Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Daffodil

Hate Trump, but leaning right. Lefties, help me see it your way.

Recommended Posts

Ok, I'm a little obsessed with politics right now, which I hate, but I can't let it go.  I really despise Trump, but I'm finding myself leaning right.  This is long, and I do apologize.  Thank you for your time if you choose to read this.  Here are my thoughts:

 

I believed that the Scandinavian countries were on the right track with providing free health care, subsidized housing for everyone who couldn't afford it, parental leave that lasts a full year, etc.  It seems perfect!  Why can't we do that?  Well, it occurred to me when Trump started complaining about NATO and European nations not using some of their GDP to build their own militaries and relying on the US while simultaneously not giving us much in return, that this is the reason the Scandinavian countries and the rest of Europe to a lesser extent are able to provide so much to the social infrastructure of their countries.  They are using next to nothing of their GDP on their militaries!  And we are like the Ghostbusters of the world.  Got a problem?  Call the US!  Of course after we come and "help" we are then lambasted by the very people who called us for doing it all "wrong".  Nice.

 

I would expect that the leftist response would be that we should stop "invading" other countries and trying to impose our values on them.  I actually agree, but if we suddenly dropped out of the game now, what would happen?  I'm genuinely asking because I don't know.  I also expect that the left would say that a good portion of the world's, especially the middle east's, problems were started because of our meddling there.  I have to disagree.  That part of the world has been at war with itself since far before America came into existence.  We certainly may have exacerbated it, but so did other nations.  If I'm not mistaken, the British were the ones who had the bright idea of dividing India and Pakistan to try to alleviate some of the Hindu/Muslim warfare in that area.  How's that working out for them?  European powers were all over the middle east long before we came on the scene, and yet somehow all that conflict is our fault?  The different Muslim sects just don't get along and I don't think that has anything at all to do with us, and if we dropped out right this minute, they would still be battling it out for control.  I just don't get it.

 

On the home front, I think I am a social libertarian (correct me if my definition isn't quite right).  I believe people should be able to do what they want and say what they want as long as it does not hurt anyone else.  Of course the definition of "hurt" is debatable, but that's where I stand.  However, the Left seems to be against letting people do and say what they want if it does not fit their standards.  Isn't that a bit conservative of them?  I thought the Left was about freedom and individualism and anti-authoritarianism.  Wait, see I think I'm mixing things up here.  I think of the 60's free love and anti-authoritarianism and such as being left-leaning, but maybe not?  Has it changed?  Freedom and individualism is more of a conservative thing now, but . . .  I am genuinely confused.

 

Something I saw today said that Millenials are abandoning the DNC.  If true, and I'm not saying it is or isn't as I don't know anymore how to verify anything these days, then I'm not terribly surprised.  The Democrats seem to have whole-heartedly embraced identity politics with an underlying emphasis on everything wrong with the world today being the fault of white men.  Well, an awful lot of Millenials are white men!  Do the Democrats really believe there are enough minorities and women and LGBTQ folks and the lot to get them into the White House?  They are actively alienating large voting blocks with their identity politics and hatred of white men.  How is that going to work for them come 2020?  I'm even seeing some stirrings about Hillary trying for the Presidency for a third time!  Seriously?!?  As much as I dislike Trump, I'm afraid the left/Democrats are doing nothing to keep him from getting a second term.  

 

I would appreciate a robust and polite discussion if anyone is interested.  If not, no worries.  I'll just move along.  😊

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daffy, I'm in no shape to offer anything robust just now, but I know that you are on the right track.

 

It's not about Donald Trump, it's about the direction of the United States. It's about We The People and what we know is bullshit, and what we know is good.  Right now I see my country finally moving in the right direction.

 

Everyone can make of that what they will. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     Not to address the whole OP but a lot of this started way back with the Monroe Doctrine.  That's when we decided that we would not allow any additional European colonies in the Western Hemisphere.  No one really took us seriously and we didn't have the means to enforce it at the time.  But that doesn't mean that we haven't used that doctrine to justify various actions that we've taken here and abroad over the past couple of centuries (by expanding on the doctrine and building up our military).

