How do you identify politically? - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

SteveG

Forum Senior Member

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20469

Posted: August 01 2016 at 03:53

ClemofNazareth wrote:

Is there an 'Appalled and Disgusted' party?

Define 'Appalled and Disgusted'.

SteveG

Forum Senior Member

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20469

Posted: August 01 2016 at 03:58

lazland wrote:

^ I class myself still, in spite of everything, as a socialist, and most certainly not a liberal.

Thanks for that Steve. I've always felt that socialism and liberalism are mutually exclusive.

SteveG

Forum Senior Member

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20469

Posted: August 01 2016 at 04:03

Dean wrote:

The Dark Elf wrote:

I am a political schizophrenic, both liberal and conservative:

1. I'm a gun owner who seeks gun control (let's start by renewing the ban on automatic weapons and requiring registration for weapon purchases at gun shows and private sales).

2. I'm pro-choice and pro-death penalty.

3. I believe in reducing the national debt and having government being fiscally responsible, but doing so with higher taxes and ending corporate subsidies. Let's end the trickle down lie that's been perpetuated since Reagan. When 1% owns the vast majority of wealth and land, there is no real freedom for the rest.

4. Welfare should not be a perpetual benefit for the able-bodied. Switch it to job training, and if you don't go, you don't eat.

5. In relation to #4, give government scholarships to students willing to get STEM degrees.

6. Stop giving aid indiscriminately to countries who spit on the flag.

7. Send condoms and birth control pills to famine areas. Stop making kids while you starve. Or, to paraphrase Sam Kinison, send them Samsonite luggage, because food doesn't grow in the desert.

8. Stop wasting money on the United Nations.

9. I'm pro-police, anti-BLM.

10. Term limits for Congress.

11. Eliminate PACs and corporate political donations (thus eliminating both Koch and Soros).

12. Cap the amount of campaign contributions at $1000. That's it, that's all you get.

13. And as a true conservative, I believe in conservation. Eliminate the need for fossil fuels. Plant a few trees.

I'll get off my soapbox now.

This is why partisan polarised politics doesn't work.

And what, historically, has?

Blacksword View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130

Posted: August 01 2016 at 04:34

Democracy and capitalism has failed to address the deeper human need. Perhaps it is time for global communism, as the "conspiracy theorists" seem to think is on the cards.

Mass centralised control and power, with Tony Blair on the throne and Hillary in charge of a global security. What could possibly go wrong...

Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!

SteveG

Forum Senior Member

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20469

Posted: August 01 2016 at 07:39

I appreciate your humor Black S, but it still doesn't answer the question. Perhaps it should be rhetorical.

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: August 01 2016 at 07:56

This is a good post and I want to use it too see how I compare (sorry The Dark Elf) Tongue

The Dark Elf wrote:

I am a political schizophrenic, both liberal and conservative:

1. I'm a gun owner who seeks gun control (let's start by renewing the ban on automatic weapons and requiring registration for weapon purchases at gun shows and private sales). I agree. I own a gun. Want tough control.

2. I'm pro-choice and pro-death penalty. I'm pro-choice and anti-death penalty

4. Welfare should not be a perpetual benefit for the able-bodied. Switch it to job training, and if you don't go, you don't eat. I may tend to agree but in the long run. Finding a job even more so when yours has ended from disruptive technologies can be hard.

5. In relation to #4, give government scholarships to students willing to get STEM degrees. 100% agree

6. Stop giving aid indiscriminately to countries who spit on the flag. I'd stop giving aid to all countries period, though geo-politics may require the US to do it from time to time.

7. Send condoms and birth control pills to famine areas. Stop making kids while you starve. Or, to paraphrase Sam Kinison, send them Samsonite luggage, because food doesn't grow in the desert.If you never had sex education at home or in school I can't expect you to make 100% rational choices in this regard all the time. I agree with the first part. I would add sex education if necessary by the state.

8. Stop wasting money on the United Nations. True.

9. I'm pro-police, anti-BLM. I don't want to say I'm anti-police (that sounds stupid), but I've never trusted them. So I'll say I'm for severely curbing police abuse by all means. I'm pro-BLM.

10. Term limits for Congress.Agreed

11. Eliminate PACs and corporate political donations (thus eliminating both Koch and Soros). I would first eleiminate the idea that corporations are people.

12. Cap the amount of campaign contributions at $1000. That's it, that's all you get. Unrealistic. Though agreed.

13. And as a true conservative, I believe in conservation. Eliminate the need for fossil fuels. Plant a few trees. That's the opposite of conservative (though I know what you mean). Of course.

