USA Politics

Sheriff_of_Huddersfield said:
Right — so they’re moderates, then?

Good case study of Missouri, by the way. Thanks for the thoughtful post.
Click to expand...
I don't know if you can really throw a political affiliation label on it, in a sense. But, to me it's more psychological than necessarily political and a sign on how US politics (and perhaps for the world as well) has become more about tribalism. I've read multiple surveys (unfortunately I don't have any links handy) where - when presenting issues and solutions to voters - more (US) left-wing ideas were supported by the populace. Now, when the same solutions were proposed but labelled as "the Democratic solution", support dropped.

When put on the ballot in Missouri, voters wanted Democratic ideas, they just didn't want Democratic leaders.
 
Finally found a post from last year that I was looking for. Back then we also talked about the left "going too far" and I'd genuinely like to hear your input on this @Sheriff_of_Huddersfield. No gotchas, I'm not looking to fight or an argument. I'd like to hear your opinions on what I wrote back then, if you're interested.

Vaenyr said:
Also, can we be honest for one minute please? How exactly did the left "go too far"? What exactly does that mean?

Is asking for people to be treated the same way regardless of the colour of their skin too much? Is giving lesbian and gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples too far? Is it too much to treat the trans community with the same respect and dignity as everyone else and to respect their gender identity? Is it such a dealbreaker to take down statues of confederate generals, per definition traitors who rebelled against the United States, and to rather see them in museums than celebrated openly? Is it such a radical idea to want billionaires to pay their fair share in taxes, just like all other citizens already have to do? Is the desire for the police to not have unfettered power and the ability to essentially execute civilians without due process or any kind of meaningful consequences so unreasonable? Or is women having full bodily autonomy and keeping the government out of your bedroom a sign of the left going too far - despite this being popular across the political spectrum and many conservative women supporting that too.

How exactly has the left gone too far? Because it often feels like the people who are saying stuff like that bemoan than they can't be openly bigoted or racist without repercussions, as they could in the "good old days". Note, I'm not accusing anyone here of bigotry, but I'm genuinely asking how the left went too far, especially within the context that the US barely has a leftist movement to begin with and that not a single currently influential politician is a leftist.
Click to expand...
 
Perun said:
By and large, yes. I think what all of us (including myself) need to be more aware of the fact that "left" and "right" take different meanings almost everywhere. In former socialist countries, for example, anything that is moderate democratic is considered "right", whereas the term "left" is reserved for the remnants and successors of the authoritarian socialist dictatorship; however, this also leads to a general suspicion of anything that is labelled "left" in the west. This is why you and @Magnus have had such major run-ins. Given that he is a close personal friend of mine I can tell that you aren't as far apart politically as both of you think (and I don't even know who of you two will be more offended by me saying this!), it's just that you view things from irreconcilable pretexts. How can you find common ground if to the one side, "right" means Dachau and to the other, "left" means Gulag?
Click to expand...
You definitely have a point there.
So, anyone preaching any form of socialism to us is a lunatic. To put it mildly..
 
Last edited:
For what it's worth, coming from a post-Socialist/Eastern Bloc country, we do have quite normal "left" and "right", which quite well complement each other near the centre.

We have a lot of pro-social policies and a quite well done safety net, including various protections from discrimination and such (which is actually my daily bread and butter, as I am a labour law lawyer most of the time) and yet, thirty years later we still like to embrace the newly-found capitalism, embracing enterpreneurship, freedom to do whatever you can afford and such. I am an anti-capitalist, necessarily so through my worldview, but in moderate amounts, I can see the appeal, especially after 40 years of forced "socialism".

But we are sensitive towards the extremes - We do hate both communism and nazism, for obvious reasons (as we suffered from both, once under Germany, once under Russia) and we are very sensitive regarding leaving the center. Same goes for various mutations; most of us hate wokeness as well as US-style right-wing.

In general, US is a bit right-wing or most of us, economically, and a bit too woke, socially. But most people here (at least those I speak with) tend to differentiate between "liberal" in the philosophical / theological sense and "liberal" in the US political sense, "libertarian" and "conservative" and other such terms. I know that when I label myself as a "conservative", I have to stress it is not US-style "Conservative", for example.
 
