Print

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

Socialist

16 (32%)

Green

8 (16%)

Peace and Freedom

2 (4%)

Democratic

1 (2%)

Transhumanist

11 (22%)

Libertarian

8 (16%)

Republican

2 (4%)

Constitution

2 (4%)

Total Members Voted: 49

[SalmonGod]

As for tactical voting, my stance is still that when you have two shitty choices forced upon you, the only way not to legitimize the power being plainly exercised over you is to not choose.

Or to express what you really believe, so in my case it would have involved writing in Alexander or Lindsay.

Or that.  Just don't allow your choices to be constrained.  It's all a mind game.  It only works because we allow it.

I find that a lot of political tactics match up pretty well with parenting tricks.  The way elections operate is the same way I was able to smoothly discipline my children for years.  If one of my kids did something wrong and I bluntly stated what their punishment would be, they would act all violated and resist every time.  But I found that if I presented them with two punishment options and asked them to choose, they would calmly make their selection and carry out their sentence with hardly any fuss.  I'm both proud and frustrated to say that it only worked for a few years.  I'm wondering when it will stop working on America.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Can you explain why it is correct to call American Liberals "Liberals" and not Social Democrats when they are predominantly Social Democrats? The only "Liberal" thing about them seems to be their heritage, but that smells an awful lot like calling British Labour "Socialists" because they used to be Socialist decades ago.

I suppose it is possible to be a "socially conservative" Social Democrat i.e. you advocate the redistribution of wealth and the creation of an American NHS but you disagree with drug legalisation and equal marriage, so American Liberals are "socially liberal" Social Democrats in that sense.

Well, firstly, they aren't predominantly Social Democrats. The American Left you see on the internet might give you that impression, but that's because we've got the whole "young radicals" thing going for us. It's a very Big Tent situation. Same with the right. The theocrats don't really give a shit about what the robber barons want, they just have non-conflicting interests, so an alliance is logical.

Spoiler: Going off topic, but this was too amusing to delete. (click to show/hide)

I'll take your example of an American NHS. Certainly, there are some people who want that (but not many). There are also ones who just want the private insurance corporations to become public insurance corporations, ones who want them to only be partially regulated (these are the ones who like Obamacare), ones who want to let them be unregulated, and ones who think being poor is evil and should warrant being denied medical care (and something something free market, punishing poor people is the important part here).

So the Poor Killers and the Market Worshipers get together and try to force the issue because it gets them both what they want, while the Universals, Nationalizers, and Regulators try to work out something they can all agree on so the Poor Killer-Market Worshiper Alliance doesn't build up enough populist rage at poor people and government workers that they get their way. And that is how you create Obamacare.

It's not like Labour because we altered the definition of Liberal. What I describe is what virtually every American thinks of when the word Liberal is used. The fusion has existed for so long it isn't going to come apart for the foreseeable future. So, by definition, in American political discourse, when one talks about "them damn Liberals ruining the country", they are referring to what exists in a factual sense. Conversely, Labour just wants to use the language of socialism while getting the benefits of centrism. Your PoliSci definitions do not take predominance over those elsewhere in the world.

[Owlbread]

Perhaps the problem is that I'm trying to cut past all the big tent tosh that is driving the USA into the Two-Party mess it's in currently (just as we experienced back in the 1980s) and trying to identify where the American political groups actually lie on a spectrum that is relevant to the rest of the world, not just America.

Spoiler: I am going to save this though, I enjoyed it. (click to show/hide)

I'll take your example of an American NHS. Certainly, there are some people who want that (but not many). There are also ones who just want the private insurance corporations to become public insurance corporations, ones who want them to only be partially regulated (these are the ones who like Obamacare), ones who want to let them be unregulated, and ones who think being poor is evil and should warrant being denied medical care (and something something free market, punishing poor people is the important part here).

So the Poor Killers and the Market Worshipers get together and try to force the issue because it gets them both what they want, while the Universals, Nationalizers, and Regulators try to work out something they can all agree on so the Poor Killer-Market Worshiper Alliance doesn't build up enough populist rage at poor people and government workers that they get their way. And that is how you create Obamacare.

