Print

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

[Tsarwash]

Firstly I'll tell you why i'm starting this. I'm getting annoyed with the current threads that descend into possible insults, or accusations of insults, offence taken and subsequent demands of apologies from people. Then the OP swiftly decides to lock the thread, and other people who are having a different debate cannot continue it. Which is actually pretty frustrating.
You're not going to offend me, and I'm NOT going to lock this thread. No Trolls. If you come in and make a controversial point, I might expect you to be able to justify it and/or back it up with something more substantial than, ' I just think it's how it should be.' If you get easily offended with people challenging your opinions of beliefs than this thread might not be for you. Insults and trolls will be reported, and hopefully posts deleted.

Most people who post here are British or American, I'm assuming. So discussing politics on either side of the pond is ok, as well as global issues.
Kicking off. How did politics in America get soooo messed up ? It seems as though you are allowed to make up complete bullsh*t about your opponent or other things, and then refuse to be drawn further. Or when the truth is presented back, you can just say, well I beleive it anyway ?  I'm not picking one side out particulary, but some instances have come to my attention. A certain candidate claimed that two towns in America had, under Obama, legally been practicing Islamic Sharia law. Which is just total rubbish, basically. If you make accusations, then you should be forced to be prepared to back them up with FACT.

And about the Rand Paul college accusations / allegations. Why do people need to revert back to highly disputed college antics, when it's far far easier to challenge him on real, actual opinions and issues that would affect thousands of American citizens if they became law. Take his stance on abortion for instance. He's against it, full stop. A fair enough opinion at simple glance, but actually he is against it EVEN in the case of rape or incest. Or both. So if your lovely daddy rapes you for months and you become pregnant with his baby, this fellow would force you to carry and deliver a foetus that was forced upon you and has a likelyhood of having birth defects due to a lack of genetic diversity. That's a pretty repugnant viewpoint to have, so why is the system geared up for pointless attacks based on college antics. Talk about the ISSUES man.

In the UK we have large voter apathy which allows situations such as the current one, and of course personal smears happen all the time. But thankfully we have not (yet) reached the position where citizens vote for a face, or against an unfounded rumour.

Anyway, Really good news about the rejection of proposition 23 in California, basically trying to overturn previous enviromental promises and stuff. That was such a backward thinking proposal. We don't have time to wait for the world to be perfect before starting to clean up our backyards of the mess we have made. It's never going to happen otherwise. We need to start looking at the mess and possible solutions NOW, not in ten years time.

[Nikov]

Most people who post here are British or American, I'm assuming. So discussing politics on either side of the pond is ok, as well as global issues.
Kicking off. How did politics in America get soooo messed up?

I would like to invite Daniel Hannan to explain the differences between American and British politics.

I agree, negative allegations are pretty well overrunning politics. The Democratic theme of the last election was to paint everyone as an extremist or a nut, and while they succeeded in defeating a few high-profile conservatives with silly notions like witchcraft and secret foreign money, the vast bulk wasn't swayed by it. You have to recognize that negative ads backfired on many canidates. Alan Grayson ran ads taking his opponent's words grossly out of context. Grayson is now cleaning out the desk. What's more, this opponent wasn't even running on a socially conservative platform. Abortion rights are seriously not part of the political climate right now.

[Leafsnail]

I would like to invite Daniel Hannan to explain the differences between American and British politics.

Oh... the guy who was called "eccentric" by his own party leader?

[KaelGotDwarves]

The Democratic theme of the last election was to paint everyone as an extremist or a nut, and while they succeeded in defeating a few high-profile conservatives with silly notions like witchcraft and secret foreign money

Meanwhile the Republican theme was to paint everyone to the left of them, even other republicans: as socialist, communist sympathizers, big government, muslim terrorists to make the populace forget that it was mainly the conservatives that got us into this financial meltdown and it worked.

If it weren't for the fact that Reid defeated the utterly insane Angle and Meg Whitman lost after spending $146+ million, I'd believe we're living in idiocracy right now.

[Muz]

Eh, politics works even when it's wrong. I've lived in countries with legal/illegal prostitution/pornography/abortions, with/without sharia law, with/without minimum wages, some with high corruption, some with very low corruption, some with free education, some with uber-expensive education.

In the end, it doesn't really matter that much. People tend not to enforce stupid laws. Got a good reason to abort your child? Someone will likely do it whether or not it's illegal, the govt just determines the price/supply of abortion doctors. Absurd to have to pay a $200000 fine for drunk driving? Police will let you slip with a $2000 bribe or none at all.

What I do know is that I like socialism a lot more, rather than this American individualism. I don't like communism, I like socialism. I don't like tyranny, I don't have anything against capitalism, I like socialism.

That about sums up my political beliefs.

[Nikov]

Leafsnail, do you realize you just made a negative personal attack while we were talking about how silly negative personal attacks are? Do you have anything significant to note about his views or do you just seek to discredit him?

Muz, why do you like socialism?

[Leafsnail]

Leafsnail, do you realize you just made a negative personal attack while we were talking about how silly negative personal attacks are? Do you have anything significant to note about his views or do you just seek to discredit him?

I'm not.  I'm just saying he probably isn't particularly representative of politics in Britain.

There are a lot of significant things to note about his views too, but I can't be bothered right now.