Sheriff_of_Huddersfield said:
I can imagine anyone from a former Soviet Bloc or Warsaw Pact nation recoiling at the thought of anything associated with the former USSR’s ideology.
Click to expand...

Having the experience, yes, we tend to be rather irked by Western cafeteria armchair communists/tankies, who have no idea what they're talking about.

Gcxsu_XXMAAA0vM.jpg

Sheriff_of_Huddersfield said:
On the flip side, pure capitalism is brutal. The idea of something like anarcho-capitalism brings to mind post-apocalyptic warlord societies.
Click to expand...

Yeah, unless you are an anti-capitalist and anti-socialist, you can't be a friend of mine.

Like I said earlier

To paraphrase [Chesterton] for the final time (I put it together from memory, some of this he says only implicitly, but you get my drift):
Capitalism and Socialism are, in many regards, the same. They are both materialistic (meaning they know only tangible matter and deny the spiritual and the metaphysical) and both desire power, the difference is merely that under Socialism the state owns all corporations whereas under Capitalism corporations own all states. Both are inherently toxic and both should be avoided - or at least, whichever is winning at the moment, should be mitigated by the other.
If pressed and forced to choose, with a gun at my head, I would still probably pick Socialism, because there the care for the human being is at least proclaimed if never put into action. But we should love neither, because both are of this world and therefore both are fallen and deeply flawed.
Click to expand...
 
Sheriff_of_Huddersfield said:
I can imagine anyone from a former Soviet Bloc or Warsaw Pact nation recoiling at the thought of anything associated with the former USSR’s ideology.

On the flip side, pure capitalism is brutal. The idea of something like anarcho-capitalism brings to mind post-apocalyptic warlord societies.
Click to expand...
I agree with that. The U.S. healthcare system — and a few other things, to be honest — is just too much for me. It really is the Wild Wild West. Good old Europe feels much more balanced and calibrated.
 
Of course, in my country there are also left- and right-wing parties. But since it’s a small country, those definitions are more nominal — not nonexistent, but definitely less pronounced than in many other European nations. Also, our main left-wing party is literally descended from the old Communist Party. After Lithuania declared independence, the Communists simply rebranded themselves as Social Democrats. Sure, they’re pro-Lithuanian and pro-European now, but the roots are still rotten. And that definitely doesn’t help my relationship with 'the left'.
 
Yeah, I criticised Kamala, I'll criticise Trump for the same - this is just as stupid for a politican (and especially the President). I suppose it's kinda more on the "dumb and offensive" side than actual hostility (I don't think this is some kind of serious statement, just a stupid joke), but still, fuck AI, seriously, and fuck the Orange Man. Isn't he supposed to have a Catholic veep who recently lost his Pope? Other people, even atheists, tend to send condolences to their fellow Catholics, Trump does this instead.

1746355086128.png
 
Last edited:
JudasMyGuide said:
Yeah, I criticised Kamala, I'll criticise Trump for the same - this is just as stupid for a politican (and especially the President). I suppose it's kinda more on the "dumb and offensive" side than actual hostility (I don't think this is some kind of serious statement, just a stupid joke), but still, fuck AI, seriously, and fuck the Orange Man. Isn't he supposed to have a Catholic veep who recently lost his Pope? Other people, even atheists, tend to send condolences to their fellow Catholics, Trump does this instead.

View attachment 42031
Click to expand...
As usual, when Trump or the White House posts some stupid shit like this, the question should be "what kind of potentially unpopular policy are they trying to implement now?" as obviously Trump has no interest in being Pope - he's not even a Catholic. So the natural assumption is they want to distract from something else.
 
Considering the Catholic Church's reputation of covering up pedophilia within the own ranks and the numerous scandals, and Trump's ties to Epstein and the numerous allegations against him, this doesn't seem like the most flattering comparison lol
 
Trump: literally talks for decades about how he wants to have sex with his daughter

Trumpers: “hahahahahahha he’s so funny, what a funny joke, what a funny family man!”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top