American Politics Discussion

[OrangeKhrush]

26 minutes ago, Rucksackfranzose said:

Odd comment. Genuine question: Is there any ideology more pro establishment per definitionem than conservatism? Since conservatism, in its very nature, is about preserving the pre-dominant values as well as power and ownership in their respective society. Indeed there's little things more ridiculous than a consevative pretending to fight the establishment.

conservatism is preservation of cultural values that define a nation, another term is civic nationalism where every nation has its own unique culturalism.

American conservatism is one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.  This was mostly every American up to 2012.

Germany also has a traditional community of people that had defined the nation, these values are pure and should be safeguarded.

The Average American left or right values:  

nuclear family

christian/judeo moral value system

health and prosperity

community of people

safety which includes protection from abuse of government power.  The whole government serves the interests of the people.

[OrangeKhrush]

28 minutes ago, Cicero said:

Moderates always struck me as left leaning in terms of policies but more right leaning in terms of social/cultural issues. 

pretty much really, they share the same value system as coservatives but differ in the approach to get there.

[Rucksackfranzose]

11 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

conservatism is preservation of cultural values that define a nation, another term is civic nationalism where every nation has its own unique culturalism.

American conservatism is one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.  This was mostly every American up to 2012.

Germany also has a traditional community of people that had defined the nation, these values are pure and should be safeguarded.

The Average American left or right values:  

nuclear family

christian/judeo moral value system

health and prosperity

community of people

safety which includes protection from abuse of government power.  The whole government serves the interests of the people.

The list only confirms my original claim, conservatism were per definitionem about preserving status-quo, and therefore inevitably pro-establishment!

On a side note: The bolded values are debattable given the US have no governmental health insurance scheme, and anybody is allowed to walk around with a loaded gun.

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, Cicero said:

Are there really no suitable democratic candidates that appeals to the moderates?

Has a party with an incumbent president ever ran a primary to challenge that president? Genuinely asking - I have no idea. I assume it's never happened because the optics of it are that the party is in disunity and disarray, therefore unfit to lead. Also realistically, Biden was the democratic nominee because he's a moderate and the democratic base wanted a moderate to run against Trump to pull moderates away. His long career in politics is one of being a centrist and he was even VP for Obama, who was pretty much as middle-of-the-road moderate as they come despite his platform of running on hope and change.

I think the best people the democrats could put forward are:

• Bernie Sanders - who's not a moderate and as far as US politics goes, would be branded a filthy socialist that would turn the USA into the USSR. So no chance for him really.
• Pete Buttigieg - moderate as fuck, but he's gay and that's like poison for the GOP controlled states. So no chance for him really
• Gavin Newsom - also a very moderate democrat, although more left-leaning than Biden or Buttigieg. He's a Californian, so that's poison to the south and the midwest, so no chance for him really. He's probably got the most charisma out of the possible candidates.

Unless the south and midwest have big attitude shifts to what's acceptable to them from a moderate candidate... it'll take someone with a lot of charisma like Obama to get swing voters to vote for them.

[Dr. Gonzo]

48 minutes ago, Cicero said:

Moderates always struck me as left leaning in terms of policies but more right leaning in terms of social/cultural issues. 

That's probably a moderate democrat, but there's moderate republicans too who'd probably be more right leaning in terms of policies but more left leaning in terms of social/cultural issues. Very few of them left now that John McCain is dead. Mitt Romney and Will Herd are probably the only 2 left on the national level. And Herd's basically irrelevant and Romney's nearly irrelevant.

[OrangeKhrush]

1 minute ago, Rucksackfranzose said:

The list only confirms my original claim, conservatism were per definitionem about preserving status-quo, and therefore inevitably pro-establishment!

On a side note: The bolded values are debattable given the US have no governmental health insurance scheme, and anybody is allowed to walk around with a loaded gun.

