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.

I'm a Independent Lib here in the USA. Although I'm Black I was a Clinton supporter. I have voted for some republicans before, (Charlie Crist) And liked huckabee before he went crazy. I've noticed a bunch of my buddies have gotten to the point where they don't want to hang out because of my political views. Now I don't mention them at all but I do tell people who ask that I lean to the left. Some of my right leaning friends and their parents have been asking my why do I hate my country, and one accused me of being a flat out traitor. I understand people can have different views. I understand debate can be very heated. What I don't get is why people who have been friends of family can hate over something so small as this.

Does anybody else have this issue?

Okay, let me get this straight.

Left of centre = traitor?
Since when?
If you were ramming your views down peoples' throats then maybe that is way they don't want to play, but other than that sheesh what's up with people

PS They are nearly all rabid righties on Dakka so best not mention leftist leanings here either

sexiest_hero wrote:Some of my right leaning friends and their parents have been asking my why do I hate my country, and one accused me of being a flat out traitor.

Does anybody else have this issue?

No, because I don't hang around with idiots.

These people, who are avoiding you over differing political stance... Yeah, consider that they've done you a favour and reduced the dill weed quota in your social calendar.

You are most definitely better off without them.

I've never really had that problem, most of my friends and their family's are left winglike myself, although my own family is more conservative.

sexiest_hero wrote:Does anybody else have this issue?

Yeah, when I mention that I don't support the concept of Socialism and how it is being rammed down our throats, my liberal acqaintances/former friends call me a racist for disagreeing with the Presidents policies.

These people knew me and my political stance back during Clinton and never said such things. Why is it so different to disagree with Obama?

This is as frustrating as being called un-american because I didn't support the Patriot act.

You probably wouldn't have support Senator McCarthy either.

@Killkrazy-That is a correct deduction.

I'm a part of an ever growing number of disenfranchised voters that have become aware that the election process on the national level has been hijacked by corporate contributions and is nothing but a horse and pony show.


Off-topic:
I'm not a person that expects the government to bow to my every whim. I recognize that we are a nation of many different peoples and that the governments job is to move the country forward in a manner to insure the best intersts of the nation.

I and many others believe that the government stopped working for the nations best interest in that they have become corrupt, look only towards short term gains, and has engaged in a war upon its citizens civil liberties.

The only way to peacably correct this is for the emergence of a third viable party that operates outside of the corporate controlled structure of the other two. Problem is that the elections coverage and debates are controlled by these corporations.
Until this changes, our government will continue to become more corrupt and unresponsive. It will take the people getting off of their kiesters, turning off the TV/Computer,leaving their spacious airconditioned households, and possibly missing a few meals to stand up/protest what is happening.......Oh yeah, they gotta get a permit too. Otherwise, they will be arrested as threats to national security.


On Topic: I believe that it is to some extent the national media coverage that instigates by creating tension between the various groups with their out of context quotes and sensationalism designed to get ratings.

To put it a little more clearly, a peaceful newscast about reasonable people getting along doesn't keep an audience around to watch the sponsors ads.

You sound like you have gakky or idiotic friends and acquaintances.

I'm a part of an ever growing number of disenfranchised voters that have become aware that the election process on the national level has been hijacked by corporate contributions and is nothing but a horse and pony show.

Now try and become a part of the ever growing number of voters that realize its been that for over a century.

On Topic: I believe that it is to some extent the national media coverage that instigates by creating tension between the various groups with their out of context quotes and sensationalism designed to get ratings.

To put it a little more clearly, a peaceful newscast about reasonable people getting along doesn't keep an audience around to watch the sponsors ads.

I agree, though I believe it more strongly than you do. Modern yellow journalism in news and finance is destroying the notion of democracy as it's traditionally understood and expected. When the news isn't democracy breaks down.

Funnily enough you sound like a Tea Partier except they are right wing.

Kilkrazy wrote:Funnily enough you sound like a Tea Partier except they are right wing.

Well yes, I'm using the english language. Presumably they use it as well. Do I also sound like your television?

I promise you though, I am not secretly your television.

do you have an actual point to make?

I didn't say that I had just realized. Was commenting upon the sudden "awakening" as it were. My political understanding of the system has been in place since before the debate corporation was formed.

As to my friends, Some are caught up in being PC and also, please note that I said former friends. This was not my choise but theirs. I can accept them having differing ideals but they couldn't. So much for the "Open-minded" liberal.