[Nikov]

And while I respect he may not be your average European politician, he was referenced as a qualified observer to the differences between the systems. His views, save those relating to American politics, are not particularly in question.

[Leafsnail]

His views, save those relating to American politics, are not particularly in question.

Uh... what exactly do you mean by this?

[Nikov]

I agree with you that social conservative issues are dead on a federal level, although I embrace states and counties legalizing and illegalizing whatever the voters believe is in their state's best interests. Hell, pot legalization in California would be fantastic. People could just move to California and smoke pot. Meanwhile we can legalize crystal meth in Michigan, and all the junkies will congregate in Detroit. Then I can live in drug-free Conserville and both of us are happier. Horray constitutional limits on federal power.

[Tsarwash]

I agree with you that social conservative issues are dead on a federal level, although I embrace states and counties legalizing and illegalizing whatever the voters believe is in their state's best interests. Hell, pot legalization in California would be fantastic. People could just move to California and smoke pot. Meanwhile we can legalize crystal meth in Michigan, and all the junkies will congregate in Detroit. Then I can live in drug-free Conserville and both of us are happier. Horray constitutional limits on federal power.

That's not realistic. You really cannot lump illegal drugs together, in terms of user base or general behaviour. dope smokers and smackheads (heroin) have got very little in common apart from the fact that their poison of choice happens to be outlawed at this point in time.

While people of similar tastes and such will tend to congregate together, this doesn't tend to happen on a larger scale unless they are actively pushed away from where they are, and also have the inclination and means to go elsewhere. I have no experience of meth users, but from my experience of smackheads and other such users, they don't have the motivation to leave their immediate surroundings unless they have to.

I think that it is a fair enough viewpoint to allow drug users their choice but not want them around you. I live in a city and see heroin addicts most days, and while I have nothing against them, I would like the buggers to stop robbing everyone else. But if your flat has just been ripped off, you don't instantly start suspecting 'E' users. Other people taking that drug does not affect me in any way.

[madk]

Politicians for the most part are greedy idiots who seem unable to understand the concept that (at least here in the US) we expect them to do their jobs, which is to do what we elected them to do.

Parties are idiotic; they prevent anyone from looking at things objectively. My views?

Gays are people too. Don't give them special treatment but don't discriminate, either. Redefine marriage as a bond between two people. Problem solved.
Abortion is killing poor innocent babies. Up research for birth control and make abortion illegal unless the baby has a mental birth defect found before it's born, or if the mother's life is at risk by continuing to carry or bear the child, in which cases the mother is given a choice. If the mom doesn't want the baby just put it up for adoption once it's born.
Capitalist economy has been shown in the past to heal most quickly when the government does not interfere. Stop channeling money where it's not completely and utterly necessary.
Raise the voting IQ limit to 120 and lower the age limit to 14. I can honestly say that I've met more grown idiots than young idiots and that general education would be a lot stronger with these adjustments.
Shut up about political correctness and hurting people's feelings. Everyone is not created equal - I'd hardly call the kid at my school who can't go around without a wheelchair and one of my teacher's two autistic kids equal to the average person. They should, however, have the same opportunities. And employers should be able to discriminate in whichever way they like because it's their own business and personally owned things.
Voluntarily killing two or more people in two separate incidents is death penalty unless the circumstance was bizarre, which would be decided by the jury. Anything more wins a death sentence. If you steal you're fined 200% the amount you stole and similar penalties would be exacted that better fit crimes than the simple system of death > jail > fines > probation/etc. that we have today.
No discrimination means none on the grounds of religion. Every religion gets the same tax breaks and all that fun stuff so long as they meet requirements.

[Nikov]

I'm not sure what you're talking about, Tsarwash. I never lumped illegal drugs together beyond being illegal. Furthermore I doubt you've heard of the huge boom in tourism during the Prohibition to Cuba and other nearby countries with alcohol still legal. Given the mobility of American society I can't see an argument against people who want to use pot and not be arrested moving to a state where its legal. Perhaps you thought something was implied.

But on a more important note, social issues should be decided on a state level. What's acceptable in California may not be acceptable in Iowa, and vice versa. Just as Iowa has no place putting its moral views on California, so does California have no place doing likewise. I would think we can all agree on that.

Madk, I see no reason why only above-average people should be allowed to vote. Doesn't that simply create a ruling class with more opportunities than others? Isn't that exactly what you're against? Furthermore, how can a 14 year old 'genius' who is dependant on his parents and only starting his freshman year in high school possibly more qualified to vote than an 80 year old man of average intelligence who fought in the Korean War, watched the lasthalf century unfold through adult eyes, and made his peacetime living teaching high schoolers?

I'm afraid it doesn't add up.

[Tsarwash]

I'm not sure what you're talking about, Tsarwash. I never lumped illegal drugs together beyond being illegal. Furthermore I doubt you've heard of the huge boom in tourism during the Prohibition to Cuba and other nearby countries with alcohol still legal. Given the mobility of American society I can't see an argument against people who want to use pot and not be arrested moving to a state where its legal. Perhaps you thought something was implied.

I don't see why somebody who was born on the east coast of America, and grew up on the east coast, should have to move to the west coast to continue doing something that they enjoy doing, if that something does not affect the other citizens of the east coast.

[Earthquake Damage]

...

I'm too dumbfounded to give a proper response, so I'll just leave this here.  It's loosely related as an analogue of sorts.