Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[PTTG??]

You're saying that like the past 20 years have been a cakewalk. Are you Bolton's sock puppet or something?

[LordBaal]

Being a latino I think I already posted why personally I would probably be republican. I think in this thread. Most people fleeing or seeking for opportunities are fleeing from left goverments that are utterly crap and criminals, hence why any movement that is publicly anti-left is luring. Also most people are catholic and really conservative.

[PTTG??]

Seriously? The people who are building concentration camps? The people who oppose single-payer healthcare? The people who are running headlong into war with Iran? The people who deny that global warming is even happening?

You're going to side with them because you think politics is solely binary and that an impoverished police state is somehow similar to the governments of the wealthiest, freest states in the union?

[Madman198237]

You're saying that like the past 20 years have been a cakewalk. Are you Bolton's sock puppet or something?

Allow me to restate what I said: Iran is not a military threat to the US's military. We can achieve a clean ***conventional*** military victory over them almost as easily as we did on Iraq. That is not to say that war with Iran is a good thing, or that we'd come out looking all nice and clean, or that we'd do a decent job with the rebuilding this time.

And please, cool it. If you don't know what's being talked about, do the smart thing and don't inject a hostile comment. I am nobody's "sock puppet", but a guy with an interest in military technology and history, who made an effort to answer an earnest question with an earnest answer, with appropriate qualifications so that it can be understood that I am talking about only one facet of a hypothetical war in Iran that hopefully won't happen. If I should've underlined, bolded, italicized, and capitalized the part where I mentioned that I was talking only about the initial conventional warfare, well, sorry, I'll do it next time.

[Trekkin]

Seriously? The people who are building concentration camps? The people who oppose single-payer healthcare? The people who are running headlong into war with Iran? The people who deny that global warming is even happening?

You're going to side with them because you think politics is solely binary and that an impoverished police state is somehow similar to the governments of the wealthiest, freest states in the union?

Well, he seems serious to me -- and for what it's worth, I can understand why. The alternative is presently calling his religion a front for a cabal of pedophiles, his culture inherently evil and oppressive except where it's marketably quaint, and his politics so self-destructive they could only come about by evil people duping stupid people en masse. Do you see how that might not appeal?

Furthermore, if someone is used to government not working, the people whose central idea is that government can fix everything for everyone can easily come off as naive. Arguing on moral grounds doesn't help dispel the impression that progressives aren't practical, either.

To the degree that that's fixable, it is, I think, down to the radical progressives to frame their proposals in ways that localize the effects until they can be considered in kitchen-table terms. For example, "single-payer healthcare" is a great slogan, but nobody has agreed on what it means at the budgetary level. Nor is it enough to just lean on class warfare and say all the money is coming out of billionaires' hides.

It's kind of like how there's a lot more of a pipeline for young Republicans to get involved in politics in college and so forth because they actually get paid. If you're asking people to choose between "you get to save the world eventually" and "you get to eat lunch today", expect hungry people to disagree with you.

I know there's that canned compass-vs-navigation metaphor that gets parroted to excuse progressives from having to plan anything, but ultimately, budgets are persuasive. It'd be nice if the far left had some.

[nenjin]

Seriously? The people who are building concentration camps? The people who oppose single-payer healthcare? The people who are running headlong into war with Iran? The people who deny that global warming is even happening?

You're going to side with them because you think politics is solely binary and that an impoverished police state is somehow similar to the governments of the wealthiest, freest states in the union?

Not that I'm agreeing with the sentiment, but I get it. Concentration camps, global warming, and SP Healthcare literally don't matter to people whose economy has been ruined by far left policies, to the point they can't buy gas, get paid or have a functioning infrastructure. I'm not condemning the left, but when things have completely collapsed under a left government, people with fewer or no means are naturally going to gravitate toward the opposite side of the ideological spectrum.

And that's before you factor in the fact they're Catholic.

