|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 06 2018 22:03 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Rest assured that if/when this investigation doesn't immediately turn up results showing evil immigrants it will quietly vanish into the night after grifting wasting money a la the voter fraud investigators, but will later be cited as evidence we need to do something about evil immigrants.
One of the only times we benefit from this adminsitration's abject incompetence is when they bite off more than they can chew as a result of their utter lack of understanding of how data analysis works, provided the bite doesn't fuck up people's lives instantly like the zero-tolerance policy.
And for some reason, it's going to be non-white naturalized citizens who need to have their records scrutinized... and it's going to be for the pettiest shit like overdue book fees or traffic tickets.
|
On July 06 2018 23:44 Plansix wrote:
Plead guilty to following Nina Totenberg and Carrie Johnson on twitter and sometimes reading the articles they direct me too.
See! Admission! Admission! The stockades are too good for Plansix!
|
Fourth Ohio State wrestler says Rep. Jim Jordan knew of team doctor's abuse
A fourth former wrestler has come forward to contradict U.S. Representative Jim Jordan's claims that he had no knowledge of athletes being sexually abused by a team doctor while Jordan was an assistant coach at Ohio State in the mid-1990s.
Shawn Dailey told NBC News he was groped several times by Richard Strauss — and Jordan was present with other wrestlers in the team locker room when they discussed Strauss' actions.
"It was very common knowledge in the locker room that if you went to Dr. Strauss for anything, you would have to pull your pants down.” Dailey, 43, said.
Three other former Ohio State wrestlers have claimed Strauss's groping of student athletes was widely known at the university. "Doc Strauss was a serial groper," Mike DiSabato told USA TODAY. "Everyone knew, including Jim."
In April, Ohio State announced it was opening an investigation into alleged sexual misconduct by Strauss.
Jordan worked as an assistant wrestling coach at Ohio State from 1987 until 1995 before going into politics. He was elected to the House in 2006.
He has denied any knowledge of the alleged abuse, telling reporters at a Fourth of July rally the allegations are "just not accurate."
"Never heard of abuse, and if we had, we'd have reported it. The things (DiSabato) said about me were just flat out not true," Jordan said.
Meanwhile, President Trump has thrown his support behind the Ohio Republican.
"I don’t believe them at all. I believe him. Jim Jordan is one of the most outstanding people I’ve met since I’ve been in Washington. I believe him 100 percent," Trump said Thursday, according to the Washington Post.
Strauss, who served as the Ohio State wrestling team's doctor from the mid-1970s to the late 1990s, died in 2005.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2018/07/05/fourth-wrestler-claims-rep-jim-jordan-knew-abuse-ohio-state/761604002/
Rep Jim Jordan (one of the big guys in the Tea Party) is in some trouble over allegations that he helped cover up (or at least turned a blind eye) to sexual assault while he was a coach at OSU. More and more folks are coming out and claiming he knew what was happening. I don't imagine many tears will be shed in Washington if he goes down.
|
Gotta use non-citizens to do the grunt work - it’s good for business, after all. It’s capitalism at work.
|
On July 06 2018 16:00 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 15:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2018 15:29 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 15:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2018 15:01 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 14:43 NewSunshine wrote:On July 06 2018 14:21 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 14:11 NewSunshine wrote:On July 06 2018 13:36 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 13:12 micronesia wrote:
Garland isn’t a choice? Just an other? It's a very troll maneuver by Schumer, so it is my decision to be an 'other.' Conservatives are very recognizant of all the liberals (media and politicians) that basically asserted a Garland justice instead of a Gorsuch justice would've kept public unions intact (and free speech suppressed), forced advertisement of abortion services in crisis pregnancy centers, and judicial interference in Presidential powers over immigration. Trump's advisers know how important Supreme Court picks are to the ongoing culture wars with respect to legislating from the bench and overturning civil rights. The Senate Republicans have thus far made no overtures to Garland as a serious prospect. It's basically a pipe dream of Schumer, and he's trolled us all. Ah yes, the horrible act of making a service provider actually provide details as to the services they provide, and what they don't. Not to mention the rather revealing usage of "civil rights". But hey, we've had this dance before. Yep. I can imagine the