 

     We've essentially chosen this role for ourselves.  Time after time.  To complain is a bit disingenuous.

 

          mwc

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The title of this thread is interesting considering the reply I was fashioning to Dude in my head while making dinner in his response to me in the Trudeau thread. In among our banter and giving of many cents it occurred to me that we are defining many issues as a dichotomy of left vs right rather than a case by case basis. I think this is a great flaw with politics, and current society in general. Such polarization can only lead to division. Not to mention the current atmosphere of combat rather than seeking to understand the other and mutually working towards a common acceptable understanding. Usually this would mean compromise where neither side gets entirely what they want.

 

That's my preamble. @Daffodil I'm obviously not a US Citizen but hopefully you'll still appreciate my thoughts here. I try not to lean left or right, but rather vote based on where I think a particular party would best lead the country to better society.

 

You were so right about the definition of hurt. I think from the lefts point of view allowing people to be free to say, discriminate without repercussion is harmful. It will be this kind of thinking that is the driver behind many of the calls for restrictions on speech etc. 

 

I think where the left has lost the plot (And in the DNC's case this is putting Hillary up for candidate) is that while traditionally associated with good movements life feminism, individual rights etc, it has taken this to far and are now seeking to enforce their standards instead of working towards acceptance.

 

Regarding the thing about white men, this is relatively new and is kind of double pronged. At the core of the argument there is a lot of truth, truth that a lot of white people don't like. I find this when I discuss it here in NZ where people want to ignore actual history and pretend Europeans arriving on boats was all fairy tales are roses, and there was no harm no foul. It is a hard truth today that outside of Europe/UK/Russia Caucasian people enjoy the life they do because lands that had belonged to other people for 1,000's of years were largely taken by force. This of course has had flow on effects that impact the world we live in today. However I do think the way the far left is currently hammering the issue is wrong. I really don't think its helpful for a government minister to tell company exe's that they are old white men that need to move on. I think this will change naturally over time and trying to forcefully enact these ideas will and is leading to a kick back effect.

 

On US politics, I think the left and the right is a mess right now. The left is going nowhere while in their current state, They only have 2 1/2 years to sort themselves out and its not happening.

 

On identity politics, this is not just a problem with the left, but the right also. It just manifests itself differently. Trump campaigned on what was basically identity politics. 

 

The US military... possibly they are the least bad option. Hard to tell what the world would have been like if the US hadn't taken on the role of world police.

 

Sorry - my reply is a wee bit rambly. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the word "hate" is tossed around much too much these days. I do not agree with some things Trump says and does. I also did not agree with a number of Obama's policies, but I don't hate either man. I don't hate Hillary Clinton, but I don't respect her either.

 

I think the extreme left in this country  is not only wrong  but is a legitimate threat to our democracy. They appear to be significantly larger & much better organized that those on the extreme right. Note I'm referencing those on the extreme left & right. 

 

I find much I can agree with on both the left and right mainstream moderates, but they are getting smaller and less relevant with each passing day. I do legitimately fear we are headed for anarchy and/or another conflict similar to a civil war. It seems it's an all or nothing for each side now and that concerns me. 

 

The radical left's attack on free speech deeply concerns me. That is an example of bullying taken to extreme levels. And I don't know how that tactic can be stopped without a violent confrontation and the outcome of something like that cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I grew up in an America where there was a constant back and forth between conservative and liberal policy positions. People could decide which candidate or policy seemed best. We could weigh the facts, see real statistics and hear reasoned arguments from experts in economics, foreign policy, history, constitutional law and so forth. We were informed. Both good and bad policies have come from both camps over the decades.

 

Today, things are different. There really is no conservative Republican Party in the traditional sense. It has been hijacked by Trump's personal interests. Politicians are afraid to challenge the top guy in their party regardless of how insane he is. As a result, there has been a crazy backlash from traditionally progressive Democratic politicians. Extremes breed extremes, and neither is serving us.