I have other friends that heard me warn of what would happen years ago are suddenly realizing that, "whoa, he called it way back when "Maybe we "should" wake up".

I am one of a few of my group of friends who are lib dem while a few others are torie supporters. We banter quite a bit but don't get into arguments about politicts that often.

Not to many monarchists in the US...

Yeah, america really should become republic

(I do love to stir ^^)

On the other hand, if they made a monarchy, it would be better.

While they're at it, why not take the law to be allowed to carry guns away...

(W00t)

ghosty wrote:Yeah, america really should become republic

(I do love to stir ^^)

On the other hand, if they made a monarchy, it would be better.

While they're at it, why not take the law to be allowed to carry guns away...

(W00t)

Actually.... America IS a republic. A Democratic Republic, but a republic non-withstanding.

What we should do, is make it where "No law may affect the people without affecting Congress, and no law may affect Congress without affecting the people.", and "During a time of war, the families of Congress will be among the first to be drafted into the army."

Those would solve a fair few problems, me thinks.

I generally avoid political conversations in person; primarily because I'm almost always the only one in the room who has studied politics. This is a well known fact amongst my friends and acquaintances, which leads to them calling on me to 'settle' disputes. Because the disputes are almost invariably stupid, with both parties working from premises that are inapplicable, or false, I usually end up being on the receiving end of malice from both sides.

As to whether or not the state works with nations interests in mind: I think that it does, but that the entire notion of 'interests' has been perverted by an unnecessary emphasis on democracy. This is evident in the sense that individuals seem to conflate their interests with their ideals, with politicians following suit in conflating electoral success with administrative success.

Slarg232 wrote:"During a time of war, the families of Congress will be among the first to be drafted into the army."

For all intents and purposes, the draft does not exist.

ghosty wrote:Yeah, america really should become republic

(I do love to stir ^^)

On the other hand, if they made a monarchy, it would be better.

While they're at it, why not take the law to be allowed to carry guns away...

(W00t)

Good luck with the removing the Second Amendment. I'd predict another civil war if that happened though the target would be the federal government, not just the anti-gun, i mean liberal, citizens.

Meh, its america, not my problem! Anyways, in this idyllic world where what i say has gravitas, i'd be busy construction a deathray to annihilate the moon, and hold the world to ransom.

Fateweaver wrote:...not just the anti-gun, i mean liberal, citizens.

Supporting gun control is not the same as being against guns.

ghosty wrote:Meh, its america, not my problem! Anyways, in this idyllic world where what i say has gravitas, i'd be busy construction a deathray to annihilate the moon, and hold the world to ransom.

See this is why we have strict gun laws or there would be mad megalomaniacs taking potshots at the moon every five minutes!
How is the bairn supposed to get to sleep with death rays shooting off all the time!

@OP

There are several groups, that I would flatly not want to be around. I highly doubt your views are that extreme, to the point which I would be uncomfortable around you. I generally try to avoid hanging out with anarchists, because they tend to cause more trouble than hanging out with them is worth. That is the main reason, as I don't entirely disagree with everything they have to say, but with much more extreme views (AKA racism mainly) I would be hard pressed to avoid a fist-fight...

I don't know your views, but again, I assume that they are not so extreme as to deserve being shunned for. I'll occasionally get into arguments, and purposefully keep them blunt, so I don't get bogged down in semantics. If someone flatly believes that all religion is evil, even though I am mildly averse myself, the conversation I would have is not likely to end well. Hence, avoiding those conversations is not a terrible idea.

There are a bunch of very divisive issues people are dealing with right now, it is not usually worth breaking relationships over.

Politics is tough sledding. People always say "ugh, stay away from those crappy people" when there are political disagreements, but that's not always possible.

For example, my parents are to the left of me, so we used to have frequent arguments about politics. You have to work around it, you can't just give up on your parents. Part of it is learning how to talk to people, learning what you can and can't expect them to understand, and learning to say things in ways they'll understand. The other part is making sure to have lots of OTHER things going on that matter more.

At this point I only talk politics with my parents when I'm trying to understand how "the left" thinks. For example, if something is going on in the news and I just can't FATHOM how the left thinks what it does, I'll ask my parents to try to get them to explain it to me.

This stuff is tough on a good day, but lately I think it's gotten a lot tougher, due to the increasing incompetence and corruption of American leadership.

My political position is basically that I hate the Republicans, and then I hate the Democrats even more than that. They're all such miserable, worthless, uninspiring, greedy slime, it's hard to like any of them. In the end, the only reason I vote Republican is because their lies are more appealing to me than the Democrats lies. I know neither of them will do what they claim, but at least the Republicans are claiming they'll do something I can vaguely support.

