|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 12 2014 09:19 Nyxisto wrote:
@Danglars
The simple point why nobody outside America gets this is because the tyrannical horror scenario you're painting isn't happening in reality. Neither government mandated healthcare nor net neutrality or gun control have turned every social democratic Western country into an oppressive dictatorship. Making the internet a fair playing field that is not dominated by companies like Comcast has nothing to do with "tyrannical overreach" in the style of Russia or whatever. Dare I say that the recent 2014 election was a reflection on American's realization that Obamacare was an unwelcome intrusion of government into their lives? I mean, if you refuse to acknowledge the argument that the method matters, then I really have no more to say on net neutrality.
The rest of this is straw manning at its best. The tactics have always been just a little bit more here and there for the last sixty or so years. The end is despotism, the end is the concentration of power in unaccountable bodies by ceding even more control to John Smith Bureaucrat (and hence my challenge to even try naming the five members "deliberating" at the FCC, and who appointed them). Yet get a leftist on the phone and he will argue in bad faith that every step doesn't involve that giant leap, therefore the step doesn't matter, and its proponents may be assumed to have the best of intentions and only feel shock at the style of the opposition. Simply stating goals like "fair playing field" is well and good for talking heads on television, but what matters is who decides what fair is and what means does he/she have at his/her disposal to ... you know ... make evil Comcast pay. Just as you preach, the first step is the demonization of the current players as "dominating" or all the rest of the evil corporation claptrap ... so people feel a lot better about punitive measures ... and think a lot less about the changes to existing regulation and implementation.
|
On November 12 2014 10:07 IgnE wrote:
The core question is whether there is or is not a core common infrastructure that is governed as a commons and therefore available to anyone who wishes to participate in free access to information, speech, and expression, outside of a market-based, proprietary framework. Commons are a resource for decentralized innovation, that maximizes experimentation, value, and freedom.
Carving up this digitals commons structure and licensing or privileging a small group of firms to "compete" over offering access to this commons destroys the integrity of the public good by turning access into a privilege rather than a right. You may end up reducing the extortionate payments being collected by Comcast slightly by forcing them to lease out parts of the network they currently dominate, but it's still an environment ripe for collusion on that front, as any oligopoly is. Just look at the history of telephone companies in the US. And why settle for a 10% reduced price when access and participation should be a right? Getting rid of network neutrality opens the door towards suppressing free technology and speech. Market-based solutions are fundamentally unequipped to handle the safeguarding of this commons.
As for saying that Comcast supports net neutrality, jonny, give me a break. It's nothing more than a convenient position they've flipped back and forth on to bolster public relations. The only thing they really said was that they were complying with what the FCC requires them to do (except they don't, and only until it stops forcing them to).
So, a few things come to mind.
Generally commons can be great, but commons can also be places that get shit on. So I'm not really persuaded by the 'it's a commons, therefore awesome' line of argument. I'm also a bit skeptical of the public utility argument. Not all public utilities are run well (Detroit's water utility is a mess) and they're generally reserved for pretty boring stuff like water utilities. I'm not sure the internet is boring enough for the government to handle. What counted as quality access in the 90's is shit today, so some degree of adaptability is necessary. Once top-tier government agencies (ex. Forestry Service) tend to fall to mediocrity over time, which is fine if it's boring, but could be a problem if a lot of innovation is necessary.
If we look to quasi-government utilities, like Amtrak or the Post Office, there are some real resource allocation issues there. Rural areas that Amtrak covers tend to get subsidized to the detriment of urban areas (which could hold true for internet access as well) and the Post Office has repeatedly been hamstrung by political interference.
Also... the NSA. I'm imagining that government run internet would be more cooperative, and I don't want to end up with China internet.
That said, there are some parts of the system that do seem utility-like. So something like a general analogy between pipes that carry water and pipes that carry internet access is pretty tempting to go with.