roles reversed, where a culturally dominant pro-life movement made Planned Parenthood post "YOU DON'T HAVE TO KILL YOUR CHILD. THERE IS A SUBSIDIZED SAFE LABOR & DELIVERY CLINIC AROUND THE CORNER" 48pt font, plus every billboard advertising their services. Hell, throw in a "This abortion clinic does not pass standards for medical facilities" for good measure. It's just that the left finds itself in a rather culturally dominant position on the issue (in some states) and wants to compel policies. It's both short-sighted and overconfident. It also misdiagnoses why Trump won. If I was to say one big thing of our disagreements, it's that we really diverge on the very basic stuff on rights and generalizations. If your point is that we diverge on whether it's right that someone should have to say what's in the food they make, then you're right. I don't think places like CPC's should be able to deceive women into taking a harmful course of action for their lives, and I think they should be transparent about what they do and don't offer. That's just basic stuff that applies to nearly every other industry. The consumer should be at least somewhat informed. I don't think saying "but my civil rights" gives you carte blanche to prey on people who are already desperate. And if you think our difference of opinion constitutes a shortcoming on my part, just go ahead and say it. It'd be refreshingly forthcoming of you. Yes we do disagree on the basics. A can of soup's nutrition info is not equivalent to forcing you to advertise for the restaurant next door. You're perfectly able to embark on a campaign to inform people that these dangerous crisis pregnancy centers won't perform abortions for you. Have at it! You just can't force the nonprofits to be unwilling participants in your side of the debate. Well, apparently some people think you can force them ... but slavery is kind of having a second revival for certain groups. It's just basic stuff, as you say. And people count on pretend moderates like Garland to vote with them, kinda proving that moderates are nothing but a political play. It's not often I you impress me with how unbelievably awful your opinion is, but this one honestly impresses me in both boldness and absurdity. This is the most trash thing I've seen you say in a while and that's saying something. Just the extent to which certain justices and some posters think you can force people to act against their conscience does rise to the point of Americans being subjects or slaves and not citizens. I'm not talking about enslaving entire races, of course. Just that certain groups that have fallen out of favor are more routinely denied their civil rights for having opinions outside of certain culturally-enforced boundaries, or acting on one side of a political issue that you oppose. The word does have meaning besides literally the property of another, you know. It's a categorically stupid thing to say even in the context you're attempting to limit it to. Not just because of the word "slavery" though admittedly that's the most obviously ridiculous part to most observers. Your entire argument is ridiculous on it's face. That of all the things going on in the US that's the situation you choose to highlight as evidence of slavery having a resurgence among certain groups of people and in the hopes of painting these facilities as the victim or "slaves" in this construction says more than 100 posts could. Nope. You just lack empathy for victims that aren't the right kinds of people to claim their rights and stand on them. I don't submit to this philosophy of waiting in line for other "more oppressed" groups to register their claims and receive their relief before they themselves are acknowledged.
Was this satire, or accidental projection? You have proven time and again to be completely incapable of any kind of empathy or understanding. To claim christians are somehow oppressed in this country is about as absurd as to claim the sky is a black and white polka dot pattern. To say someone else has no empathy for wanting someone else to not be discriminated against, because the person doing the discriminating is forced to DO THEIR JOB is literally one of the most fucked up things I've heard, so much so that I can't tell if you are just a giant troll, or if this is how removed from reality you are that you don't even know what it's like to be a normal human being, not even a decent one, but just a normal one.
|
On July 07 2018 00:18 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 16:00 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 15:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2018 15:29 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 15:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2018 15:01 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 14:43 NewSunshine wrote:On July 06 2018 14:21 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 14:11 NewSunshine wrote:On July 06 2018 13:36 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
It's a very troll maneuver by Schumer, so it is my decision to be an 'other.'
