Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Independant

loki old fart wrote:Independant

I don't really think that means anything.

Not in this thread, not in politics, not at all.

Yeah, generally that means that you aren't a registered voter for one party or another. You're still going to vote for a party and if it's the same party most of the time then you're not really an independent, you just haven't bothered to register.

I'm registered as an independent, and vote for whoever I think is best for the job, regardless of party affiliation.

BrockRitcey wrote:Yeah, generally that means that you aren't a registered voter for one party or another. You're still going to vote for a party and if it's the same party most of the time then you're not really an independent, you just haven't bothered to register.

That, and this thread isn't about political parties

I will give twenty free internets to the first person who guesses my political leanings. There's even a survey result in this thread to start you off!

Your a right wing male chauvinist feminist communist which rhymes nicely with sadomasochist, which you also are.

dogma wrote:I will give twenty free internets to the first person who guesses my political leanings. There's even a survey result in this thread to start you off!

Social Liberal.

Economic Liberal.

In terms of foreign policy I would say that you have a lean towards informal liberal imperialism.

Rationalist.

Dogmatism?

How many guesses do we get?

As many as you want.

Liberal.
Conservative.
Communist.
Fascist.
Libertarian.
Progressive.
Monarchist.
Theocrat.
Anarcho-syndicalist.
Anarcho-capitalist.
Anarcho-primitivist.

Am I getting close?

Rationalist is about the closest you can get. I try to minimize the role of ideology in my life.



Whatwhat receives the lesser prize of a free extranet

Albatross wrote:
Social Liberal.

For the most part, yes. I tend to favor a non-directive state, which can entail social liberalism, but may also entail social conservatism. Basically, the government should do what most people want most of the time.

Albatross wrote:
Economic Liberal.

Not really. I accept the role of state spending in the economy, but think that, like all spending, it should be minimized relative to actual effect. I'm basically a moderate sort of Monetarist.

Albatross wrote:
In terms of foreign policy I would say that you have a lean towards informal liberal imperialism.

I am, according to one of my profs, a "determinative constructivist rationalist", which is a fancy way of saying that I believe political action can be predicted, but that its also really complicated.

dogma wrote:I will give twenty free internets to the first person who guesses my political leanings. There's even a survey result in this thread to start you off!

Cynic.

From what I've read, your political leanings are informed primarily by your desire to prove how much "smarter" you are than anyone else, so you embrace the most cynical positions possible. I've seen you argue that fairness is impossible (dogs understand what dogma can't), argue that law shouldn't be based on moral principles, and other deeply cynical positions.

So based on that, I would say your political leanings are like those of a Karl Rove or a Lee Atwater. Neither truly right nor left, completely unconcerned with consequences, totally lacking in vision, but satisfying in that way that staking out easily defensible but ultimately vainglorious positions is. A politics that rejects hope, rejects progress, and instead embraces only a deep seated contempt for one's fellow man and for the very process of politics.

So yeah, a cynic.

Karl Rove or a Lee Atwater

But NOT like Rahm Emmanuel or David Axelrod. NOT like them at all. AT ALL!

You live in a world of unceasing high drama, dude.

Gailbraithe wrote:I've seen you argue that fairness is impossible (dogs understand what dogma can't),

According to the article (I'm not going to even delve into the study itself) the scientists in question simply demonstrated that dogs appear to perceive something roughly analogous to what we call fairness. That doesn't actually mean that they believe 'fairness' is possible, it simply means that they 'believe' fairness is desirable. I agree, fairness, depending on how its defined, is desirable, but that doesn't mean its possible.

The dogs and I seem to have at least some basis for agreement.

Gailbraithe wrote:
argue that law shouldn't be based on moral principles, and other deeply cynical positions.

No, I don't think the law should be based on moral principles. Given that I'm a bound relativist, that fact doesn't mean what it does were it to regard you, a moral absolutist.

Gailbraithe wrote:
So based on that, I would say your political leanings are like those of a Karl Rove or a Lee Atwater. Neither truly right nor left, completely unconcerned with consequences, totally lacking in vision, but satisfying in that way that staking out easily defensible but ultimately vainglorious positions is.

What might that position be?

Gailbraithe wrote:
A politics that rejects hope, rejects progress, and instead embraces only a deep seated contempt for one's fellow man and for the very process of politics.

Yes, that's a nice boilerplate. The trouble is that I don't approach the world in a non-progressive fashion. I reject hope, yeah, because I think hope is essentially empty when it comes to getting at what is the fact of the matter (excepting where the matter is what people hope for). But he idea that I'm not progressive? Not at all, I would love for a great many things to happen in this world, but what goes with that is a great deal of skepticism regarding what others (an myself) hope for.

I want to know what will work before advocating it, and most cases regarding what should happen are poorly made.