The premise of Guns is to prevent the Government from taking over, its hard to rally authoritarianism when people are loaded.  the issue is not guns but rather the regulatory standard on who gets them which sadly falls into the hands of the mentally ill.

having or not having a welfare system doesn't mean that people don't desire health and prosperity.

most Americans are self sustaining and not interested in a welfare state.

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, OrangeKhrush said:

I wouldn't consider moderates to be the establishment elite.

Moderate voters are going to be people who can identify with values on both the left and the right. That's what makes them moderate. They don't fit neatly into a political spectrum. They have some elements of being right wing, they've got some elements of being left wing. Most people that don't make politics their whole life and their whole personality are probably moderates tbh. Because it's normal for people to not fit neatly into a partisan box that's been created for them by the establishment politicians and the media.

For politicians that fall under the category of "moderates" are the sort of politicians that can appeal to these sorts of people. They're democrats that have conservative leanings - which is what Biden very much is the definition of. Or they're republicans who have left-wing leanings on certain issues, like John McCain and Mitt Romney. Also Richard Nixon would likely be considered a moderate today.

There's also an argument to be made that the modern day GOP isn't conservative at all, it's just right-winged. And the moderate branch of the democratic party is where the conservatives would find their home nowadays. Because if this were England, most democrats would be considered Tories except for a far few. Most of the GOP politicians would be considered UKIP or BNP or something along those lines.

[Spike]

Christian/Judeo moral values, ah straight out of the Ben Shapiro textbook on defining culture. Conveniently forgoes the third pillar of Abrahamic religions, huh

[Harry]

On 05/08/2023 at 00:46, Cicero said:

Are there really no suitable democratic candidates that appeals to the moderates?

Josh Shapiro and Jared Polis would be decent picks.

Klobuchar and Buttigieg also high profile moderates that would be worth mentioning.

but that said I've been happy with Biden's policies and would be enthusiastic in voting for him in 2024. He's delivered a huge amount for a president with a very precarious congressional balance, with Manchin the deciding senator.

[Harry]

Honestly don't think democrats should bother with a Bernie candidate until they can win enough senate seats to kill the filibuster, add a couple more states and abolish the electoral college.

[Dr. Gonzo]

17 hours ago, Spike said:

Christian/Judeo moral values, ah straight out of the Ben Shapiro textbook on defining culture. Conveniently forgoes the third pillar of Abrahamic religions, huh

Also forgets that the US was founded by a bunch of Christians who didn't like having "traditional religious values" imposed on them. The idea of promoting Judeo-Christian morality, or any religious morality, from government sort of goes against the general concept of the whole "freedom of religion" part of the US's first amendment... and going against that isn't really conservative politics at all tbh.

[Dr. Gonzo]

5 hours ago, Harry said:

Honestly don't think democrats should bother with a Bernie candidate until they can win enough senate seats to kill the filibuster, add a couple more states and abolish the electoral college.

I don't think they can abolish the electoral college unless they've got enough seats to amend the constitution... which is incredibly unlikely.

[Rucksackfranzose]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Also forgets that the US was founded by a bunch of Christians who didn't like having "traditional religious values" imposed on them. The idea of promoting Judeo-Christian morality, or any religious morality, from government sort of goes against the general concept of the whole "freedom of religion" part of the US's first amendment... and going against that isn't really conservative politics at all tbh.

Well thinking aboutit,3 of the 5 value groups were:

- christian/judeo moral value system

- nuclear family

- community of people

Might be it's because I left the church after having been on a catholic school, but in my ears this combination has an unpleasantly fundamentalist sound.

 

Edited August 8, 2023 by Rucksackfranzose

[Tommy]

23 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

 

• Bernie Sanders - who's not a moderate and as far as US politics goes, would be branded a filthy socialist that would turn the USA into the USSR. So no chance for him really.

I root for him every time he candidates, and every time his own party throws him under the bus. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

7 minutes ago, Tommy said:

I root for him every time he candidates, and every time his own party throws him under the bus. 