 

With Trump's unending rhetoric of hate, insults and exclusion, both Republicans and Democrats are forced into places they don't really want to go, but above all their Party must survive. The actual divide in America we see today is I think less about actual left/right policies and more about empathy. You can't teach empathy but you can destroy whatever one has left of it by constantly repeating the mantras of hate and fear; facts became irrelevant on inauguration day and everything is now based on emotion rather than factual information and logic. Both sides prefer to push emotional buttons over rational discourse because it works.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, duderonomy said:

Daffy, I'm in no shape to offer anything robust just now, but I know that you are on the right track.

 

It's not about Donald Trump, it's about the direction of the United States. It's about We The People and what we know is bullshit, and what we know is good.  Right now I see my country finally moving in the right direction.

 

Everyone can make of that what they will. 

 

Thanks Dude.  If we are moving in the right direction, I'm a little concerned with who is doing the moving.  Do we really want Christian Right folks dictating our future?  I don't know how much of what is going on is really Trump or people behind him pulling the strings, but either way, I don't feel very secure right now.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mwc said:

     Not to address the whole OP but a lot of this started way back with the Monroe Doctrine.  That's when we decided that we would not allow any additional European colonies in the Western Hemisphere.  No one really took us seriously and we didn't have the means to enforce it at the time.  But that doesn't mean that we haven't used that doctrine to justify various actions that we've taken here and abroad over the past couple of centuries (by expanding on the doctrine and building up our military).

 

     We've essentially chosen this role for ourselves.  Time after time.  To complain is a bit disingenuous.

 

          mwc

 

 

Do you mean that we have used that doctrine as a pretense to invade other countries in order to keep the Europeans from taking over?  Pardon if I'm getting it completely wrong.  I had to look up that doctrine because I was not familiar with it.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

The title of this thread is interesting considering the reply I was fashioning to Dude in my head while making dinner in his response to me in the Trudeau thread. In among our banter and giving of many cents it occurred to me that we are defining many issues as a dichotomy of left vs right rather than a case by case basis. I think this is a great flaw with politics, and current society in general. Such polarization can only lead to division. Not to mention the current atmosphere of combat rather than seeking to understand the other and mutually working towards a common acceptable understanding. Usually this would mean compromise where neither side gets entirely what they want.

 

That's my preamble. @Daffodil I'm obviously not a US Citizen but hopefully you'll still appreciate my thoughts here. I try not to lean left or right, but rather vote based on where I think a particular party would best lead the country to better society.

 

You were so right about the definition of hurt. I think from the lefts point of view allowing people to be free to say, discriminate without repercussion is harmful. It will be this kind of thinking that is the driver behind many of the calls for restrictions on speech etc. 

 

I think where the left has lost the plot (And in the DNC's case this is putting Hillary up for candidate) is that while traditionally associated with good movements life feminism, individual rights etc, it has taken this to far and are now seeking to enforce their standards instead of working towards acceptance.

 

Regarding the thing about white men, this is relatively new and is kind of double pronged. At the core of the argument there is a lot of truth, truth that a lot of white people don't like. I find this when I discuss it here in NZ where people want to ignore actual history and pretend Europeans arriving on boats was all fairy tales are roses, and there was no harm no foul. It is a hard truth today that outside of Europe/UK/Russia Caucasian people enjoy the life they do because lands that had belonged to other people for 1,000's of years were largely taken by force. This of course has had flow on effects that impact the world we live in today. However I do think the way the far left is currently hammering the issue is wrong. I really don't think its helpful for a government minister to tell company exe's that they are old white men that need to move on. I think this will change naturally over time and trying to forcefully enact these ideas will and is leading to a kick back effect.

 

On US politics, I think the left and the right is a mess right now. The left is going nowhere while in their current state, They only have 2 1/2 years to sort themselves out and its not happening.

 

On identity politics, this is not just a problem with the left, but the right also. It just manifests itself differently. Trump campaigned on what was basically identity politics. 

 

The US military... possibly they are the least bad option. Hard to tell what the world would have been like if the US hadn't taken on the role of world police.

 

Sorry - my reply is a wee bit rambly. 