Conservatives are very recognizant of all the liberals (media and politicians) that basically asserted a Garland justice instead of a Gorsuch justice would've kept public unions intact (and free speech suppressed), forced advertisement of abortion services in crisis pregnancy centers, and judicial interference in Presidential powers over immigration. Trump's advisers know how important Supreme Court picks are to the ongoing culture wars with respect to legislating from the bench and overturning civil rights. The Senate Republicans have thus far made no overtures to Garland as a serious prospect. It's basically a pipe dream of Schumer, and he's trolled us all. Ah yes, the horrible act of making a service provider actually provide details as to the services they provide, and what they don't. Not to mention the rather revealing usage of "civil rights". But hey, we've had this dance before. Yep. I can imagine the roles reversed, where a culturally dominant pro-life movement made Planned Parenthood post "YOU DON'T HAVE TO KILL YOUR CHILD. THERE IS A SUBSIDIZED SAFE LABOR & DELIVERY CLINIC AROUND THE CORNER" 48pt font, plus every billboard advertising their services. Hell, throw in a "This abortion clinic does not pass standards for medical facilities" for good measure. It's just that the left finds itself in a rather culturally dominant position on the issue (in some states) and wants to compel policies. It's both short-sighted and overconfident. It also misdiagnoses why Trump won. If I was to say one big thing of our disagreements, it's that we really diverge on the very basic stuff on rights and generalizations. If your point is that we diverge on whether it's right that someone should have to say what's in the food they make, then you're right. I don't think places like CPC's should be able to deceive women into taking a harmful course of action for their lives, and I think they should be transparent about what they do and don't offer. That's just basic stuff that applies to nearly every other industry. The consumer should be at least somewhat informed. I don't think saying "but my civil rights" gives you carte blanche to prey on people who are already desperate. And if you think our difference of opinion constitutes a shortcoming on my part, just go ahead and say it. It'd be refreshingly forthcoming of you. Yes we do disagree on the basics. A can of soup's nutrition info is not equivalent to forcing you to advertise for the restaurant next door. You're perfectly able to embark on a campaign to inform people that these dangerous crisis pregnancy centers won't perform abortions for you. Have at it! You just can't force the nonprofits to be unwilling participants in your side of the debate. Well, apparently some people think you can force them ... but slavery is kind of having a second revival for certain groups. It's just basic stuff, as you say. And people count on pretend moderates like Garland to vote with them, kinda proving that moderates are nothing but a political play. It's not often I you impress me with how unbelievably awful your opinion is, but this one honestly impresses me in both boldness and absurdity. This is the most trash thing I've seen you say in a while and that's saying something. Just the extent to which certain justices and some posters think you can force people to act against their conscience does rise to the point of Americans being subjects or slaves and not citizens. I'm not talking about enslaving entire races, of course. Just that certain groups that have fallen out of favor are more routinely denied their civil rights for having opinions outside of certain culturally-enforced boundaries, or acting on one side of a political issue that you oppose. The word does have meaning besides literally the property of another, you know. It's a categorically stupid thing to say even in the context you're attempting to limit it to. Not just because of the word "slavery" though admittedly that's the most obviously ridiculous part to most observers. Your entire argument is ridiculous on it's face. That of all the things going on in the US that's the situation you choose to highlight as evidence of slavery having a resurgence among certain groups of people and in the hopes of painting these facilities as the victim or "slaves" in this construction says more than 100 posts could. Nope. You just lack empathy for victims that aren't the right kinds of people to claim their rights and stand on them. I don't submit to this philosophy of waiting in line for other "more oppressed" groups to register their claims and receive their relief before they themselves are acknowledged. Was this satire, or accidental projection? You have proven time and again to be completely incapable of any kind of empathy or understanding. To claim christians are somehow oppressed in this country is about as absurd as to claim the sky is a black and white polka dot pattern. To say someone else has no empathy for wanting someone else to not be discriminated against, because the person doing the discriminating is forced to DO THEIR JOB is literally one of the most fucked up things I've heard, so much so that I can't tell if you are just a giant troll, or if this is how removed from reality you are that you don't even know what it's like to be a normal human being, not even a decent one, but just a normal one.
I'm pretty sure he's serious on this point, at least. It's a consistent stance he takes whenever such issues come up. But it is worth bearing in mind he's a Christian of some type and that probably biases him somewhat on matters that directly involve religion.
|
That would only make sense with regards to very specific types of Christians, the religion as a whole takes no stance on this poorly flip flopped jab at grievance politics (other than probably coming out against it tbh).
|
Yeah, I’m not of the flavor of Christianity that feels personally when the government stays that Christian government workers can’t refuse to sign gay marriage certificates.
|
Danglars's incessant calls for the respect of Christian rights is nothing more than a thinly veiled weapon. It becomes very clear, once you discuss enough topics with him, that he cares very little for religious liberty in general, or the liberty and rights of groups that are very actively being oppressed. The very sudden shift in his tone when the discussion becomes about Christian privilege is telling. Thankfully, most of us weren't born yesterday.
|
I don't think the term Christianity can be used like this, you guys, it describes a far too diverse set of people... Catch-all term, blah blah blah. Lol.
I subscribe to the notion that there should be a conservative opposition to what would otherwise be a liberal hegemony in government. A hegemony like that would require some form of oppression just like when liberalism was oppressed in the Soviet Union or socialism has been oppressed for years in the US. There's a variation in the degree and seriousness of the oppression, sure, but it's definitely there in all cases if you look at the basic elements of it. Just like you can see elements of fascism in the United States now -- and could for a long time, although many people seemed blind to it before Trump.