Phryxis wrote:

Karl Rove or a Lee Atwater

But NOT like Rahm Emmanuel or David Axelrod. NOT like them at all. AT ALL!

You live in a world of unceasing high drama, dude.

While I generally loathe Rahm Emmanuel, I've never seen anything to suggest that his politics are based entirely on cynicism. He seems to actually believe what he is doing is right. And I don't really know anything about David Axelrod, so you'll have to explain why you think he's a cynic.

Lee Atwater actually confessed on his deathbead that his entire political career was based on cynicism, and that he never believed in the Republican party, and that his entire political strategy was based on inflaming white, Southern resentment and racism to bring the GOP to power, and that he was certain he was going to Hell for all that he had done to support the GOP. Seriously, watch the documentary "Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story." It's really shocking how completely cynical Atwater was, and he was one of the major forces that shaped the modern Republican party.

Karl Rove is, of course, Atwater's discipline and heir. And Rove has gone on record as saying he doesn't actually care about any of the social issues that he has based Republican campaigns on, that he doesn't actually have any problem with gay marriage or abortion, but that those wedge issues are useful to him. He runs this whole "grassroots" GOP election campaign (Crossroads for America) and it turns out that over 90% of the hundreds of millions of dollars he's flooding into this years elections comes from three people. Rove will say and do just about anything to subvert democracy towards the ends of these three guys, and its not even a well-guarded secret. Rove relies on the cynicism of the media establishment to not make an issue of it (and they don't).

Gailbraithe wrote:
Lee Atwater actually confessed on his deathbead that his entire political career was based on cynicism, and that he never believed in the Republican party, and that his entire political strategy was based on inflaming white, Southern resentment and racism to bring the GOP to power, and that he was certain he was going to Hell for all that he had done to support the GOP. Seriously, watch the documentary "Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story." It's really shocking how completely cynical Atwater was, and he was one of the major forces that shaped the modern Republican party.

No, that's not what Atwater said.

Atwater wrote:
“I was wrong to follow the meanness of Conservatism. I should have been trying to help people instead of take advantage of them. I don’t hate anyone anymore. For the first time in my life I don’t hate somebody. I have nothing but good feelings toward people. I’ve found Jesus Christ – It’s that simple. He’s made a difference.”

He, at one point, believed in the purpose of what he espoused. He then, on living more, came to disbelieve it.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Karl Rove is, of course, Atwater's discipline and heir. And Rove has gone on record as saying he doesn't actually care about any of the social issues that he has based Republican campaigns on, that he doesn't actually have any problem with gay marriage or abortion, but that those wedge issues are useful to him. He runs this whole "grassroots" GOP election campaign (Crossroads for America) and it turns out that over 90% of the hundreds of millions of dollars he's flooding into this years elections comes from three people. Rove will say and do just about anything to subvert democracy towards the ends of these three guys, and its not even a well-guarded secret. Rove relies on the cynicism of the media establishment to not make an issue of it (and they don't).

Karl Rove is a total cynic, you're right.

See this is why I always split the ticket. Give neither "party" an edge. Equal numbers in both houses means they actually would have to work together... then we.. y'know..The People will see them for what they truely are...
Self serving morons that fiercely attempt to protect the political status quo.

Well, even intelligent politicians want to protect the political status quo. Hell, intelligent politicians do their level best to insure that hey will never lose power.

After all, do you want to let your 'underlings' (employees, children, women (lol), etc.) dictate what you do?

Hey.. I'm a self described Anarchist. Just a less violent one.

While I generally loathe Rahm Emmanuel, I've never seen anything to suggest that his politics are based entirely on cynicism. He seems to actually believe what he is doing is right. And I don't really know anything about David Axelrod, so you'll have to explain why you think he's a cynic.

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." Can't get a whole lot more cynical than that. And, in my googling to get the wording correct, I note that Hillary Clinton said something similar. We all know that she and Bill were part of the crew that invented "triangulation," which is yet another cynical, politically driven mentality.

Which is also funny, because Dick Morris is probably the closest thing to the cartoon you're drawing, and he was very tight with the Clintons, then went to work for Republicans. He shaped a lot of modern political strategy as well. But, again, we don't pay attention to shady Democrat operatives.

Regardless, I don't really know how to port reality over to your hyperbolic view of things. Rove, Atwater, Emmanuel and Axelrod are all instances of the same sort of animal. In your world anybody on the right is a parody of themselves, TOTALLY cynical, TOTALLY compromised, TOTALLY evil. In real life, these four are the same animal.

All four of those guys have an ideology that they think is right and good, they all want to see it spread throughout government, and they're willing to do/say some fairly shady/cynical things to see the greater good prevail. They're very ideological, they're just very cynical in pursuit of it.

In that respect, they're actually very much like you, only they're successful at it.