 

 

You're right about white men and history.  Our traditional Thanksgiving Day history makes it look like Native Americans welcomed us with open arms and that we accepted them happily as well.  Pretty stupid in the light of reality.  What was done to them and Africans brought here against their will is abhorrent.  I don't think any of that should be forgotten, but should it be pounded into us on a daily basis?  Should we really seriously consider monetary reparations?  Should every white person be branded as a racist because of what was done hundreds of years ago?  When is the debt finally paid?

 

I hadn't thought of identity politics like that before, but you're right.  Trump did campaign on how Mexicans are all rapists and criminals, the left are all stupid and corrupt.  

 

I agree that the US military is possibly the least bad option.  I don't see us practicing empire building anymore.  Unfortunately, we do still have the audacity to tell other countries how they should govern their people, though.  The Middle East is such a completely different mindset, I don't think democracy will work any time in the near future.  Of course it's a little hard to see anything else working as well as democracy, but I just don't think you can change thousands-years-old, deeply engrained tribal mindsets in just a few years' time.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you check real American history you will discover that both the white man and the Native Americans did horrible atrocities to each other. White men adopted the Indian tradition of scalping their enemies and paid handsome bounties for each scalp taken. And the Indians were savages. Survival of the strongest & best armed was the law of the land on both sides. 

 

Neither side was innocent. The white man had superior weapons, and that is why they were the victors. And that has been true for all conflicts since the beginning of time. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Geezer said:

I think the word "hate" is tossed around much too much these days. I do not agree with some things Trump says and does. I also did not agree with a number of Obama's policies, but I don't hate either man. I don't hate Hillary Clinton, but I don't respect her either.

 

I think the extreme left in this country  is not only wrong  but is a legitimate threat to our democracy. They appear to be significantly larger & much better organized that those on the extreme right. Note I'm referencing those on the extreme left & right. 

 

I find much I can agree with on both the left and right mainstream moderates, but they are getting smaller and less relevant with each passing day. I do legitimately fear we are headed for anarchy and/or another conflict similar to a civil war. It seems it's an all or nothing for each side now and that concerns me. 

 

The radical left's attack on free speech deeply concerns me. That is an example of bullying taken to extreme levels. And I don't know how that tactic can be stopped without a violent confrontation and the outcome of something like that cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course you're right about the hate thing.  I don't even know any of these people personally, so how can I legitimately say I hate them?  And that is part of the problem.  People use that word, and others, far too freely.  I'm also concerned about a possible mass rebellion and chaos coming in the near future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, florduh said:

I grew up in an America where there was a constant back and forth between conservative and liberal policy positions. People could decide which candidate or policy seemed best. We could weigh the facts, see real statistics and hear reasoned arguments from experts in economics, foreign policy, history, constitutional law and so forth. We were informed. Both good and bad policies have come from both camps over the decades.

 

Today, things are different. There really is no conservative Republican Party in the traditional sense. It has been hijacked by Trump's personal interests. Politicians are afraid to challenge the top guy in their party regardless of how insane he is. As a result, there has been a crazy backlash from traditionally progressive Democratic politicians. Extremes breed extremes, and neither is serving us.

 

With Trump's unending rhetoric of hate, insults and exclusion, both Republicans and Democrats are forced into places they don't really want to go, but above all their Party must survive. The actual divide in America we see today is I think less about actual left/right policies and more about empathy. You can't teach empathy but you can destroy whatever one has left of it by constantly repeating the mantras of hate and fear; facts became irrelevant on inauguration day and everything is now based on emotion rather than factual information and logic. Both sides prefer to push emotional buttons over rational discourse because it works.

 

 

 

I agree with everything you said, florduh, except about facts becoming irrelevant on inauguration day.  I think they became irrelevant long before that and both sides have been spinning the facts to their own interests for years now.  I think we let extremists in and now true beneficial discussion and compromise are impossible.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dislike both parties, but I don't see a third party having a chance to win.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burnedout said:

Daffy, 

 

You mentioned reparations to black people.  Not saying you are advocating this, but I merely pose the question rhetorically, but ....Why is it my duty to pay for some atrocity that I never did?  I could see, MAYBE, if those people were still alive, doing so, but to the progeny of either, who never suffered from nor never committed such attrocities is ludicris.  I suspect that call is merely an excuse for what amounts to cut successful people down for being successful.  People who got there simply by doing what it took to become successful, which most anyone can, or at least are not barred from the steps that it takes if they merely decide to take those steps.