For now, I'll just have to drink more coffee and think about it 
|
On November 12 2014 10:31 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2014 08:50 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2014 14:27 IgnE wrote:On November 11 2014 13:50 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2014 11:27 Nyxisto wrote:
The government is not getting more regulative power over the internet. How is a law that tells every isp to treat all the information the same and not,for example, charge companies or end users for specific services, empowering the government? The government isn't even getting involved besides making a law. This isn't a law. I mean for fuck's sakes are you even aware of what's going on? It's Obama pressuring or directing an agency of the US government to reclassify the net in order to regulate it like a public utility. It is not our legislative body crafting a new law that declares all traffic the same. Pretending otherwise is either ignorant or deceptive. It is a public utility. It's a natural monopoly (network effects, obviously) that is for the public good. Even you Danglars believe in free speech and the power of self-education. Why would you want to restrict access to the internet to those who can pay for it the most? Don't you understand that Comcast is a rent-collector that need not exist? What's hard about these concepts? It's like you hear "federal agency" and start flipping out regardless of the raison d'etre. You make fun of liberals for parroting talking points all the time and here you are embracing this conservative media crafted narrative about the "free market" of the internet and shouts for "less government." It's inane and a transparent attempt by those who stand to gain to reframe the narrative in a completely incoherent fashion. Only the socialist mind prompts an opposition to amped-up agency regulation as wanting to restrict access to the internet. Consider the lawful ways to pass legislation affecting internet service providers that leave intact the people's representatives making decisions affecting them. I say it is you attempting to reframe the narrative, as if every universally good thing can be done in Congress, presidential executive order, federal agency or 4th branch, or the courts (I'm sure there's a sufficiently liberal lawyer that would love to bring a case of access to internet violating an individuals equal protection rights or somesuch). I apologize in advance, but not every perceived wrong deserves to resurrect laws made back in 1934 just because then we have a pretext of legal framework. Crawl back off your activist high horse, you who want to bring this to free speech and access to education. Stop using the word "activist." It doesn't mean anything. Aren't you the activist here? I don't want to resurrect a law made back in 1934. I want the government to take over and provide internet access to its citizens for free or at least very cheaply, like a public utility would. Perhaps if we had a functional democratic system we could pass more laws. As it is people are opting out of a corrupt, illegitimate system of oppression because even voting signals compliance and consent. Petitioning existing authorities to implement changes that are frameable within existing terms of discourse only legitimates existing institutions and structures. How to pass laws overhauling the internet when the only discourse is boiled down to: "are you happy with Comcast or would you rather be able to switch to Tsacmoc which also offers substantially similar internet access?" So I guess resurrecting laws made eighty years ago is ok ... so long as you wish you didn't have to.
Maybe your entire conflict is with the existing democratic system. You want to retreat behind "functional," but come on now ... the party out of power always feels like not enough of their agenda is getting accomplished. I see your fancy rhetoric (and that's why I will continue to use activist) ... this thing is not "functional," current system is "corrupt," nay, even "illegitimate." We've exhausted the democratic legislative methods because I don't like the results. Now we're left with unraveling the rule of law and all we have left is rebelling against passing laws by votes of representatives and resorting to powerful panels that happen to think like us. I'm not buying it. Go campaign on issues and win some elections, and whatever's the next big player after Obamacare will get passed. Until then, work to change existing laws or state openly your contempt for constitutional democratic methods to enact reforms. You aren't the first demagogue to change ideological opposition into a righteous war against corrupt, dysfunctional, illegitimate system of oppression.
|
On November 12 2014 11:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2014 10:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2014 09:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2014 08:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2014 08:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2014 08:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2014 08:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2014 08:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2014 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2014 07:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
EITC, Social Secuity, Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, federal courts...
Conservatives are not anarchists any more than liberals are communists. I forgot how hard conservatives fought to make Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid a reality... Just wow. I wasn't around in the 1930's, so I don't really remember what they did. Relevance to 2014? The thirties were where when conservatives were still arguing minimum wages were unconstitutional. But you probably don't remember that either or understand why that would matter today? The thirties were also when liberals were arguing that business cartels were great. FDR wanted businesses to form cartels so they could raise prices. Must mean they want to keep doing so today... Which would get more support from the base now? Abolishing minimum wage from conservatives, or business cartels from liberals? Both have fringe support. Who's the comparable 'fringe' member from liberals that supports business cartels like Senator Lamar Alexander (TN-R) does abolishing the minimum wage? + Show Spoiler +"There are some conservatives who do not believe in the concept of the minimum wage," Sanders said to the witness, James Sherk, a labor policy analyst at the think tank.