[SalmonGod]

Being a latino I think I already posted why personally I would probably be republican. I think in this thread. Most people fleeing or seeking for opportunities are fleeing from left goverments that are utterly crap and criminals, hence why any movement that is publicly anti-left is luring. Also most people are catholic and really conservative.

LordBaal, sincerely, any government run by corrupt criminals is going to be crap, whether it calls itself right or left.  And it's been official U.S. doctrine for a long time pushed mainly by the conservatives to ensure that all of South America is a violent impoverished hell hole that can be exploited for cheap resources and labor, and to propagandize that leftist governments are to blame.  I know it's hard to maintain a broader perspective when you're literally under the gun.  But.... I just don't know what else to say.  I sympathize for your current plight.  But if you did escape to the USA, Republicans would literally be cheering for violence against you for doing so.  Just as they cheer for oppression and violence against many other people I care about.  You would not find that just because an opposite label has greater power in another land that they are any more practical or kind.

[PTTG??]

Sorry. I'm at the end of my rope here. After twenty Christmases have passed with no wars being over, anything talking about how "easy" a war in the middle east is likely to be leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

And the sock puppet thing was being snide. I don't literally think you're John Bolton.

As for Nenjin and Trekkin, I don't have time to deal with your fox-news propoganda. I'm trying to stop a war. If you'd like to contribute to that, please do by going out and protesting in any way, shape or form, as soon as possible. We can all agree that we don't want another generations-long-war in the middle east, to gain nothing.

[SalmonGod]

Furthermore, if someone is used to government not working, the people whose central idea is that government can fix everything for everyone can easily come off as naive. Arguing on moral grounds doesn't help dispel the impression that progressives aren't practical, either.

The idea that the left believes central government can fix everything is itself a particularly insidious bit of propaganda.  Every movement associated with the left has its origins in opposing central government in principle and in immediate practice.  The image of the left as strongly associated with strong central government is I believe a product of the left's movements repeatedly losing steam, sputtering out, and dying in the process of being co-opted by authoritarians as legislative victories dull the sense of gravity and urgency, and conservatives take advantage of this to dishonestly propagandize a certain framing of what the left is about.

For what it's worth.  Radical leftist here.  And I do not believe strong central government can fix everything.  I'm a damn anarchist.  Organizations and tools of power and authority will always be a detriment to the left's goals in the long term.

[Trekkin]

Every movement associated with the left has its origins in opposing central government in principle and in immediate practice.

What is single-payer healthcare, then? What is gun control? What was the Green New Deal?

Look, I like all of these things, but they all work from the top down. If you're used to the top being corrupt, that doesn't inspire hope.

[smjjames]

You're saying that like the past 20 years have been a cakewalk. Are you Bolton's sock puppet or something?

Allow me to restate what I said: Iran is not a military threat to the US's military. We can achieve a clean ***conventional*** military victory over them almost as easily as we did on Iraq.

Perhaps, but at what cost? 'Able to' doesn't mean the same thing as 'willing to absorb the costs (whether that's monetary or in body count)'. It was definetly possible and an option to invade the Japanese mainland at the end of WWII, but it'd be at an immense cost.

Also, I think you're fooling yourself if you think it would be as easy as Iraq.

Sorry. I'm at the end of my rope here. After twenty Christmases have passed with no wars being over, anything talking about how "easy" a war in the middle east is likely to be leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

And the sock puppet thing was being snide. I don't literally think you're John Bolton.

As for Nenjin and Trekkin, I don't have time to deal with your fox-news propoganda. I'm trying to stop a war. If you'd like to contribute to that, please do by going out and protesting in any way, shape or form, as soon as possible. We can all agree that we don't want another generations-long-war in the middle east, to gain nothing.

How is what nenjin and trekkin are saying is fox-news propoganda?

Every movement associated with the left has its origins in opposing central government in principle and in immediate practice.

What is single-payer healthcare, then? What is gun control? What was the Green New Deal?

Look, I like all of these things, but they all work from the top down. If you're used to the top being corrupt, that doesn't inspire hope.