 

I'm not advocating for reparations, although it may actually be warranted with Native Americans if you're talking about returning some federal lands to them.  Outside of that, no I don't agree with the reparations idea because how do you monetize something like that?  And when do we decide the debt has been paid?  Who decides that?  Not every black person is the descendent of a slave and not every white person is the descendent of slave owners!  How do we decide who is responsible and who receives the reparations?  Are states that were Confederate more responsible than states that were Union?  What about states that were not even in existence back then?  The logistics are a nightmare!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Daffodil said:

I agree with everything you said, florduh, except about facts becoming irrelevant on inauguration day.

Yes, people have always been busy spinning reality to serve their purpose. After the inauguration, though, outright lies received an official name and acceptance by many; alternative truth. There is no alternative to truth other than an outright lie. We've seen a shitload of them daily since that fateful day. GW once lied about WMDs, JFK once lied about Vietnam, but Trump even lied about his easily verifiable crowd numbers on day one. But that was just the beginning of "alternative facts" like fake immigration numbers, fake crime statistics for our own and even other countries, and the list goes on and on. Lying has become an art form for this president. So facts are not actually irrelevant, but they are now irrelevant to a small but dangerously significant number of faithful followers of the ling of lies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Geezer said:

If you check real American history you will discover that both the white man and the Native Americans did horrible atrocities to each other. White men adopted the Indian tradition of scalping their enemies and paid handsome bounties for each scalp taken.

 

This is also a common argument about the wars in NZ, no doubt Africa etc. THEY were savages, WE saved them.... but slaughtering and enslaving them and taking lands because WE are CIVILIZED. Sorry Geezer this view misses the point I was making by a country mile.

 

2 hours ago, Geezer said:

And the Indians were savages. Survival of the strongest & best armed was the law of the land on both sides.

 

Oh the strongest army usually wins, sure. As far as explicitly referring to Indians as savages.... I think its more accurate to say humans can be pretty savage.

 

2 hours ago, Geezer said:

Neither side was innocent. The white man had superior weapons, and that is why they were the victors. And that has been true for all conflicts since the beginning of time. 

 

Again see my first response. I was referring to the massive worldwide colonial invasions in the last half millennium. Not just what happened to the American Indians, but the Inuit, India Indians, Africans etc. Reading all this history, then proclaiming THEY were savages is a bit rich IMO. This is what bothers me today. Sure some of the native practices were barbaric... but that does not excuse what happened.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, TrueScotsman said:

There is a black hole of conservative content which has grown out of places like youtube, a virtual media underground where a lot of people are getting converted more and more to the right.  "Red pilling" is their terminology for it, and sure enough you're watching Rubin and Peterson for a few episodes, sprinkle in a dash of Shapiro here and maybe even a little Tucker Carlson get real dirty.  Pretty soon you're gonna get some Stephan Molyneux or Lauren Southern and then you'll be introduced in the right's darker vision for society, which is that there is an ongoing genocide against the white race essentially happening.  There are dashes of that in all the rest of course, but it is fully unpacked by them where it is only alluded to by those of the less far right (my labels).  