"Let me jump in," Alexander then said. "I do not believe in it."
The policy debate had been lively, with interruptions all around, and Sanders grew excited at Alexander's interjection.
"So we have a ranking member," Sanders responded. "Alright! There we go!"
Sanders turned to Alexander.
"So you do not believe in the concept of the minimum wage?"
"That's correct," Alexander responded.
"You would abolish the minimum wage?"
"Correct."
Source Though it also involves a lot of other liberal stuff, one of the core ideas behind 'Fair Trade Coffee' is to take the place of the coffee cartel that fell apart in the late 80's. The main goal is to support coffee prices to help coffee producers. We also still have a 'Raisin Reserve' left over from the New Deal era and it's not too uncommon for the general ideas behind cartels (reducing competition to make trade 'fair') to be popular with 'liberals'. The coffee 'cartel' good lord.... I thought you were talking about cartels that were intentionally harming or taking advantage of people who can't protect themselves... Not cartels designed to help less fortunate people...(whether they do it perfectly or not) You made it seem as if liberals support Cartel agreements like we saw in the tech industry recently (implemented to artificially drive wages down). Not all cartels are the same.
All cartels are the same in that they are anti-competitive forces designed to benefit a minority group at the expense of the broader public (consumers and excluded suppliers). For liberals that's often OK if the minority group is one of their favored groups, and not if the beneficiary isn't one.
Make no mistake here either, the benefit is to someone else's expense be it in coffee or tech. Yes, the 'intent' of 'Fair Trade Coffee' is to do good, but if you ask the people behind the tech industry hiring collusion they'll say they were trying to do good too.
Edit: I should also point out that in the clip you linked to on the min wage, Sen. Alexander also voiced preference for wage subsidies over min wages. So there's a context you didn't include.
|
On November 12 2014 11:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2014 11:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2014 10:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2014 09:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2014 08:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2014 08:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2014 08:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2014 08:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2014 08:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2014 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I forgot how hard conservatives fought to make Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid a reality... Just wow. I wasn't around in the 1930's, so I don't really remember what they did. Relevance to 2014? The thirties were where when conservatives were still arguing minimum wages were unconstitutional. But you probably don't remember that either or understand why that would matter today? The thirties were also when liberals were arguing that business cartels were great. FDR wanted businesses to form cartels so they could raise prices. Must mean they want to keep doing so today... Which would get more support from the base now? Abolishing minimum wage from conservatives, or business cartels from liberals? Both have fringe support. Who's the comparable 'fringe' member from liberals that supports business cartels like Senator Lamar Alexander (TN-R) does abolishing the minimum wage? + Show Spoiler +"There are some conservatives who do not believe in the concept of the minimum wage," Sanders said to the witness, James Sherk, a labor policy analyst at the think tank.
"Let me jump in," Alexander then said. "I do not believe in it."
The policy debate had been lively, with interruptions all around, and Sanders grew excited at Alexander's interjection.
"So we have a ranking member," Sanders responded. "Alright! There we go!"
Sanders turned to Alexander.
"So you do not believe in the concept of the minimum wage?"
"That's correct," Alexander responded.
"You would abolish the minimum wage?"
"Correct."
Source Though it also involves a lot of other liberal stuff, one of the core ideas behind 'Fair Trade Coffee' is to take the place of the coffee cartel that fell apart in the late 80's. The main goal is to support coffee prices to help coffee producers. We also still have a 'Raisin Reserve' left over from the New Deal era and it's not too uncommon for the general ideas behind cartels (reducing competition to make trade 'fair') to be popular with 'liberals'. The coffee 'cartel' good lord.... I thought you were talking about cartels that were intentionally harming or taking advantage of people who can't protect themselves... Not cartels designed to help less fortunate people...(whether they do it perfectly or not) You made it seem as if liberals support Cartel agreements like we saw in the tech industry recently (implemented to artificially drive wages down). Not all cartels are the same. All cartels are the same in that they are anti-competitive forces designed to benefit a minority group at the expense of the broader public (consumers and excluded suppliers). For liberals that's often OK if the minority group is one of their favored groups, and not if the beneficiary isn't one. Make no mistake here either, the benefit is to someone else's expense be it in coffee or tech. Yes, the 'intent' of 'Fair Trade Coffee' is to do good, but if you ask the people behind the tech industry hiring collusion they'll say they were trying to do good too.