The Green New Deal was more of a starting point and theres some things that can only be effective or efficient when done from the top down. For gun control, how well is the patchwork of laws working out for us?

I get your point regarding where LordBaal is coming from in his experience.

[SalmonGod]

Every movement associated with the left has its origins in opposing central government in principle and in immediate practice.

What is single-payer healthcare, then? What is gun control? What was the Green New Deal?

Look, I like all of these things, but they all work from the top down. If you're used to the top being corrupt, that doesn't inspire hope.

Authoritarian structures have a need for legitimacy.  This is one weakness they have.  Whether this is understood by everyone fighting for these things or not doesn't matter.  The underlying dynamic will always be that the need for legitimacy is being leveraged to convince authoritarian structures to mitigate the damages they themselves are incentivized to inflict on the world by their very nature of being authoritarian structures.  And when those victories are won, those structures will forever have an incentive to afterwards undo them.

[Trekkin]

The Green New Deal was more of a starting point and theres some things that can only be effective or efficient when done from the top down. For gun control, how well is the patchwork of laws working out for us?

I get your point regarding where LordBaal is coming from in his experience.

Oh, it's working terribly. I agree that we need something more centralized. The thing is, I know that part of why I want that is that I'm used to dealing relatively amiably with the government. If I were wary -- if, for example, I were regularly discriminated against by the government, or from a more dysfunctional country -- I'd see the gaps between the Green New Deal's goal and my local government as a vast opportunity for people to muck it up. Same with gun control. From Washington it looks like commonsense legislation, but in local Republican hands it's an excuse to disarm black people en masse or something. That kind of thinking isn't wrong.

I'm not arguing that progressives' goals aren't good, or that their intentions aren't honest. I am one, I want those things, and I think they can be implemented well. I just think that convincing people is going to take more than appeals on moral grounds, because historically when governments have tried to make sweeping changes people have often gotten caught in the bureaucracy to their detriment. If we can show why that probably won't happen here, we'd do better politically.

[Gentlefish]

...Most leftists (self included) are also against gun control. How else are we supposed to defend ourselves against state-sanctioned violence, which is apparently the only good kind of violence?

Single payer healthcare is a different issue entirely. Why should there be a third-party dealing on behalf of the people if that's the whole point of government? At least government isn't for-profit (or shouldn't be). The fact we pay for healthcare at all is insane to think about as it's an inelastic, required-to-live thing.

The Green New Deal is... complicated. I agree with it, but socialism isn't "when the government does more things the more socialist it is". It's more Democracy in the workplace and the well-being of the workers over the profits of the shareholders.

Friendly reminder that liberals and progressives are actually still right-of-center ideologies.

[smjjames]

Friendly reminder that liberals and progressives are actually still right-of-center ideologies.

In the US, yeah, since the Cold War precluded the development of a true left of center ideology in the main party as a far left ideology (that just happened to be authoritarian and scary as authoritarians typically are) was our opponent. Other countries didn't have as hard a block on that.

Every movement associated with the left has its origins in opposing central government in principle and in immediate practice.

What is single-payer healthcare, then? What is gun control? What was the Green New Deal?

Look, I like all of these things, but they all work from the top down. If you're used to the top being corrupt, that doesn't inspire hope.

Authoritarian structures have a need for legitimacy.  This is one weakness they have.  Whether this is understood by everyone fighting for these things or not doesn't matter.  The underlying dynamic will always be that the need for legitimacy is being leveraged to convince authoritarian structures to mitigate the damages they themselves are incentivized to inflict on the world by their very nature of being authoritarian structures.  And when those victories are won, those structures will forever have an incentive to afterwards undo them.

Purely authoritarian structures that only benefit authoritarians and are inherently authoritarian will forever have an incentive to undo them, yes, but things that aren't inherently authoritarian and were used by authoritarians to further their own goals that got associated with them will lose that association over time. As we see with the development of a true left here in the US after the end of the Cold War.