 

There is nothing wrong with consuming such content, though I would recommend any person who does have a very solid foundation in thinking about philosophy, which thankfully I did before I listened to almost everything Peterson produced before he took off.  I figured this guy was going to be very influential, he reminded me a lot of the leaders of the reformed resurgence that I got swept up in.  There were preachers like John Piper and Matt Chandler who had a similar presence and mind about how to preach, which is essentially Peterson's style which is religiously serious on purpose in its tone.  Much of this conservative resurgence resembles a lot of my experience when I was swept up into Calvinism.  People download a totally new system of thinking in a short amount of time, and then argue the fuck out of it.  LOL

 

Anyways, the left.  First thing to say about the Left, is fuck Stalin, fuck Mao, fuck Pol Pot, fuck Lenin, fuck Trotsky, fuck the Jong family, and any other leftist totalitarian system that has ever existed.  I distinguish myself as a Pragmatic Leftist, which is that I don't have any particular alliance to a faction of the left, put that my views align enough for me to be in coalition with the broader party at the present.  I think through my positions on each issue not in any kind of systematic or deterministic way, I think the world is way more complex than Smith or Marx could ever conceive, though great thinkers they were.  No man is a prophet, and philosophy is a conversation about how we can talk about the things we know about and figure out what to do about it.  Obviously such a conversation is going to be confined to time and culture, based upon events which if they happened some other way would have totally created a totally different world with different values and contexts.  The thing I think the Left does way better with is complexity, Conservatives want to throw the profit motive at every problem and thinks it will continue to work, no the profit motive built by neoliberal (conservative) economic instruments in order to fix economic mobility using the profit motive (CDOs) blew up the economy and lost tens of trillions globally.  That is the fallout we still live in, and corporate growth has soared to new heights because of over capitalization, over valuation on the stock exchange due to a buyback of shares thanks to the tax cuts Republicans just handed to them.  In 2017, 80% of the wealth generated went to the 1%.  Most of the rest went to the top 9%.  Conservative economics, that is supply side economics (trickle-down) is a doomed failure, laissez faire is a fantasy which doesn't understand the complexities of a modern economy and the function of a state (it just hates the state [see BO]), neoliberalism is what was implemented near faithfully for many decades now.  There is of course the other aspect of Conservative economics which does work to some degree which I have addressed in another thread, and that is essentially War Capitalism, creating increased aggregate demand by having the federal government act as a broad consumer in the market.  

 

So I think that that should be understood, that for me on the Left, I simply don't think a purely Conservative system would work.  That doesn't mean I don't find things that are valuable from Friedman, Sowell, Hayak, Oakenshot, and Peterson but I think fundamentally their views if fully implemented would not work.  Conservatives tend to hate bureaucracy, many times rightly so, but I think this just means better policy innovation, such as the implementation of dividends or Universal Basic Incomes as a replacement for welfare systems.  Automation is on the way big time, and laisseiz faire policies becoming the norm will mean you see more walls going up.  Around more communities, around nations, around corporations.  We need to find solutions to the problem of labor, because thinks might look good now but I guarantee this conversation will change as soon as the next recession hits.  If this is left up to corporations, this will not be a good society to live in, with an ideology that all they must do is maximize profits.  I'm seeing the Right more as the  problem here than the solution, sustainability and our impact on our climate are being completely ignored and suppressed in the name of short term growth. 

 

This world isn't ending anytime soon, Jesus ain't coming, and we have to start living in ways which seek to improve the well being of the population, which I think in turn will produce a more productive and sustainable society.  I think the state should be an active consumer in the economy, in healthcare, infrastructure, defense, emergency services, education, and I don't think that a profit motive functions very well in these areas.  I think these need to be seen as universal goods for people living in the United States, quality roads and bridges, full healthcare, adequate defense understanding our leadership in the world, a Marshall Plan for education with a more robust education provided as well as using a tax on derivatives to fund universal community college.  If you want to see what the global economy looks like, here is quick look.  Stuff like this is why I consider myself on the Left.

 

May I also mention climate change?  What is the Right proposing to do about this crisis?  Nothing last time I heard, worse than nothing, deny it all together.  This alone for me seems to be morally pressing to oppose any Republican candidate who denies the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change.  Its obvious whose interests they are serving in that capacity, and while I don't think Democrats interests are wholly blameless, at least they're right on this issue and putting their heads in the sand as the flood begins.  

 

These are my ramblings for now about the Left and Right as I see it, maybe something will come up later.  