However, I think it's incredibly stupid to join up with Republican politicians to provide that opposition. Because that's like joining up with Islamic terrorists groups to oppose the secular regime of Assad. Again, varying degrees of seriousness, but the basic elements are the same -- and it was also largely rural conservative Muslims that rose up against Assad in Syria.
But it's also not as if conservative voters can risk conceding everything to the liberals because of the two-party system. Although I personally think they pretty much could do that, considering you can do just as much infighting amongst the Democrats/liberals. But for some reason the two-party system is also an excuse to vote for the Democrats rather than attempt to build a Socialist third party outside the (neo)liberal Democratic Party, so that "maintain the status-quo" reasoning can be applied to conservative voters as well.
|
We agree that Christianity is to diverse for the catch all term, but that is how it is weaponized by the anti-abortion/religious freedom groups. I am Christian and they claim to be advocating for my right to refuse/object to may tax dollars being used to "fund abortions" based on religious grounds, even though I never asked for, nor do I feel entitled to that right. We can try to not use the term as a catch all, but that doesn't change how the Evangelicals use it, for instance.
|
On July 06 2018 20:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 19:43 Plansix wrote:
The details of our tax payer funded child abuse campaign are slowly coming to light. We have so little information, one of these kids could have died and we would never know. And it has come to light that immigrants who enlisted in the military because of the promise of citizenship are being quitely discharged and possibly deported.
Remember though, tax dollars cannot go towards funding abortion. That violates religious freedom for some people. Mass child abuse is cool though. And remember that the alternative to this child abuse is allowing parents to acquire jobs in this country. And that's simply unacceptable.
Tell that to the actual Americans whose jobs they are taking.
|
On July 07 2018 01:28 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 20:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 06 2018 19:43 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/JudyWoodruff/status/1014998271532597248 The details of our tax payer funded child abuse campaign are slowly coming to light. We have so little information, one of these kids could have died and we would never know. And it has come to light that immigrants who enlisted in the military because of the promise of citizenship are being quitely discharged and possibly deported. Remember though, tax dollars cannot go towards funding abortion. That violates religious freedom for some people. Mass child abuse is cool though. And remember that the alternative to this child abuse is allowing parents to acquire jobs in this country. And that's simply unacceptable. Tell that to the actual Americans whose jobs they are taking.
Most immigrants end up "taking" jobs that nobody else wanted, and get paid less than minimum wage because they're undocumented and/or desperate for money. The idea that the economy is down because immigrants flood the market and take all the good jobs is an out and out myth.
|
On July 07 2018 01:28 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 20:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 06 2018 19:43 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/JudyWoodruff/status/1014998271532597248 The details of our tax payer funded child abuse campaign are slowly coming to light. We have so little information, one of these kids could have died and we would never know. And it has come to light that immigrants who enlisted in the military because of the promise of citizenship are being quitely discharged and possibly deported. Remember though, tax dollars cannot go towards funding abortion. That violates religious freedom for some people. Mass child abuse is cool though. And remember that the alternative to this child abuse is allowing parents to acquire jobs in this country. And that's simply unacceptable. Tell that to the actual Americans whose jobs they are taking.
We are at full employment, my guy. No jobs are being taken, we don't have workers to fill them all.
Also, they are asylum seekers. They are taking no ones job, they are fleeing violence or a volcano.
Edit: I also love how this is the counter points to a case of gross child abuse. Please protect American jobs by any means necessary, which includes taking away people's children and abusing them as a deterrent.
|
On July 05 2018 19:53 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2018 19:10 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I admit that media dominance by left-leaning sources does make it look shaky, but I feel like it's balanced out by the rhetoric that the tea party uses in government all the time.
I would strongly object to calling the centrist neoliberal garbage that passes for media today to be called left-wing. The actual left has ZERO media dominance. Ever watch Rachael Madcow and her red scare propaganda? Washington Post, New York Times... all neoliberal shills. Not trying to tell you what to think, but that ain't left-wing. But hey you are 19? Hell you are well above the curve then. My goodness what I wouldn't give to be 19 again- not a "back in my day", but today. My generation was completely useless... your future is bright. 
Neoliberal is left-of-center (from what I see) in the United States, something which I am pretty unhappy about; it's also left (enough) of most mainstream Republican views that it's an easy way to simplify discussion with people like introvert, because he would agree that they are left (of what he believes is the center).