I'll get off my soapbox now.

I'm a somewhat-free market socialist

The Dark Elf View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 12655

Posted: August 01 2016 at 10:32

The T wrote:

This is a good post and I want to use it too see how I compare (sorry The Dark Elf) Tongue

The Dark Elf wrote:

I am a political schizophrenic, both liberal and conservative:

2. I'm pro-choice and pro-death penalty. I'm pro-choice and anti-death penalty

5. In relation to #4, give government scholarships to students willing to get STEM degrees. 100% agree

6. Stop giving aid indiscriminately to countries who spit on the flag. I'd stop giving aid to all countries period, though geo-politics may require the US to do it from time to time.

8. Stop wasting money on the United Nations. True.

9. I'm pro-police, anti-BLM. I don't want to say I'm anti-police (that sounds stupid), but I've never trusted them. So I'll say I'm for severely curbing police abuse by all means. I'm pro-BLM.

10. Term limits for Congress.Agreed

11. Eliminate PACs and corporate political donations (thus eliminating both Koch and Soros). I would first eleiminate the idea that corporations are people.

12. Cap the amount of campaign contributions at $1000. That's it, that's all you get. Unrealistic. Though agreed.

13. And as a true conservative, I believe in conservation. Eliminate the need for fossil fuels. Plant a few trees. That's the opposite of conservative (though I know what you mean). Of course.

I'll get off my soapbox now.

I'm a somewhat-free market socialist

So, you and I agree on a majority of issues, and for the few disagreements we could perhaps reach an accord given some enlightened, non-hyperbolic dialogue. But as Dean pointed out earlier, our beliefs and concerns are incongruous to the fast-food, prepackaged political parties that we are force-fed. How many more think the same way? A majority, perhaps? Or a majority at least that would prefer to see some sort of compromise solutions rather than black-and-white polar opposites with both sides unwilling to pass common sense legislation without tacking on absurd bill amendments that assure the doom of the bills.

...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...

SteveG

Forum Senior Member

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20469

Posted: August 01 2016 at 10:41

^Duh! You two are moderates who commit the unspeakable crime of compromise!

This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: August 01 2016 at 12:42

SteveG wrote:

Dean wrote:

This is why partisan polarised politics doesn't work.

And what, historically, has?

None. That's the point. Why keep repeating the same mistake expecting a different outcome.

What?

SteveG

Forum Senior Member

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20469

Posted: August 01 2016 at 12:47

Dean wrote:

SteveG wrote:

Dean wrote:

This is why partisan polarised politics doesn't work.

And what, historically, has?

None. That's the point. Why keep repeating the same mistake expecting a different outcome.

And what's the option?

SteveG

Forum Senior Member

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20469

Posted: August 01 2016 at 12:58

^Sorry for the abrupt response, but I was interrupted by phone call. You and I live in democratic systems that are not ideal, but what is? Political systems are implemented by imperfect beings call men.

Perhaps if we find a perfect man, he can come up with a perfect system.

Edited by SteveG - August 01 2016 at 13:21

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: August 01 2016 at 19:12

SteveG wrote:

^Sorry for the abrupt response, but I was interrupted by phone call. You and I live in democratic systems that are not ideal, but what is? Political systems are implemented by imperfect beings call men.

Perhaps if we find a perfect man, he can come up with a perfect system.

That kind of attitude gets us nowhere. It's a bit sad really. Resting the entire future of the world (and I do mean the world) on the shoulders of one man is not only unrealistic and hopelessly optimistic, it's also somewhat unfair.

Fixing the system requires dismantling everything that is wrong with it and replacing it with something more representative of the multifaceted 21st century world we live in. The exact nature and precise details of that has yet to be determined but unless we accept and acknowledge that this charabanc we're currently riding on is broken and in need of more than a hasty (and costly) repair then we're never going to even start looking at the glossy brochures to pick out the colour and seating capacity of the sleek new hybrid omnibus we need to replace it with. We can look around the world and back through history to see what doesn't work, and that includes the idle thoughts of "deep thinkers" whose sole contribution to this earth was humus - the time for philosophies and ideologies has passed, they have been weighed, they have been measured and they have been found wanting. As I have been spouting in practically every political post I've made in the past 9 years and every post in this thread, the only way forward is to stop believing that a single ideology has all the answers to everything. None of them do and we've all the historical evidence needed to prove that. However, realism means we cannot create a unobtainable utopia that is fair for everyone but we can pull ourselves back from creating a realisable dystopia that only fair for a privileged few, which is where this untopia of being permanently unfair to disadvantaged, disenfranchised and disaffected majority is heading.