 

I have listened to many of the people you mentioned in your first paragraph and agreed with some of what they said and disagreed with some of it.  Likewise with people on the left.  I most recently have run across someone with a YouTube channel called Timcast.  He seems to be a more moderate leftist.  I like the little bit I've heard from him so far, but don't agree with all of it.  For awhile I watched the Young Turks until they demonstrated how arrogant and unwilling to listen to the other side they were.  It really is difficult to find anyone that matches my moderate independent views.  Peterson's ideas about "calming" the wild violent tendencies of men by enforced marriage is just bizarre!  Was he using that as an abstract example?  What in the world did he mean by that?  This is one of the things that bothers me about Peterson.  He rarely answers questions directly but instead goes off on philosophical/psychological/sociological tangents that don't have much practical use.

 

Anyway, I also don't think pure conservative system would work.  There is too much room for corporations to abuse the rest of us because of lack of regulation.  On the other hand, I also think a pure liberal system would not work either.  They are too extreme.  I feel we need something in between that includes enough regulations to keep the American people protected from the abuses inherent in Capitalism but enough freedom to grow as well.  How that looks with the impending takeover by mechanization and robotization, I don't know.  Universal Basic Income (or whatever it's called)?  Maybe, but that will be a really hard sell in a nation that was essentially started and grown on the value of the work ethic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So many thoughts. I think, ultimately, I have elected to reject choosing a side in favor of educating myself on actual policies and issues. That educating part can be quite a task since it's never quite done, so I'll just be humble little me with a huge heart for education, empathy, and reconciliation between party lines.

 

One thing I've been heavily considering for the past week or so, especially helped by that video @Daffodil shared on morality, is just how much the left and right need each other. We are yin and yang, we could be such a force to reckoned with if we as a nation could learn true compromise.

 

We need the left to temper the right from spiraling into a cold, corrupt sort of tyranny that only values profit/self gain. We need the gentle prodding of social change, the push for national growth so that we don't get too comfortable or apathetic. Unchecked, we get radical right totalitarian fuckery.

 

We need the right's "sensible" desire to keep things how they are, not all social change is good. We will destroy ourselves if we only focus on the oppressor/oppressed or group identity narrative, we need a good "be responsible for yourself"  kick in the pants from the right. Unchecked, we get radical left totalitarian fuckery.

 

Both sides have a nasty little helping of "potential for genocidal tyranny," we just have to stop blaming each other, accept the strengths and weaknesses, and work as a team. A good marriage acknowledges wrongdoing, communicates with respect, embraces differences in opinion, seeks to understand and reconcile disagreements.....compromises...and the list goes on.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, TrueScotsman said:

You are right 

 

😵 (just teasing)

 

Good thoughts, I wish a moderate or even independent had a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Daffodil said:

 

Do you mean that we have used that doctrine as a pretense to invade other countries in order to keep the Europeans from taking over?  Pardon if I'm getting it completely wrong.  I had to look up that doctrine because I was not familiar with it.  

 

     We've used it for a number of reasons but here I'm talking about expanding spheres of influence, expanding military as well as influencing other policies.

 

     In this latter sense you should look at Roosevelt's Four Policemen (I'll just borrow from Wikipedia since we all know I'm lazy):

Quote

 


The President told Molotov that he visualized the enforced disarmament of our enemies and, indeed, some of our friends after the war; that he thought that the United States, England, Russia and perhaps China should police the world and enforce disarmament by inspection. The President said that he visualized Germany, Italy, Japan, France, Czechoslovakia, Rumania and other nations would not be permitted to have military forces. He stated that other nations might join the first four mentioned after experience proved they could be trusted.[7]
 

 

     These were his plans and the whole thing led up to the United Nations.  We are the ones that envisioned policing the world.  We are the ones that set the mold.  We are the ones that wanted Europe largely demilitarized.  We are behind all of this.  It was our idea.  How can I justify pointing the finger at them for that?  People wanted power to be distributed a bit more evenly but the big 4 signed all the paperwork and everyone fell in-line.  All this stuff is a bit different, though related, to NATO which is a mutual defense treaty (which Russia would love to see weakened if not destroyed).  NATO was, I'm going to say unfortunately, used after 9/11 to put member troops into Afghanistan.  I think we're trying to find a way to get folks to pay for our wars (it's not like we didn't just pump another $50 billion into a military who didn't want or ask for it so we're not cash poor like we just made a cut because bills aren't getting paid).