No they wouldn't/didn't.
Yeah cartels are like just about everything else, they can be used for good intentions/outcomes or bad intentions/outcomes.
With this logic we could say Conservatives support violence. Because you know war is violence and violence always harms people.
|
On November 12 2014 11:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2014 10:31 IgnE wrote:On November 12 2014 08:50 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2014 14:27 IgnE wrote:On November 11 2014 13:50 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2014 11:27 Nyxisto wrote:
The government is not getting more regulative power over the internet. How is a law that tells every isp to treat all the information the same and not,for example, charge companies or end users for specific services, empowering the government? The government isn't even getting involved besides making a law. This isn't a law. I mean for fuck's sakes are you even aware of what's going on? It's Obama pressuring or directing an agency of the US government to reclassify the net in order to regulate it like a public utility. It is not our legislative body crafting a new law that declares all traffic the same. Pretending otherwise is either ignorant or deceptive. It is a public utility. It's a natural monopoly (network effects, obviously) that is for the public good. Even you Danglars believe in free speech and the power of self-education. Why would you want to restrict access to the internet to those who can pay for it the most? Don't you understand that Comcast is a rent-collector that need not exist? What's hard about these concepts? It's like you hear "federal agency" and start flipping out regardless of the raison d'etre. You make fun of liberals for parroting talking points all the time and here you are embracing this conservative media crafted narrative about the "free market" of the internet and shouts for "less government." It's inane and a transparent attempt by those who stand to gain to reframe the narrative in a completely incoherent fashion. Only the socialist mind prompts an opposition to amped-up agency regulation as wanting to restrict access to the internet. Consider the lawful ways to pass legislation affecting internet service providers that leave intact the people's representatives making decisions affecting them. I say it is you attempting to reframe the narrative, as if every universally good thing can be done in Congress, presidential executive order, federal agency or 4th branch, or the courts (I'm sure there's a sufficiently liberal lawyer that would love to bring a case of access to internet violating an individuals equal protection rights or somesuch). I apologize in advance, but not every perceived wrong deserves to resurrect laws made back in 1934 just because then we have a pretext of legal framework. Crawl back off your activist high horse, you who want to bring this to free speech and access to education. Stop using the word "activist." It doesn't mean anything. Aren't you the activist here? I don't want to resurrect a law made back in 1934. I want the government to take over and provide internet access to its citizens for free or at least very cheaply, like a public utility would. Perhaps if we had a functional democratic system we could pass more laws. As it is people are opting out of a corrupt, illegitimate system of oppression because even voting signals compliance and consent. Petitioning existing authorities to implement changes that are frameable within existing terms of discourse only legitimates existing institutions and structures. How to pass laws overhauling the internet when the only discourse is boiled down to: "are you happy with Comcast or would you rather be able to switch to Tsacmoc which also offers substantially similar internet access?" So I guess resurrecting laws made eighty years ago is ok ... so long as you wish you didn't have to. Maybe your entire conflict is with the existing democratic system. You want to retreat behind "functional," but come on now ... the party out of power always feels like not enough of their agenda is getting accomplished. I see your fancy rhetoric (and that's why I will continue to use activist) ... this thing is not "functional," current system is "corrupt," nay, even "illegitimate." We've exhausted the democratic legislative methods because I don't like the results. Now we're left with unraveling the rule of law and all we have left is rebelling against passing laws by votes of representatives and resorting to powerful panels that happen to think like us. I'm not buying it. Go campaign on issues and win some elections, and whatever's the next big player after Obamacare will get passed. Until then, work to change existing laws or state openly your contempt for constitutional democratic methods to enact reforms. You aren't the first demagogue to change ideological opposition into a righteous war against corrupt, dysfunctional, illegitimate system of oppression.
Please. Ensuring that the internet doesn't end up a corporate fiefdom is taking action against tyranny. It's a free speech right, to be ensured by the federal government. The FCC is staffed by people born and bred in the the telecomms industry anyway. If it were totally up to them they would already have handed the keys over to Comcast.