Similarly dictatorships, fascism and communism also have also been proven to be unworkable and unrealistic.

The current democratic political system is styled on greco-roman blueprints that were in reality far from democratic. It was created when, like those democracies of ancient Greece and Rome, countries were governed by the elites of society where only a fraction of the population were eligible to vote or hold office and the remainder of the population were either slaves, plebeians, serfs, indentured servants or otherwise regarded ineligible by social status ... or women. Universal suffrage is a modern (predominately 20th century) concept that the now archaic political system is so ill-equipped to work with it is not even remotely capable of working effectively. It is geared to preserve and benefit the pre-20th century social strata while giving the outward appearance of being for the people by the people (clue - it never was).

Partisan politics requires an entire group of people to think and act en mass - this is achieved in a practical sense by having a single stated ideology that everyone conforms to, then a select few are granted the power to enact the agreed policies. Over time this becomes corrupted into a select few who manoeuvre themselves into a position of power and then enforce policies that everyone obediently follows as long as they point in the general direction of the previously agreed ideology. As we have seen in the current US presidential election that manoeuvring can involve little more than an obscene amount of money and a provocative slogan or two. Those funding that then expect privileges and concessions in return for their monetary support and government policy is then dictated by wallet and cheque and so the ideology that the party was built upon becomes corrupted. The more power a party has the more corrupted its ideology becomes and the more seats the party wins the more power it can wield. This power is inversely proportional to the number of electable seat-winning parties that are extant in a democratic political party system. One-party system = all powerful; two-party system = extreme power; multi-party system = shared (coalition) power; no-party system = equal power.

In the UK and the US (plus Australia, Malta and Jamaica) the first step would be to open up the electoral system to break the two-party strangle-hold as this is only slightly better than the communist one-party virtual dictatorships. [Gary Johnson and the Librarians are making noises that a third party can win an election, but they are woefully wrong - third parties only become one of the two major parties in the two-party system when one of the two major parties is so depleted in numbers that they cannot garner enough support to stay in contention]. This would lead to a multi-party system that stands slightly more chance of benefiting a broader section of the population but since practically every other democracy in the world is a multi-party system and they don't work any better then that still isn't quite good enough. The next logical step is the no-party individual/group collaborations that Steve (laz) mentioned on the previous page.

Edited by Dean - August 02 2016 at 02:36

What?

aglasshouse View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 27 2014
Location: riding the MOAB
Status: Offline
Points: 1505

Posted: August 01 2016 at 19:44

Blacksword wrote:

Political skeptic.

Are you skeptical of the existence of politics?

http://fryingpanmedia.com

SteveG

Forum Senior Member

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20469

Posted: August 02 2016 at 04:47

Dean wrote:

Similarly dictatorships, fascism and communism also have also been proven to be unworkable and unrealistic.

First you criticize the futility of polarized democracy, which has been going on in the US and UK for over a century, and then claim your stance that some sort of single party totalitarian state with power that corrupts absolutely is not the way to go either. So, lets get back to polarized democracy.

This the best that this type of capitalistic democratic system will ever be. It reflects both the best and worst thinking, motivations and actions of it's citizens, government officials, job producers, lobbyists and politicians, as mores and values evolve over time. The idea that this type of government can ever be broken down and replaced, I'm sorry to say, is just wishful thinking or dreaming. And that makes me sad, frankly. America is never going to replace it's constitution and I doubt that the UK will ever restructure it's democratic government.

Remember, you yourself have no plan on how to do this and neither does anyone else. And how could it be accomplished even if you did?

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: August 02 2016 at 07:36

SteveG wrote:

First you criticize the futility of polarized democracy, which has been going on in the US and UK for over a century, and then claim your stance that some sort of single party totalitarian state with power that corrupts absolutely is not the way to go either. So, lets get back to polarized democracy.

It's been going in the US and UK for a sight longer than a century and is a product of itself. Polarisation is self-perpetuating and vacillating from one polarity to the other achieves nothing but harm. It's an archaic system that does not adapt itself to the modern make-up of society - we are not naturally polarised in our outlook so are force to fit-in with one of the two seemingly opposing ideologies.

SteveG wrote:

The best isn't good enough. It was fine when the parties were first established but now they are outmoded and out of step. Within a two-party system all adapting to evolving "mores and values" ever does is replace a broken fractured party with another tenuous alliance of polarised politics. In the 19th century on this meant replacing the Whigs with the Liberals in the UK (and then with Labour in the 20th century) and with the Republicans in the US, but the upshot of that did little to change the status quo.