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

This is also a common argument about the wars in NZ, no doubt Africa etc. THEY were savages, WE saved them.... but slaughtering and enslaving them and taking lands because WE are CIVILIZED. Sorry Geezer this view misses the point I was making by a country mile.

 

 

Oh the strongest army usually wins, sure. As far as explicitly referring to Indians as savages.... I think its more accurate to say humans can be pretty savage.

 

 

Again see my first response. I was referring to the massive worldwide colonial invasions in the last half millennium. Not just what happened to the American Indians, but the Inuit, India Indians, Africans etc. Reading all this history, then proclaiming THEY were savages is a bit rich IMO. This is what bothers me today. Sure some of the native practices were barbaric... but that does not excuse what happened.

 

 

 

The victors write history & the strongest survive & dominate the weak. That isn't PC but that is the way it has been since the beginning of time. The current PC movement is attempting to change that & they are having some moderate success. Only time will. tell how successful they will ultimately be.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Geezer said:

 

The victors write history & the strongest survive & dominate the weak. That isn't PC but that is the way it has been since the beginning of time. The current PC movement is attempting to change that & they are having some moderate success. Only time will. tell how successful they will ultimately be.

 

And then the PC crowd can rewrite history as they wish it to be perceived. The same cycle goes on forever.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

This is also a common argument about the wars in NZ, no doubt Africa etc. THEY were savages, WE saved them.... but slaughtering and enslaving them and taking lands because WE are CIVILIZED. Sorry Geezer this view misses the point I was making by a country mile.

 

 

Oh the strongest army usually wins, sure. As far as explicitly referring to Indians as savages.... I think its more accurate to say humans can be pretty savage.

 

 

Again see my first response. I was referring to the massive worldwide colonial invasions in the last half millennium. Not just what happened to the American Indians, but the Inuit, India Indians, Africans etc. Reading all this history, then proclaiming THEY were savages is a bit rich IMO. This is what bothers me today. Sure some of the native practices were barbaric... but that does not excuse what happened.

 

 

 

And if not for the United States and NATO it is a real possibility that your country would be under Chinese Domination now along with the rest of the countries and islands in the Pacific Rim. The world as it exists today, and as it has historically existed, requires superior military strength to prevent domination by other militarily strong counties. I understand the PC crowd doesn't like that, but that does't change the reality of the world we live in now or the historical realities of the past. 

 

"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"-Sir Winston Churchill

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lucy said:

 

And then the PC crowd can rewrite history as they wish it to be perceived. The same cycle goes on forever.

 

Yes!  The movement across the south to remove all the confederate statues is such a touchy area.  It is really bizarre to put up monuments to the losers in a war - nobody else does that! - but at the same time, is there an effort to remove all trace of that part of our history?  Is that wise?  After all, history will repeat itself . . . Now I know there are memorials to holocaust victims that help to remind everyone of the horrors of that war.  Maybe there needs to be memorials to the horrors of slavery put in place of the confederate statues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing that concerns me about the left is the seemingly blind acceptance/defense of Muslims despite the messed up stuff in that religion.  I know not every Muslim partakes in terrorism or female genital mutilation or the suppression of women, but any time someone dares to bring those issues up or criticize what the Koran may say about it or what Muhammed actually did (apparently marrying a 12-year-old?), that person is shot down as a racist without any answer to their criticism.  There's no, "Well, yes there are aspects of the religion that some adherents practice that are questionable, but you can't accuse every Muslim of doing those things".  I would accept that response as at least acknowledging that there are issues.  But all you get is "You're a racist!" and "Not all Muslims!"  and "Those aren't real Muslims!" or even "Those are cultural standards within certain areas, not from Islam!"  It is especially galling when feminists side with Muslims and defend what appears to the rest of the world to be suppression of women as somehow being Muslim feminism because the women choose to dress that way.  WTF!?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.