Senate The US Politics discussion

Appleseed, like a lot of other people in this thread, your conclusions aren't on target.

Politics is rooted in personal identity. The problem is, so are other forms of tribalism which are good (the way in which people of a community band together after a disaster) and bad (racism and xenophobia). It's about belonging.

In the example I first used, and something our British friends can relate to - we have people who in particular are life-long Labour members. It's symbolic more than practical, because these people would very likely have voted for the aspirational, liberalism-infused social democracy of New Labour and would likely vote for the democratic socialism of Jeremy Corbyn's team. It's not about who has the best policies, is that's that people want to identify with a club of like-minded people. Of people who share those Labour values.

It's basically a truism that anyone who thinks their party is good and the other party is evil is a bit thick. Unless they're say German social democrats in the 1930s.

 

He wasn't referring to you. Don't worry

My Dad was a life long Labour voter until 2010. He is the "I'll never vote Tory" type, which many working class folk think like. Left school at 15, got a trade and then joined the union at 16. Then, at 18, you vote and become a Labour party member.

No matter what happened, you voted Labour.

Same relates to Northern Ireland, too. Even though she lives in England now, my mother votes Tory because they're a unionist party (that's a BIG headache we're not getting into lol)

 

Says the guy who strives for intellectual dominance with every post.

It's about belonging and trying move to gain as much status as you can get, and some will use any means to get it, even in a SW forum. SAD.

Yeah, I'll definitely give you that. He's a smart guy. Unfortunately, sometimes he'd blinded by that intelligence, and sometimes he's incapable of using that intelligence to prevent his raging ego from taking over his brain.

 

This is kind of my point. And it's a massive obstacle in modern politics, because it means we'll go to lengths unreasonable to categorise politicians, outcomes, and policy in the Good and Bad camp. Because even if those terms aren't uttered, it's not a radical notion that we want to think we are good and Others, bad.

Thing is, I don't think the non-partisan Americans here - Darth Guy, Lord Vivec, probably Rogue Ten if he hadn't been sent to Banhalla - would disagree. It's just the partisans who do.

Also I'm really sorry but... I like Tony Blair. I would have voted for New Labour. I even have his autobiography as an audiobook, read by him.

I'm so sorry.

 

LOL it's okay. I have Blair's autobiography, too.

 

Please re-read my last couple posts, then. Maybe you missed an edit.

And posts like this:

Or the recent posts I made in this thread against Democrats mirroring the Tea Party with threats of debt ceiling default if they don't get 100% of what they want, and how I'd rather become an Independent again than follow them down that road.

I always try to see the good in each person. And I've even defended Trump on here when I thought he was being treated unfairly. I don't see the parties in Good versus Evil terms, though I do think the Republicans are wrong on almost all the major issues. I've defended Trump supporters on here too when I've thought they were being treated unfairly. (Oh, and the 3 people you just mentioned as independents all happen to be on the socialist side of things... which is great for them, but that's not what every independent or other-party supporter is like.)

 

Well, I certainly don't claim to know the answers or even the questions most of the time. What I do know is our society here is very fractured and tribalized, but it is not yet to the point of actual violence between fractions. It doesn't seem to me that what we have going on here with our Yankees VS Red Sox version of politics is working, and I don't see any way it gets fixed, either. It's all very depressing.

 

This is form of tribalism is a massive obstacle in pretty much every form of human endeavor, not just politics. Music, art, economics, social and recreational pursuits, dress, style, food, movies. Human beings are geared toward classification, labels and stratification (both lateral and hierarchical). We label things and assign value to them. Just go to a Slayer gig wearing a Dokken T-shirt.

 

I'm judging anyone wearing a Dokken shirt TBH.

 

Exactly my point!

 

What is the downside to both sides being the same, anyway? Wouldn't that mean that the country is more or less in consensus about the general direction? Isn't that a good thing? The opposite would be polarisation, which is usually described as a negative.

And what's bad about Labour becoming Tories? Wasn't Labour stupid? Shouldn't you be happy about the development? Now, you get what you want no matter which side is in charge.

And what is so objectionable about Obama's assault on civil liberties? I seem to recall you thought anyone who objected to his metadata collection was a blithering hyperventilating idiot.

 

"Dokken" = Dutch slang for "pay up".
Just fyi

 

This isn't exactly about US Politics, but it highlights something very similar to what happens here.