SteveG wrote:

The idea that this type of government can ever be broken down and replaced, I'm sorry to say, is just wishful thinking or dreaming. And that makes me sad, frankly. America is never going to replace it's constitution and I doubt that the UK will ever restructure it's democratic government.

Nothing will ever change if we do nothing and resignation that nothing can ever change is accepting defeat before the get go. Progress begins with progressive thought and the desire to change requires that the need for change is first identified and addressed. Change-management is the hardest managerial/governmental task anyone can ever undertake and that is the first weapon that those who benefit most from things staying as they are use to resist change. Unfortunately things have to be fully broken before change is demanded so let's hope that if civil revolution is the only way it can happen then it is a non-violent velvet revolution.

SteveG wrote:

Remember, you yourself have no plan on how to do this and neither does anyone else. And how could it be accomplished even if you did?

There are plenty of models and examples of how this non-partisan non-polarised approach works on the small-scale in both the political and the business worlds. I called it "no-party" before but in places like Iceland and The Channel Islands it is a multi-party system that has almost as many individual parties as there are available seats in the governmental body so coalitions are replaced by collaborations. The problem is determining whether this is scalable to encompass larger organisations of country and population. I suspect it isn't but that isn't but the principle is sound enough for workable solution to be found if enough people put their minds to it. I don't have all the answers and it would make little difference if I did as it will take a collaborative effort of people far more knowledgeable than I to formulate and achieve anything of lasting value; there are an increasing number of people who believe that the untried and untested Libertarian approach is the solution - I believe they are wrong as that's just replacing one ideology with another, but it shows that there are people who want change. Redirecting those who would shore-up a poorly adapted system towards creating a viable alternative is not beyond the wit of man. Either that or we continue along the path of scepticism, apathy and complacency that disenfranchises and disaffects more and more people.

What?

SteveG

Forum Senior Member

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20469

Posted: August 02 2016 at 07:48

Dean wrote:

[QUOTE=SteveG]...redirecting those who would shore-up a poorly adapted system towards creating a viable alternative is not beyond the wit of man. Either that or we continue along the path of scepticism, apathy and complacency that disenfranchises and disaffects more and more people.

Sorry, old man, but I'll have to bail on this discussion due to close relative suddenly passing.

I would like to quickly summarize that I see any type of coup as self-defeating, and that polarization provides inherent, albeit at times unwanted, checks and balances that are not available in a one party system/government. Until next time then.

dr wu23

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20451

Posted: August 02 2016 at 08:01

SteveG wrote:

.......... Political systems are implemented by imperfect beings call men.

Perhaps if we find a perfect man, he can come up with a perfect system.

That reminds me of something J Krishnamurti (an Indian mystic..) said many years ago in the late 60's I think......and I'm paraphrasing here...: 'Nothing will change for the better on earth regarding our systems until there is a fundamental change in the very nature of human consciousness.'

I think he was right on the money.....our problems with our political systems reflect our inner turmoil and who we are as people on this planet. As long as we are 'sh*ts' our systems will reflect that.

One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: August 02 2016 at 08:10

SteveG wrote:

Sorry, old man, but I'll have to bail on this discussion due to close relative suddenly passing.

Sorry to hear that Steve, my condolences.

Polarisation never achieves balance because that implies that they are equal and opposite but they never are, checking produces two outcomes blocking (e.g. the current Senate opposition to Obama) or vacillation (alternating terms in government).

In closing, I'm not advocating a one-party system, quite the opposite. Confused

What?

Blacksword View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130

Posted: August 02 2016 at 08:39

aglasshouse wrote:

Blacksword wrote:

Political skeptic.

Are you skeptical of the existence of politics?

No, just sceptical of everything said by any politician from any party ever...

I'm not interested in what they have to say. I'm more interested in what they actually do in relation to what they say. It was lovely seeing people weeping with joy when Obama came to power on a campaign of "hope and change" and I've nothing specific against Obama per se, but I think the tears were somewhat premature. People should have kept a tally of all the pledges he fulfilled and those he failed to fulfil and wept with joy proportionately after the event.

All those f**nuts who think Donald Trump is going to "build a wall" are going to be equally disappointed when they discover he cant, and doubly disappointed when they discover he can't force a sovereign foreign government to pay for the f***ing thing.

D!ckheads.

Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!

Terrapin Station View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: July 23 2016
Location: NYC
Status: Offline
Points: 383

Posted: August 03 2016 at 07:45

I doubt there are many people who believe that Trump is going to (even attempt to) literally build a border wall/make a foreign government pay for it.