (via superdelegates). Hillary has crossed the finish line. It would be amusing if Bernie wins California but it really won't matter. Actually it wouldn't have anyway. The fix was always in on this one.

 

They are almost making it sound like Bernie will go 3rd party.  That would be crazy.  Clinton clearly has the edge over Trump, but that would shake it up tremendously.  It would definitely add to the circus element we've got going.  

[Guard Dog]

 

Well she couldn't do it honestly (pledged delegates) but she did do it (via superdelegates). Hillary has crossed the finish line. It would be amusing if Bernie wins California but it really won't matter. Actually it wouldn't have anyway. The fix was always in on this one.

 

They are almost making it sound like Bernie will go 3rd party.  That would be crazy.  Clinton clearly has the edge over Trump, but that would shake it up tremendously.  It would definitely add to the circus element we've got going.  

 

[Raithe]

Okay, for the slight side note that's not completely US Elections...

 

[Enoch]

Yeah, the Hastert thing really was wild.  When the rest of the GOP leadership forced Gingrich out, Bob Livingston was the Rep designated to take the Speakership.  But in the midst of the whole Lewinsky thing, Larry Flint had put a sizeable bounty on evidence of extra-marital affairs by folks in Congress, and it leaked that Hustler was about to publish its findings on Livingston.  So he publicly confessed his affair, and resigned as Speaker-designate on the same day that the House voted to impeach Clinton.  Republican leaders scrambled for the most clean-cut potential leader they could find, and the result was Hastert.  The fact that Hastert turned out to have had a history of taking sexual advantage of underage boys is both sad and hilarious.  The only reason he got the job was the fact that he was viewed as "safe," and he turned out to have been the most dangerous of the bunch. 

[Longknife]

 

Best possible answer he could've given.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

 

Leftism is not socialism, it's anti-traditionalism.

 

That has to be the most special snowflake version of the left-right dichotomy I've heard.

It is?

No, that has to be some anon telling me that anything furthering the reptilian agenda against the gods was leftist.

 

Heck, you're a leftist, you should know better than anyone that there is no set ideology for the left. It's whole slew of contradicting and mutually exclusive ideologies.

The unifying aspect of Leftism is opposition to property. The various ideologies don't agree on how to oppose it or even what exactly constitutes property and socialism, but they do have opposition to property in common.

 

Anyway, what does the notion of left-right seem to mean to you?

Left = anti-property/right = pro-property. It makes sense because it is a binary quality you can't waffle on. The issue with your interpretation of the left/right dichotomy, aside from what constitutes adherence to tradition, is that anything from insurrectionary anarchism to Keynesian reformism to monarchism would be considered left-wing in liberal republics. It doesn't convey anything about the goals of said ideologies other than they weren't the prevailing ideology of the founding powers of a state, where as the property distinction has a more universal meaning and doesn't require context of current states founding ideologies to label an ideology.

[Guard Dog]

Yeah, the Hastert thing really was wild.  When the rest of the GOP leadership forced Gingrich out, Bob Livingston was the Rep designated to take the Speakership.  But in the midst of the whole Lewinsky thing, Larry Flint had put a sizeable bounty on evidence of extra-marital affairs by folks in Congress, and it leaked that Hustler was about to publish its findings on Livingston.  So he publicly confessed his affair, and resigned as Speaker-designate on the same day that the House voted to impeach Clinton.  Republican leaders scrambled for the most clean-cut potential leader they could find, and the result was Hastert.  The fact that Hastert turned out to have had a history of taking sexual advantage of underage boys is both sad and hilarious.  The only reason he got the job was the fact that he was viewed as "safe," and he turned out to have been the most dangerous of the bunch. 

This sad mess encapsulates in a nutshell one of the reason why I believe the Libertarian philosophy is right. It is not because LP politicians would be better or more moral. To be sure they would not. It's because it acknowledges what we all know; most if not all politicians are villains. They are amoral, vain and venal people to whom no power should ever be entrusted. But grubby jobs begat grubby people  and someone has to administrate the few things the government is supposed to do. But we are all safer when their power and consequently their ability to do harm is kept to a bare minimum.

[Malcador]

Well except when they have to put a gun to the head of business who only care about dollars.

 

Always like that line in Blue Mars about them. Anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.

[Guard Dog]

Well except when they have to put a gun to the head of business who only care about dollars.

 

Always like that line in Blue Mars about them. Anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.

And who is it putting a gun to the head of the "business that only cares about dollars"? The government that only cares about dollars. It gets those dollars from those very businesses you want it to protect you from.

 

I've said it a million times, I'll say it again. The largest corporation in the world could not take one penny from my checking account without my permission. The smallest government right here in Tipton County TN can take all of it along with my home, freedom, and my very life. Who should I really be afraid of here. By itself the government is a much bigger threat than any corporation. And if the corporation is using the government to do it's dirty work the government is still the threat.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I've said it a million times, I'll say it again. The largest corporation in the world could not take one penny from my checking account without my permission. The smallest government right here in Tipton County TN can take all of it along with my home, freedom, and my very life.

 

 

[213374U]

The largest corporation in the world could not take one penny from my checking account without my permission.

Banks are corporations too, and they routinely take the money you give them and loan it away. They don't even need your permission to do that, because as soon as you make a deposit it's no longer your money, it's the bank's. Sure, the bank is now liable to you for the same amount, but it's not the same, and historical examples have illustrated this difference better than I could.

 

Sure, you could put all your money under your mattress, but good luck paying for your internet, electricity, etc. I don't think that's feasible in this day and age unless you want to live like an Inuit. But if you do, what do you need money for, anyway.

 

You can argue that fractional-reserve banking is only possible because the government allows it, but that's a kind of catch-all reasoning that can be used to blame pretty much anything on the state.

[Hurlshort]

I'd argue PG&E is much more dangerous to my home and health than my local government.  I have much more of a say in the local government.  

[Malcador]

 

 

Well except when they have to put a gun to the head of business who only care about dollars.

 

Always like that line in Blue Mars about them. Anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.

And who is it putting a gun to the head of the "business that only cares about dollars"? The government that only cares about dollars. It gets those dollars from those very businesses you want it to protect you from.

 

I've said it a million times, I'll say it again. The largest corporation in the world could not take one penny from my checking account without my permission. The smallest government right here in Tipton County TN can take all of it along with my home, freedom, and my very life. Who should I really be afraid of here. By itself the government is a much bigger threat than any corporation. And if the corporation is using the government to do it's dirty work the government is still the threat.

Well think of OSHA or the EPA.

[Meshugger]

Government and big business are not two separate entities who exist on different planes of existence. Rather both excert power in different areas, and the doors between them are quite open. To focus one or the other is a division tactic only serving those who are in power.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Some guy claiming another DNC error for his registration

 

If even half these claims are true, the ****s in charge of registration are either corrupt or incompetent.

Edited June 7, 2016 by KaineParker

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Some guy claiming another DNC error for his registration

 

If even half these claims are true, the ****s in charge of registration are either corrupt or incompetent.

 

Whenever you find yourself asking the question which, the answer is probably "both".