It's not like Labour because we altered the definition of Liberal. What I describe is what virtually every American thinks of when the word Liberal is used. The fusion has existed for so long it isn't going to come apart for the foreseeable future.

But... but it's wrong. It must be altered. Even if it is not in my lifetime I will continue to crusade against it, just as I crusade against those who say "I could give a damn" when they really mean "I couldn't give a damn".

[Angle]

Or that.  Just don't allow your choices to be constrained.  It's all a mind game.  It only works because we allow it.

Well, no, it works because a significant portion of the country goes along with it. I do agree that it's not a good thing, but you can't just afford to ignore it. Take 2000, for example. If all the people who'd voted for third parties or not voted at all had voted for Al Gore, we could have had an entirely different next eight years. Now we've moved so far to the right, Al Gore looks like a liberal wet dream. I do admit, it's not the only cause- if all the democrats who'd voted for bush had voted differently, it'd have had the same effect.

[WillowLuman]

I generally consider voter apathy to be a major part of the problem. When people decide not to vote, they disenfranchise themselves, and as that increases, more and more the only people who care enough to vote are the vocal minorities.

[Steeled]

A third party trying to win on a national level is almost pointless. It's far better to win local elections and gradually change the demographic. I know a lot of people that just vote democrat or republican just because of the little letter on the ballot. In my state the Greens and Libertarians have started to gain a small bit of traction.

[Eagle_eye]

Solid Liberal, unsurprisingly.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Generally affluent and highly educated, most Solid Liberals strongly support the social safety net and take very liberal positions on virtually all issues. Most say they always vote Democratic and are unflagging supporters of Barack Obama. Overall, Solid Liberals are very optimistic about the nation’s future and are the most likely to say that America’s success is linked to its ability to change, rather than its reliance on long-standing principles. On foreign policy, Solid Liberals overwhelmingly believe that good diplomacy – rather than military strength – is the best way to ensure peace.

Well, that's...half right? I support the Democrats, but that's because the Republican party is bordering on fascism, not because I particularly like the Democrats. I'm definitely not an unflagging supporter of Obama. In my opinion, he's basically a transplanted, less effective Eisenhower, definitely not anywhere on the left. And I'm sure as hell not optimistic.

[Angle]

A third party trying to win on a national level is almost pointless. It's far better to win local elections and gradually change the demographic. I know a lot of people that just vote democrat or republican just because of the little letter on the ballot. In my state the Greens and Libertarians have started to gain a small bit of traction.

See, now that's actually a good idea, and I agree with you. Even better, it's a coherent argument with which I can interact. Now if you'd only argue this coherently on the Occupy Wallstreet thread...

[MaximumZero]

I really, really wish we had some actual lefties here in the us.

[Owlbread]

I really, really wish we had some actual lefties here in the us.

You do, you can find many in the Green Party, Peace and Freedom Party, Socialist Party and Socialism and Liberation Party. There's also a lot of people who call themselves "Liberal" when they're almost Democratic Socialists, or at least Social Democrats.

A third party trying to win on a national level is almost pointless. It's far better to win local elections and gradually change the demographic. I know a lot of people that just vote democrat or republican just because of the little letter on the ballot. In my state the Greens and Libertarians have started to gain a small bit of traction.

This is how the SNP grew from a crack pot minor party to the party of Scottish government. It did take them roughly 70 years though.

[Remuthra]

This is how the SNP grew from a crack pot minor party to the party of Scottish government. It did take them roughly 70 years though.

And Scotland isn't nearly as two-party-centric as certain countries, either.

[alexandertnt]

Solid Liberal.

No suprise there, the questions were mostly "Are you a liberal or a conservative".

[SealyStar]

Next-Generation Left.

I dunno... I'm not sure that I don't care about a social safety net, it's more that I don't really think the government does very well at administering the current ones.

[Helgoland]

[...] when you have two shitty choices forced upon you, the only way not to legitimize the power being plainly exercised over you is to not choose.

Oh Salmon, you so lefty~

The real rift is between those who believe in Realpolitik and those who don't, isn't it?

[scrdest]

I really, really wish we had some actual lefties here in the us.

I don't. I still have flashbacks to Minecraft Forums Communists *shudder*.