That's why you get the "you sound like a Tea Partier" stuff. The only sane position in America anymore is "I hate the government." If you actually like anybody in our government these days, you're delusional. So everyone sounds anti-Obama, and they should. If he's in DC, you should be against him.

So, with all this incompetence, the parties respond by getting negative about their opponets, rather than positive about what they're doing. The result is that their constituency gets increasingly bitter and angry, and take it out on the other side's constituency.

It's very bitter and polarized now, and that's a symptom of the terrible leadership we suffer with.

It doesn't help that the American (and world) economy is not very strong right now. People tend to not worry when they feel like they're successful, but when it's not going well, they start stressing, and looking for people to blame.

My political position is basically that I hate the Republicans, and then I hate the Democrats even more than that. They're all such miserable, worthless, uninspiring, greedy slime, it's hard to like any of them. In the end, the only reason I vote Republican is because their lies are more appealing to me than the Democrats lies. I know neither of them will do what they claim, but at least the Republicans are claiming they'll do something I can vaguely support.

That's why you get the "you sound like a Tea Partier" stuff. The only sane position in America anymore is "I hate the government." If you actually like anybody in our government these days, you're delusional. So everyone sounds anti-Obama, and they should. If he's in DC, you should be against him.

You're a very upbeat guy.

It's very bitter and polarized now, and that's a symptom of the terrible leadership we suffer with.

It doesn't help that the American (and world) economy is not very strong right now. People tend to not worry when they feel like they're successful, but when it's not going well, they start stressing, and looking for people to blame.

A democracy blames the endemic corruption of its leadership when its too proud to realize the problem is with itself. Case in point in the polarization of the American democratic system is largely due to the much increased publicity it's leaders now recieve within the 24 hour news structure and the blogosphere. Its easier to get a soundbite with harsh and meaningless rhetoric then it is with nuanced positions on difficult issues. The American people likes its government angry and both sides like to see the other side torn down continuously. It's not fair to blame the leaders themselves for being what we as a nation want them to be.

You're a very upbeat guy.

If you can name one thing in American politics to be upbeat about, I'll... Well, I'll disagree with you and then frown at my monitor for a while.

Phryxis wrote:

You're a very upbeat guy.

If you can name one thing in American politics to be upbeat about, I'll... Well, I'll disagree with you and then frown at my monitor for a while.

I could name plenty of things, but the nature of politics is that it's a body that tackles problems. Everything I mention would highlight an issue that may seem contentious or inflammatory by its existence. Government isn't something to be discussed by people that are easily confused, disgusted, or depressed. Such people can't hack it.

Phryxis wrote:
If you can name one thing in American politics to be upbeat about, I'll... Well, I'll disagree with you and then frown at my monitor for a while.

Our massive deficit will very shortly force action to be taken with respect to the military budget, and the entitlements.

Also, the contentious passage of Obamacare will ensure that health care becomes a bipartisan issue.

Phryxis wrote:
That's why you get the "you sound like a Tea Partier" stuff. The only sane position in America anymore is "I hate the government."

I consider hatred to be fundamentally irrational, and therefore detrimental to sanity.

Phryxis wrote:
If you actually like anybody in our government these days, you're delusional.

I like Robert Gates, and Hillary Clinton turned out to be solid Secretary of State.

Phryxis wrote:
So everyone sounds anti-Obama, and they should. If he's in DC, you should be against him.

Its not usually wise to use a single characteristic in order to determine the worth of a body. The federal state possesses many dysfunctions, particularly within Congress, but it also handles numerous issues which cannot be dealt with in other ways. Simply stating that we should be against the government because its the government glosses over that.

Everything I mention would highlight an issue that may seem contentious or inflammatory by its existence.

Well, take a shot.

Our massive deficit will very shortly force action to be taken with respect to the military budget, and the entitlements.

Right, so one positive thing is that we might soon admit we have a problem? It's a step forward, but it's a step forward towards a marathon.

Not to mention that even when we realize the problem, the Obama administration has less than zero fiscal restraint.

I like Robert Gates

Ok, that's fair. Anybody that can be nominated by one party, and then kept on by the other, deserves some respect. But then again, Ben Bernanke.

And Hillary Clinton? Meh. I'm not a fan, but I have to say, it's a crazy, CRAZY place we're at now. I literally MISS Bill Clinton, and wish Hillary had won in 2008.