It's unforunate the extent to which you are what you hate. I look at a guy like Karl Rove, and I see a more talented version of you. You hate Rove so much, but he's basically somebody who is willing to do whatever it takes to oppose an ideology he thinks is damaging, just like you. You're both defined by what you oppose, and you're both vicious and intolerant in your opposition to it. Only difference is Rove thinks "liberalism" is that evil thing, and you think it's "conservatism."

At the end of the day, the problem isn't "the right" or "the left." It's people who inject hate, dishonesty and intolerance into that continuum. You, Rove, Atwater, Emmanuel and Axelrod are the problem.

Rahm Emmanuel is a bastard, but a funny bastard.

I met him at an alumni function, his brother went to my Alma Mater, and dude is just like you would imagine a political version of Ari would be (his brother was the basis for Ari). Always hilarious, but if he isn't on your side you end up hating him.

helgrenze wrote:See this is why I always split the ticket. Give neither "party" an edge. Equal numbers in both houses means they actually would have to work together... then we.. y'know..The People will see them for what they truely are...
Self serving morons that fiercely attempt to protect the political status quo.

Except that manifestly does not work. That hasn't worked for the last 15 years, not since the 1994 Republican Revolution.

The next two years are going to be hellish politically, because the GOP isn't going to capture either the house or the senate, but they will break the Democrats 60 seat majority, and will come close to tying the house. That means complete gridlock in the Senate as the Republicans obstruct everything with unbreakable filibusters, and near total gridlock in the house. The Democrats will be blamed by their base for their inability to overcome Republican obstructionism, while the GOP will suffer little political fallout for obstructionism -- since their base doesn't value bipartisanship, they'll have no reason to work across the aisle. Quite the opposite really, as this year's primary season has demonstrated that the GOP's base will actively punish them for bipartisanship.

That's why I'd put money down on a double-dip recession and further economic collapse. At the very least we need another stimulus bill, and that won't be possible unless Democrats somehow gain seats in the Senate, which just doesn't seem possible.

But yeah, splitting the ticket doesn't advance anything. Rather splitting it does exactly what you seem to not desire: It preserves the status quo. There can't be any real change unless one party or the other has clear dominance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." Can't get a whole lot more cynical than that.

That's not actually an example of cynicism.

And, in my googling to get the wording correct, I note that Hillary Clinton said something similar. We all know that she and Bill were part of the crew that invented "triangulation," which is yet another cynical, politically driven mentality.

Nor is that.

All four of those guys have an ideology that they think is right and good, they all want to see it spread throughout government, and they're willing to do/say some fairly shady/cynical things to see the greater good prevail. They're very ideological, they're just very cynical in pursuit of it.

No, that's not the case. I don't know about Emmanuel and Axelrod, but Atwater and Rove aren't ideological. That's the point. Atwater didn't invent the Southern Strategy and play to white resentment and fear of blacks because he was an ideological supporter of white supremacism. Atwater did it because it won elections. The same with Rove. Rove didn't engineer the multi-state anti-gay marriage initiative drive because he's ideologically commited to preserving the tradition of marriage, he did it because it wins elections.

It's unforunate the extent to which you are what you hate. I look at a guy like Karl Rove, and I see a more talented version of you. You hate Rove so much, but he's basically somebody who is willing to do whatever it takes to oppose an ideology he thinks is damaging, just like you. You're both defined by what you oppose, and you're both vicious and intolerant in your opposition to it. Only difference is Rove thinks "liberalism" is that evil thing, and you think it's "conservatism."

Nice argumentum ad hominem there.

You don't get it. Rove doesn't think liberalism is evil. Rove doesn't think conservatism is good. Rove thinks winning is good. Rove thinks manipulating politics is good. Rove is the opposite of me. I'm an idealist, Rove is a cynic.

And I have no idea where you get this ludicrous idea that I'm willing to do whatever it takes to oppose conservatism. That's just nonsense you pulled out of thin air, and you have no justification for the claim. It's quite a leap from "willing to discuss his opinions on a forum" to "willing to do whatever it takes." Assault Marines wish their jump jets could carry them that far.

At the end of the day, the problem isn't "the right" or "the left." It's people who inject hate, dishonesty and intolerance into that continuum. You, Rove, Atwater, Emmanuel and Axelrod are the problem.

I think the problem is more people like you, who draw false equivalencies between things that are nothing alike in an effort to obfuscate the reality of the situation.

Yeah, Clear Dominance of one party works SOOOO well too. All that does is allow the dominant party to forward its party agenda without regard to what people actually want or need.

You want "economic stimulus"? Give every person that filed their taxes for last year $1000.00 tax free... total cost would be less than bailing out a bunch of banks, plus a good deal of that money will go into those banks as some people will pay down their debt. Others will simply spend the money on something like a new TV. Either way, the money would actually STIMULATE THE ECONOMY! Not reward the people that fethed it up in the first place.