He's not really in a political party though - he's officially an independent. He runs as a democrat when he runs for president because it's the only party that would take someone like him on a national level other than the green party, and the green party in the US isn't the same as it is in other parts of the world (promoting weird conspiracy theories, not really pushing environmental causes - it's kind of a scam tbh). And he caucuses with the democrats in the senate because the republicans are nutters.

So it's not that surprising because most of the democratic party are just what the UK would consider tories - and his policies are pretty far left for what tories would find acceptable. He's a victim of there being no real left-leaning party in the US and the corporate media having so much power over the 2 political parties that actually have a chance.

[Dr. Gonzo]

29 minutes ago, Rucksackfranzose said:

Well thinking aboutit,3 of the 5 value groups were:

- christian/judeo moral value system

- nuclear family

- community of people

Might be it's because I left the church after having been on a catholic school, but in my ears this combination has an unpleasantly fundamentalist sound.

 

Yeah, I agree with that. Granted I've not got a religious background at all - my dad's side of the family's probably squarely what would fit in the definition of agnostic & my mum's side of the family, as victims of religious extremism in their home country, are basically big on being anti-religious.

My mum's side of the family definitely have shaped my belief that when you see people pushing these cultural values as cornerstones of political thought... it's a big red flag. It's sort of antithetical to having a free society, trying to control how society behaves and operates to fit a political ideology that's rooted in religious traditions.

The religious right wing in every country, regardless of the religion and regardless of the country, are always the scariest group of people. They're almost all universally fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are not people that believe in compromise and they aren't tolerant of people who think differently to them. That sort of extremism isn't really compatible with the idea of a truly free democracy.

[OrangeKhrush]

that is a pretty nihilistic viewpoint.  on the one hand you complain about "intolerance" then on the other you express your malcontent on people of faith, and brand them right wing as if there are no left wing people of faith.

the modern progressive view on intolerance is anyone that rejects a conflicting ideology, especially those based on ultra minority views, precipitated through persecution syndrome and encourage the use of censorship and tribunals to brand people who don't agree with your world view as evil.  we have a word for that, it's called fascism.

the most contentious issues with progressivism are typically subjective experience and forced acceptance of that reality on the majority who don't support it.   

Islam is very big here, it is the prominant religion between, Black, coloured and Indian communities, the mere devotion to faith doesn't make a person evil. 

[Rucksackfranzose]

41 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

that is a pretty nihilistic viewpoint.  on the one hand you complain about "intolerance" then on the other you express your malcontent on people of faith, and brand them right wing as if there are no left wing people of faith.

the modern progressive view on intolerance is anyone that rejects a conflicting ideology, especially those based on ultra minority views, precipitated through persecution syndrome and encourage the use of censorship and tribunals to brand people who don't agree with your world view as evil.  we have a word for that, it's called fascism.

the most contentious issues with progressivism are typically subjective experience and forced acceptance of that reality on the majority who don't support it.   

Islam is very big here, it is the prominant religion between, Black, coloured and Indian communities, the mere devotion to faith doesn't make a person evil. 

The mere devotion to faith doesn't make a person evil, I agree. The missionary will to impose their religious morals and values on others not sharing them does, though.

[OrangeKhrush]

2 minutes ago, Rucksackfranzose said:

The mere devotion to faith doesn't make a person evil, I agree. The missionary will to impose their religious morals and values on others not sharing them does, though.

what millennia are we talking about?  If we are going back rob the day of the holy Roman church, crusades, inquisitions, yes that was wrong but nobody alive today is a victim of it so the issue is moot.

to force someone requires threat or favour in coercion of will, a missionary today holds no sway or power and whether a person accepts the gospel or not is a personal choice.

[Rucksackfranzose]

14 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

what millennia are we talking about?  If we are going back rob the day of the holy Roman church, crusades, inquisitions, yes that was wrong but nobody alive today is a victim of it so the issue is moot.

to force someone requires threat or favour in coercion of will, a missionary today holds no sway or power and whether a person accepts the gospel or not is a personal choice.