The European center is what some European posters consider when speaking, and those positions are firmly left when compared to the average views of an American.
|
On July 07 2018 01:33 Howie_Dewitt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2018 19:53 screamingpalm wrote:On July 05 2018 19:10 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I admit that media dominance by left-leaning sources does make it look shaky, but I feel like it's balanced out by the rhetoric that the tea party uses in government all the time.
I would strongly object to calling the centrist neoliberal garbage that passes for media today to be called left-wing. The actual left has ZERO media dominance. Ever watch Rachael Madcow and her red scare propaganda? Washington Post, New York Times... all neoliberal shills. Not trying to tell you what to think, but that ain't left-wing. But hey you are 19? Hell you are well above the curve then. My goodness what I wouldn't give to be 19 again- not a "back in my day", but today. My generation was completely useless... your future is bright. Neoliberal is left-of-center (from what I see) in the United States, something which I am pretty unhappy about; it's also left (enough) of most mainstream Republican views that it's an easy way to simplify discussion with people like introvert, because he would agree that they are left (of what he believes is the center). The European center is what some European posters consider when speaking, and those positions are firmly left when compared to the average views of an American.
From my understanding, it's backwards from EU to US. The right is left, and the left is right. From what I can tell, the switch happened in the the 19th century within the U.S. If you look up the republican views, it's considered as "Classical Liberalism", but there isn't anything "classical liberalism" going on today with the administration or congress. I'm seeing more pressure from the government enforcing views I don't believe in.
So all in all, Neoliberalism == Classic liberalism with a focus on markets, isn't that the term meaning, so then currently neoliberal beliefs should technically be aligned with Republicans, but it's not right?
|
On July 07 2018 03:00 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 01:33 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On July 05 2018 19:53 screamingpalm wrote:On July 05 2018 19:10 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I admit that media dominance by left-leaning sources does make it look shaky, but I feel like it's balanced out by the rhetoric that the tea party uses in government all the time.
I would strongly object to calling the centrist neoliberal garbage that passes for media today to be called left-wing. The actual left has ZERO media dominance. Ever watch Rachael Madcow and her red scare propaganda? Washington Post, New York Times... all neoliberal shills. Not trying to tell you what to think, but that ain't left-wing. But hey you are 19? Hell you are well above the curve then. My goodness what I wouldn't give to be 19 again- not a "back in my day", but today. My generation was completely useless... your future is bright. Neoliberal is left-of-center (from what I see) in the United States, something which I am pretty unhappy about; it's also left (enough) of most mainstream Republican views that it's an easy way to simplify discussion with people like introvert, because he would agree that they are left (of what he believes is the center). The European center is what some European posters consider when speaking, and those positions are firmly left when compared to the average views of an American. From my understanding, it's backwards from EU to US. The right is left, and the left is right. From what I can tell, the switch happened in the the 19th century within the U.S. If you look up the republican views, it's considered as "Classical Liberalism", but there isn't anything "classical liberalism" going on today with the administration or congress. I'm seeing more pressure from the government enforcing views I don't believe in. So all in all, Neoliberalism == Classic liberalism with a focus on markets, isn't that the term meaning, so then currently neoliberal beliefs should technically be aligned with Republicans, but it's not right?
When Europeans refer to neoliberals as right wing, that doesn't mean that neoliberalism is necessarily to the right of the political views of the average person in their country. As evidenced by the fact that for a long time they've had far more seats in European governments than social dems.
The key difference is not what right or left mean but what center means. Some use it as the midpoint between two political extremes, some use it as a median of the political views in a particular place.
I think on an international forum, the first option makes a little more sense as it makes it less relative. Although this whole two-dimensional left-right spectrum is silly to begin with.
|
On July 07 2018 03:00 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 01:33 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On July 05 2018 19:53 screamingpalm wrote:On July 05 2018 19:10 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I admit that media dominance by left-leaning sources does make it look shaky, but I feel like it's balanced out by the rhetoric that the tea party uses in government all the time.