That's not actually an example of cynicism.

That's the definition of cynicism. Something unfortunate happens to somebody, and you make sure to use it to further your own agenda. To do this requires that the individual not take the emotional impact of the crisis seriously, and instead sees it as a point of leverage to manipulate people.

But, you tell me, if it's not cynicism, what is it?

Atwater did it because it won elections. The same with Rove. Rove didn't engineer the multi-state anti-gay marriage initiative drive because he's ideologically commited to preserving the tradition of marriage, he did it because it wins elections.

Elections that further their ideological agenda... Rove hates the left.

And I have no idea where you get this ludicrous idea that I'm willing to do whatever it takes to oppose conservatism.

It's how I understood what you told me.

You quoted Shaw, and in that quote Shaw said, essentially "there's a big difference between lying to the people in order to do good work, and lying to people to empower yourself."

I took that to mean that you were admitting to "humbugging" in your posts, but felt it was not a bad thing, because you were trying to do good work. If that's not what you meant, then you shouldn't have chosen a quote that meant it.

Also, I don't mean to say you'd do ANYTHING. You seem opposed to violence, for example. But rhetorically, you seem to have no compunction about lying and misrepresenting in order to portray conservatism in the worst possible light. I wasn't sure if you were repeating somebody else's lies, or if you were lying on your own recognizance, and then you posted the Shaw quote.

I took that as you telling me the answer, because the Shaw quote does answer the question.

If that's not your actual intent, then you'll have to forgive me for reading what wrote, instead of reading your mind.

helgrenze wrote:Yeah, Clear Dominance of one party works SOOOO well too. All that does is allow the dominant party to forward its party agenda without regard to what people actually want or need.

Considering the dominant party would have to win elections first, one might assume that the dominant party's agenda represents what the people want.

But the options are gridlock or one party dominating. Gridlock does not work. Standing around getting nothing done at all will not solve the problems we face. Regardless of whether you think the Democrats plan will work (it's a historically proven plan that has worked in the past, so that is a rational opinion) or think the Republicans plan will work (unlikely, since the Republican plan is literally "return to the exact same policies that got us here in the first place."), it's a fact that following no plan at all because of gridlock will not fix things. Not unless we're all hoping for spontaneous remission.

You want "economic stimulus"? Give every person that filed their taxes for last year $1000.00 tax free... total cost would be less than bailing out a bunch of banks, plus a good deal of that money will go into those banks as some people will pay down their debt. Others will simply spend the money on something like a new TV. Either way, the money would actually STIMULATE THE ECONOMY! Not reward the people that fethed it up in the first place.

I find it interesting that you are describing TARP, the Wall Street bailout pushed by Bush, but labeling it economic stimulus. Many people seem very confused and think they are the same thing.

The economic stimulus bill was about 50% tax cuts, and about 50% spending. Some of it was relief for the states, so they could pay teachers, some of it was unemployment funding (the most effective stimulus dollar for dollar, as each dollar of unemployment creates 1.75 of wealth, compared with tax cuts which have a return of about .33 cents for every dollar spent), much of it went to funding state projects that put people to work -- much better than putting a measly $1000 in their pocket. None of it was used to bail out wall street. That was all TARP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:You quoted Shaw, and in that quote Shaw said, essentially "there's a big difference between lying to the people in order to do good work, and lying to people to empower yourself."

I took that to mean that you were admitting to "humbugging" in your posts, but felt it was not a bad thing, because you were trying to do good work. If that's not what you meant, then you shouldn't have chosen a quote that meant it.

I don't think humbugging means lying. Humbugging is playing fast and loose with what's true and likely, but it's not lying per se. Not anymore than telling a story is lying, even if the story is true (I'm talking about what Dan Abnett does). I certainly don't think that's quite how Shaw meant it.

Anyways, my point (and Shaw's) is that demagoguery in pursuit of good ends isn't the same thing as demagoguery in pursuit of cruel and selfish ends. It's one thing to spin a yarn about a gay holocaust resulting from the persecution of gays for political ends, even if one knows such a thing is extremely unlikely, in pursuit of the end of that persecution.

It's another thing entirely to spin a yarn about the destruction of the American family if the evil gays are allowed any rights in order to get people to vote for your agenda of tax cuts for the extremely wealthy patrons who are funding your organization because those tax cuts will save them more than its costs to buy a astroturf movement. That's what Karl Rove does.

Also, I don't mean to say you'd do ANYTHING. You seem opposed to violence, for example. But rhetorically, you seem to have no compunction about lying and misrepresenting in order to portray conservatism in the worst possible light. I wasn't sure if you were repeating somebody else's lies, or if you were lying on your own recognizance, and then you posted the Shaw quote.

I haven't lied. Where have I lied?