This video details step by step, looking at comment by comment in order of posting, of conservatives in a couple of different conservative websites reacting to the Quebec Mosque shooting. You get to see this alternative narrative (two Muslims shot up the mosque and the government is hiding their names until they can spin it) coming up step by step in conservative media, and it's really useful because it shows you how that happens here with nearly every story and how you get these wildly incorrect versions of events.

 

Simon & Schuster has pulled Milo Yineonnipples' book.

 

Eh, this isn't entirely true. And I'm finding too many people today conflate the first amendment (a smaller legal concept in the United States) with the concept of "freedom of speech" (a larger concept). We both know and agree that not every "consequence" of free speech would be considered acceptable. Nobody should be rounded up or physically attacked or killed for their speech. And yes, that's not happening here, but I think when we say "no freedom from consequences of speech" we're giving tacit approval to said types of consequences.

And I think too many on the left here forget what 2003 was like, when speaking out against Bush or the Iraq War had social consequences. We should all remember when we were on that side and not perpetuate the social infrastructure of it, because we'll find ourselves on that side again.

 

Two separate issues, and I touched on the point in my reply.

The question was comparing the question of whether torture was more or less illiberal than the metadata collection. My point was, the scope for abuse and the invasion of privacy potentials are exponentially greater than the harm on probably no more than a few dozen detainees. It was pushing back on the tendency to excuse Mr Obama's sins and highlight the sins of Mr Bush. There's a double standard at play and shouldn't be.

I've also said a few times I find it really refreshing that Mr Trump has called out the hypocrisy and lies of Americans who call Putin et al killers like the US isn't responsible for scores of avoidable innocent deaths. A stark contrast from the tendency of the past to act as if there was an inherent Goodness at the heart of the actions.

As for Labour; I don't understand how this confuses people. Having a centre-right preference as a liberal does not make me want the left to completely disappear. There must be choice. The people need to be offered radical and pragmatic change as a choice. Otherwise what's the damned point? Some may say "but you need to broaden your appeal so you can get the votes to enact the change". My response is - you're fighting a contest of marketing strategies, not ideals at this point?

 

The downside to both sides "being the same" particularly where the sides have a center-right focus, is no more apparent than when you find yourself at the bottom of the food chain. You don't want the left disappearing because we all know that "the left" was traditionally the platform for the rights of the unskilled worker, that is, the labour component in an industrial economy. This idea of free markets, competition, risk and reward, bootstraps, lifters, DYI success stories is all great and well when you have a society that allows everybody access to the things that will lift them up, but we all know that society does not really exist, particularly in countries like the US which have a long and distinguished history of systemic discrimination which exists to this day. So from the perspective of a person born into a poor home, who cannot afford to go to a good school and therefore has zero chances of gaining any employment except as a labourer who is at the mercy of the employer, then you want your government as "left" as possible. Clearly as the person who owns the business you want the government "as right" as possible so that you can *** your employees right and proper.

Which is why a centrist position which balances worker's rights against unfettering risk and reward market activity for the employers/capitalists/developers/entrepreneurs etc seems to be most logical. When you go too far either way then you lose that balance.

So to the extend that you have a large percentage of the population being "working class" then it boggles my mind why you would want a right leaning government in power at all. When I was a factory worker I voted Labor all the time because the alternative was not in keeping with my interests, it was in the interests of the company that employed me. Which is why I don't really understand US politics when J-Rod, an uneducated factory worker, leg humps Trump and his right leaning fascists. In Australia, much of that changed for me at least with Howard's "battlers" and when it became apparent that the Labor/Union amalgamation just went too far and choked the hand the fed it.

 

American politicians have been convincing the working class to vote against their own interests for years. They use religion and racism, mostly.

 

It's funny, I said this months ago and you all crucified me for it.

 

Well, we shouldn't have, especially since Obama said the same thing back during his first campaign.

Remember the "cling to guns and religion" comment? He was called tone-deaf for saying it, but it was an astute observation.

 

most of the hardcore trump voters gravitated away from the democrat party over guns and social issues. Now they just hate the democrats more than being for anything, to the point they're for a guy that doesn't actually stand for anything they claim to.

 

So it's a case of don't worry if you make appalling money, have draconian work conditions, generally live like **** - vote for us so you can keep your guns and you can keep burning crosses and kicking the ***out of gays on Friday nights?

 

And for a lot of them, making sure people of colour and women are "kept in their place".