I would strongly object to calling the centrist neoliberal garbage that passes for media today to be called left-wing. The actual left has ZERO media dominance. Ever watch Rachael Madcow and her red scare propaganda? Washington Post, New York Times... all neoliberal shills. Not trying to tell you what to think, but that ain't left-wing. But hey you are 19? Hell you are well above the curve then. My goodness what I wouldn't give to be 19 again- not a "back in my day", but today. My generation was completely useless... your future is bright. Neoliberal is left-of-center (from what I see) in the United States, something which I am pretty unhappy about; it's also left (enough) of most mainstream Republican views that it's an easy way to simplify discussion with people like introvert, because he would agree that they are left (of what he believes is the center). The European center is what some European posters consider when speaking, and those positions are firmly left when compared to the average views of an American. From my understanding, it's backwards from EU to US. The right is left, and the left is right. From what I can tell, the switch happened in the the 19th century within the U.S. If you look up the republican views, it's considered as "Classical Liberalism", but there isn't anything "classical liberalism" going on today with the administration or congress. I'm seeing more pressure from the government enforcing views I don't believe in. So all in all, Neoliberalism == Classic liberalism with a focus on markets, isn't that the term meaning, so then currently neoliberal beliefs should technically be aligned with Republicans, but it's not right?
Politics pertain to social and economic issues. In the US you've decided that the main question is social issues, so the left/right divide pertains to social issues. If you're socially liberal, you're left, if you're socially conservative, you're right. If you have disagreements with economic issues, you are an extremist (far left).
In Europe we've decided that the main question is economic issues, so the left/right divide pertains to economic issues. If you're leftwing economically, you're left, if you're rightwing economically, you're right. This is complicated by the fact that being rightwing economically is called being liberal, not being conservative. If you have disagreements on social issues, you are an extremist (far right).
I think I can make a credible argument that our system is much better, simply because at the end of the day what affects people the most is economics, so that's what should be the main question of politics. It's also better in terms of society because social issues should be treated as if they are settled, it's not exactly great that we keep wondering if people deserve equal rights even if they are different from "the norm" in some specific aspect.
Neoliberalism is aligned with republicans but it's also mostly aligned with corporate democrats.
|
The most neoliberal party here is the center-right party that's in charge. We legalized gay marriage in 2001 under the main religious centrist party, IIRC. Almost none of that social stuff is a relevant talking point here, so politics is just about economics and immigration/immigrants and how much austerity to apply and how quickly it should be applied. Oh, and plans on how we can turn our nation in a post-neoliberal surveillance state. It's a brave new world out there, alright.
|
On July 07 2018 03:13 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 03:00 ShoCkeyy wrote:On July 07 2018 01:33 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On July 05 2018 19:53 screamingpalm wrote:On July 05 2018 19:10 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I admit that media dominance by left-leaning sources does make it look shaky, but I feel like it's balanced out by the rhetoric that the tea party uses in government all the time.
I would strongly object to calling the centrist neoliberal garbage that passes for media today to be called left-wing. The actual left has ZERO media dominance. Ever watch Rachael Madcow and her red scare propaganda? Washington Post, New York Times... all neoliberal shills. Not trying to tell you what to think, but that ain't left-wing. But hey you are 19? Hell you are well above the curve then. My goodness what I wouldn't give to be 19 again- not a "back in my day", but today. My generation was completely useless... your future is bright. Neoliberal is left-of-center (from what I see) in the United States, something which I am pretty unhappy about; it's also left (enough) of most mainstream Republican views that it's an easy way to simplify discussion with people like introvert, because he would agree that they are left (of what he believes is the center). The European center is what some European posters consider when speaking, and those positions are firmly left when compared to the average views of an American. From my understanding, it's backwards from EU to US. The right is left, and the left is right. From what I can tell, the switch happened in the the 19th century within the U.S. If you look up the republican views, it's considered as "Classical Liberalism", but there isn't anything "classical liberalism" going on today with the administration or congress. I'm seeing more pressure from the government enforcing views I don't believe in. So all in all, Neoliberalism == Classic liberalism with a focus on markets, isn't that the term meaning, so then currently neoliberal beliefs should technically be aligned with Republicans, but it's not right? When Europeans refer to neoliberals as right wing, that doesn't mean that neoliberalism is necessarily to the right of the political views of the average person in their country. As evidenced by the fact that for a long time they've had far more seats in European governments than social dems. The key difference is not what right or left mean but what center means. Some use it as the midpoint between two political extremes, some use it as a median of the political views in a particular place. I think on an international forum, the first option makes a little more sense as it makes it less relative. Although this whole two-dimensional left-right spectrum is silly to begin with.
This is the problem with our political discussions right now. Conformity and stability are placed in the middle, while putting other ideas out into the extremes of the left or right. It makes the “center” seem meritorious, while the far left and right are to be avoided as “to extreme”. We are all funneled into some point on this spectrum and are unable to leave it. That point on the spectrum is linked to culture, region and even race at this point. We are all being put into easily managed boxes because humans love to sort things into easy managed sets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