Your final quip is confusing. This isn't about ideological opposition if I understand you correctly. You take issue with the way Obama is doing it, not with what he is doing. Because of course you are for free speech and education, you just hate the FCC.
|
On November 12 2014 11:21 Danglars wrote:
Dare I say that the recent 2014 election was a reflection on American's realization that Obamacare was an unwelcome intrusion of government into their lives? I mean, if you refuse to acknowledge the argument that the method matters, then I really have no more to say on net neutrality.
Are you seriously arguing that the GOP won because of Obamacare? Did they even have the absolute majority of votes? The Republicans will always have an easier time during the midterm elections because of the plurality voting system and the lower voting turnout.
|
[QUOTE]On November 12 2014 11:21 Danglars wrote:
[QUOTE]On November 12 2014 09:19 Nyxisto wrote:
@Danglars
The simple point why nobody outside America gets this is because the tyrannical horror scenario you're painting isn't happening in reality. Neither government mandated healthcare nor net neutrality or gun control have turned every social democratic Western country into an oppressive dictatorship. Making the internet a fair playing field that is not dominated by companies like Comcast has nothing to do with "tyrannical overreach" in the style of Russia or whatever.[/QUOTE]Dare I say that the recent 2014 election was a reflection on American's realization that Obamacare was an unwelcome intrusion of government into their lives? I mean, if you refuse to acknowledge the argument that the method matters, then I really have no more to say on net neutrality.
It would be daring. When only a third of the electorate votes, the lowest turn out in 72 years, it's hard to to say the results were a reflection of anything except who is the angriest.
[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/opinion/the-worst-voter-turnout-in-72-years.html]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/opinion/the-worst-voter-turnout-in-72-years.html[/url]
|
On November 12 2014 11:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2014 09:19 Nyxisto wrote:
@Danglars
The simple point why nobody outside America gets this is because the tyrannical horror scenario you're painting isn't happening in reality. Neither government mandated healthcare nor net neutrality or gun control have turned every social democratic Western country into an oppressive dictatorship. Making the internet a fair playing field that is not dominated by companies like Comcast has nothing to do with "tyrannical overreach" in the style of Russia or whatever. Dare I say that the recent 2014 election was a reflection on American's realization that Obamacare was an unwelcome intrusion of government into their lives? I mean, if you refuse to acknowledge the argument that the method matters, then I really have no more to say on net neutrality.
It would be daring. When only a third of the electorate votes, the lowest turn out in 72 years, it's hard to to say the results were a reflection of anything except who is the angriest.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/opinion/the-worst-voter-turnout-in-72-years.html
|
Easiest ways to increase turnout is pay people for it or fine them if they don't. You can do it without that but it is much harder.
|
Quick question about EU and USA.
Is the political spectrum basically the same between the two.
Do democrats in EU say they are the left, and Republicans say they are the Right.
Or is it reversed?
I know they are just arbitrary and don't really mean anything, but i heard both so it gets confusing.
|
We don't have Democrats and Republicans.... Well, Party names are "null and void" anyway, but in General countries don't have just 2 big ass parties.
Switzerland has 5 ruling parties and a total of 11 in parliament, even an independant in the "small chamber".
Germany has 3 ruling parties and 5 in parliament.
I don't know if a "two Party" system like you have in the US does actually exist anywhere in europe... We got our extremists too, but they are not mixed with the moderates in the same Party (usually!).
|
On November 12 2014 19:19 Amnesty wrote:
Quick question about EU and USA.
Is the political spectrum basically the same between the two.
Do democrats in EU say they are the left, and Republicans say they are the Right.
Or is it reversed?
I know they are just arbitrary and don't really mean anything, but i heard both so it gets confusing.
1. There are no 'Democrats' or 'Republicans' elsewhere in the world. These are the names of the two biggest parties in the US, every country has its own parties with different names of course.
2. Also, there is no real EU nation. Every country sends some representatives from their parties into the EU parliament. So even for example a 'conservative block' in the EU is made up of various conservative parties from a lot of different countries all with their own names and own definition of 'conservatism'.