We're talking this century. Christians eg arguing fetuses were sacred are trying to impose their own values and morals on others not sharing them, it's the same missionary will, only other methods.

Edited August 25, 2023 by Rucksackfranzose

[OrangeKhrush]

4 minutes ago, Rucksackfranzose said:

We're talking this century. Christians eg arguing fetuses were sacred are trying to impose their own values and morals on others not sharing them, it's the same missionary will, only other methods.

they are arguing that the right to life is sacred, which it is, in most or all constitutions the right to life is absolute.

the religious arguement on abortion pertains to when a unborn reaches the point where it is regarded alive which is already part of western legal systems.  the arguement is, that once this point is reached, termination should only be allowed if a medical practitioner deems it to be a threat to the life and wellbeing(physical and mental) of the mother and/or child.  this has been in western legal systems for centuries.

in Germany abortion is illegal prior to 12 weeks unless it is signed off by councillors and practitioners.   eg: in a proper rape situation the child may cause psychological distress and it may be condoned other than that, kill that unborn and go to jail.

[Rucksackfranzose]

Nobody denies the legal systems of "western " countries is characterised by Christianity since early middle Ages, that doesn't necessarely mean this striking were inreversable. The most intriguing part of loaws is that there are changeable by either simple or qualified parlamentary majorities.

By the way, I know the applicable regulation in Germany, many thanks. Doesn't change the fact German Christians are trying to get abortion banned with said arguement, which is imposing their own values and morals on others, since the right to abort does not include an obligation to do so, which would mean they could follow their beliefs without forcing them on others. As said the same missionary will.

[OrangeKhrush]

2 hours ago, Rucksackfranzose said:

Nobody denies the legal systems of "western " countries is characterised by Christianity since early middle Ages, that doesn't necessarely mean this striking were inreversable. The most intriguing part of loaws is that there are changeable by either simple or qualified parlamentary majorities.

By the way, I know the applicable regulation in Germany, many thanks. Doesn't change the fact German Christians are trying to get abortion banned with said arguement, which is imposing their own values and morals on others, since the right to abort does not include an obligation to do so, which would mean they could follow their beliefs without forcing them on others. As said the same missionary will.

they are the majority and consider abortion amoral and let's people live promiscuous lifestyles without consequences.   we live in a society fixated on quick fix sexual activity instead of good moral values.

opposition to unconstrained abortion is not a religious thing, it is public policy thing, it's disgusting.

[Rucksackfranzose]

19 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

they are the majority and consider abortion amoral and let's people live promiscuous lifestyles without consequences.   we live in a society fixated on quick fix sexual activity instead of good moral values.

opposition to unconstrained abortion is not a religious thing, it is public policy thing, it's disgusting.

Definetely not in Germany and some stats I read suggests it's also not true, at least, in parts of the US: By majority I meant a parlamentarian majority, by the way.

Aw, and about disgusting: How are your feelings about the promotion of cannibalism by some churches? "This is my body..., This is my blood", you know!

[OrangeKhrush]

3 minutes ago, Rucksackfranzose said:

Definetely not in Germany and some stats I read suggests it's also not true, at least, in parts of the US: By majority I meant a parlamentarian majority, by the way.

Aw, and about disgusting: How are your feelings about the promotion of cannibalism by some churches? "This is my body..., This is my blood", you know!

parliamentarian majority requires 2/3 majority, the US is 50/50.

the reality is nobody really is concerned about people want to erase the consequences of their actions, nor is your average citizen interested in welfare to woman for children.   the majority of people are concerned about rampant corruption between government on corporate elite leading to power monopolies and the complete destruction of the private sector.

the latest issue in the US, the Hawaii fires were blamed initially on "global warming" and it transpires the real reason was the Hawaii government failing to update aging electrical infrastructure and the money allocated to it has mysteriously vanished into democrat pockets, because morality is such an effivesant thing.

I think there are far more concerning people that religious people.  wolves in sheep's clothing.

I would hardly call cannibal cults Christian lol.