Obama is literally turning America into an Obamanation. HAHAHAAHAHAH! Get it?

Simply stating that we should be against the government because its the government glosses over that.

I didn't mean to suggest that. I'm speaking strictly of the current crop of leadership in DC, and the general "attitude" going on there at this time. That includes the lobbyists, the way the media covers it, etc. etc.

There's a LONG way to go and a lot to undo to get things back into a tolerable state, but it's certainly possible, and not a condition endemic to any government.

Phryxis wrote:
Right, so one positive thing is that we might soon admit we have a problem? It's a step forward, but it's a step forward towards a marathon.

That's the essential nature of governance. There are always problems, and they're always significant.

Phryxis wrote:
Not to mention that even when we realize the problem, the Obama administration has less than zero fiscal restraint.

We won't realize that we have a problem until after the next Presidential election. The realization that there is a problem will only come when both sides of the aisle come to grips with the fact that they're pet budget components (social security for the Democrats, the military for the Republicans) will need to take significant hits. Then there's the issue of raising taxes in order to slow the bleeding while we start cutting back on state spending.

Phryxis wrote:
And Hillary Clinton? Meh. I'm not a fan, but I have to say, it's a crazy, CRAZY place we're at now. I literally MISS Bill Clinton, and wish Hillary had won in 2008.

I don't usually vote in the primaries, but had I been asked to choose between Hilary and Obama I wouldn't have been able to. They ran on nearly identical campaigns, and neither did a lot to differentiate themselves from the other. I would have voted for either (and did vote for Obama) before I voted for McCain is only because I didn't want to see a third consecutive Neoconservative Presidency.

Phryxis wrote:
I didn't mean to suggest that. I'm speaking strictly of the current crop of leadership in DC, and the general "attitude" going on there at this time. That includes the lobbyists, the way the media covers it, etc. etc.

There's a LONG way to go and a lot to undo to get things back into a tolerable state, but it's certainly possible, and not a condition endemic to any government.

Ah, ok. I agree with you for the most part, though I would extend the point to the public consciousness as well. To my mind one of the worst things about democracy is the tendency of the electorate to exempt itself from blame.

There are always problems, and they're always significant.

Sure. But I'd argue that this one is significantly more significant than existing leadership is capable of resolving.

I mean, take WWII. Very significant event, and American confronted it. What's going on now would be like Pearl Harbor happening, and then Congress is saying "ok, wait, something's going on in Europe?"

pet budget components (social security for the Democrats, the military for the Republicans) will need to take significant hits.

Back around 2000 when we ran a surplus under Clinton, and with a Republican controlled Congress, there were major cuts to military spending. The only people even vaguely aware of how to compromise are the Republicans, and I think they've probably forgotten.

My guess is that we won't pay down the debt by any conventional means. We're not going to simply run a surplus for enough years that it's gone. Instead, its' going to be some sort of globalization compromise, some sort of tariff deal with China, some accounting trickery where it's no longer relevant, or at least not accounting for $300 billion a year to service it.

and did vote for Obama

Odd, I took you for more of a conservative than that... But then ago, you're from Chicago, right?

Do you regret your vote? If you could choose now between Hillary, McCain and Obama, who would you pick?

To my mind one of the worst things about democracy is the tendency of the electorate to exempt itself from blame.

No question, we are ultimately responsible... But a collective consciousness can't really "blame" itself, certainly not on the scale that a single person (or the 600 odd people in Congress, White House, other important positions). 300 million people will just do what 300 million people will do. But one person can fundamentally change themselves, and when 300 million people are relying on them not being a slow, they should fundamentally change themselves.

Sure. But I'd argue that this one is significantly more significant than existing leadership is capable of resolving.

I mean, take WWII. Very significant event, and American confronted it. What's going on now would be like Pearl Harbor happening, and then Congress is saying "ok, wait, something's going on in Europe?"

The majority of America was against entry into the war in europe and it required the war in the pacific and the mass mobilization of the American war machine to force it's entry into the european front. America waited until it absolutely had to to "confront it".

No question, we are ultimately responsible... But a collective consciousness can't really "blame" itself, certainly not on the scale that a single person (or the 600 odd people in Congress, White House, other important positions). 300 million people will just do what 300 million people will do. But one person can fundamentally change themselves, and when 300 million people are relying on them not being a slow, they should fundamentally change themselves.

It sounds like you want a benevolent dictatorship and not a democracy.