3. Political spectrum are very different from country to country. What counts as 'far right' in one might be called 'mainstream' in another. Also, there is a huge divide between social and economical policies and their labeling as 'left' or 'right'. The whole frame of reference is different from country to country.
4. The 'Two Party System' is not the norm in Europe. (Even the English suddenly learned how to form coalitions!  ) There are generally many more parties per country than just Rep/Dem.
So yes, you can find countries where 'liberal' means right wing or 'conservative' means actively fighting against climate change for example.
|
to add to the above:
UK has two main parties, with one idiosyncratic and one far-rightist.
France has two main parties, with one far-rightist.
In both countries, the center-right now does a lot of pandering to far-right voters to keep them on board and not defecting, but this does irritate the political center.
Also in answer to your question, the spectrum isn't really "the same." Right and left are pretty universal terms, but they are relative and take local issues into account. The center-right UK party is very supportive of the UK's socialized medicine, for instance, and legalizing guns would be out of the question. At the same time, the anti-immigrant rhetoric (mind you, anti-LEGAL immigrant) that you get in the UK would be unheard of in the US.
As a final note, the term "liberal" means all sorts of things depending on who you ask. In France, it generally refers to what we would call free-market capitalism. When Hollande said "I have not been converted to Liberalism", he meant he had no intention of deregulating the economy and that kind of thing. In the US, Liberal is an awkward term, since we usually use it to mean "Left," but occasionally say "Classical Liberal" to mean the kind of thing the French mean.
|
I think the length of the question and the nuance in the responses show why it's a 2 party system in America.
I had an image of Yoav and Nibbler going to a rural republican town hall in Kentucky or Montana and explaining the differences in the use/meaning of the word liberal.
|
On November 12 2014 20:25 Yoav wrote:
to add to the above:
UK has two main parties, with one idiosyncratic and one far-rightist.
France has two main parties, with one far-rightist.
In both countries, the center-right now does a lot of pandering to far-right voters to keep them on board and not defecting, but this does irritate the political center.
Also in answer to your question, the spectrum isn't really "the same." Right and left are pretty universal terms, but they are relative and take local issues into account. The center-right UK party is very supportive of the UK's socialized medicine, for instance, and legalizing guns would be out of the question. At the same time, the anti-immigrant rhetoric (mind you, anti-LEGAL immigrant) that you get in the UK would be unheard of in the US.
As a final note, the term "liberal" means all sorts of things depending on who you ask. In France, it generally refers to what we would call free-market capitalism. When Hollande said "I have not been converted to Liberalism", he meant he had no intention of deregulating the economy and that kind of thing. In the US, Liberal is an awkward term, since we usually use it to mean "Left," but occasionally say "Classical Liberal" to mean the kind of thing the French mean.
I agree with pretty much everything but the bold part. It's not just France, it's more like everywhere else but in the US the classic meaning of liberal stayed the same.
|
On November 12 2014 19:19 Amnesty wrote:
Quick question about EU and USA.
Is the political spectrum basically the same between the two.
Do democrats in EU say they are the left, and Republicans say they are the Right.
Or is it reversed?
I know they are just arbitrary and don't really mean anything, but i heard both so it gets confusing.
The political spectrum is somewhat different in Europe. The right part of the spectrum is associated with nationalism, depending on the country either protectionism and socialism (like the FN) or free market stuff (Ukip or AfD). Also pretty much all of them are extremely anti-immigration to the point of racism, which probably distinguishes them from the American right.
Liberalism here basically is some mix of conservative and libertarian values, and American liberalism would probably be what's called "social democracy". Also obviously more radical left-wing/communist parties don't really seem to exist in the US.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
being pro market and antiiimmigration is just so dumb and bad
|
yeah I don't get it either. I guess the tactic is just to try to appeal to the rich guys with the free market policies and the lower and lower middle classes with the anti-immigration policies. These parties are after all extremely populist, they just try to win over voters and it doesn't really matter whether what they say makes a lot of sense or not.
|
On November 13 2014 01:21 oneofthem wrote:
being pro market and antiiimmigration is just so dumb and bad
Its like the deal the Republicans have with their religious and libertarian followers.
It makes no sense, but it gets you votes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
