Support NeoGAF

[Cheebo]

You dismiss the "got to stop Republicans from winning argument". Why?

If you care about our country, that is a fucking vital piece of our future. Look at how horrible the policies of Reagan and Bush were. We are STILL reeling from the disastrous policies of Reagan.

When you have a political party whose policy anti-middle class that kind of makes things difficult.

And just look at simple things like Supreme Court. If McCain won he would have put two conservatives on the bench. And the gay marriage case would have no chance. That is more damaging to our nation than anything in your OP. You can't really trump human rights as an issue.

 

[SomTervo]

It does not mean conservative; liberal vs. conservative is the classic dichotomy in politics and the context of the original, proper meaning of the word "liberal". America has perverted its meaning to something different, but it remains a non-standard interpretation in my book.

There is no 'proper' meaning of any word in any language. All that matters is how people use it at any given time.

In this case, nowadays, only America uses it to mean what the word meant back in the 14th century – 'selfless', 'people-focused', thus 'left-wing' (which of course are bad things in US politics).

I was simply stating that for most of the planet, right now, it means a right wing viewpoint of unregulated capitalism, ie 'economic liberalism'. In the USA, yes, it's 'liberal vs conservative', but in the rest of the world one would say 'socialist vs conservative' or 'left wing vs conservative'.

Was mainly just a contemporary usage observation. The point has been cleared up either way.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

I'm up for a socialist revolution, the nationalization of all industry, and the radical redistribution of wealth.

 

[Ikael]

The refocus from hard, socioeconomic issues into petty identitarian fights has soured me greatly towards American liberals, specially as they try to export these asisine priorities towards the European left wing.

I just cannot help but feeling that there's a deliberate "Divide et impera" strategy behind this, as well as a huge amount natural of self-rightneoussness that it is quite probably turning voters into the arms of the extreme right wing. Do not want.

 

[acheron_xl]

I'd argue for the need for a revolution, but the people that would likely fill the vacuum of power would be even more frightening. A slowly declining constitutional republic that services nobody well is probably preferable to a far-right fascist military dictatorship.

 

[JesseEwiak]

The refocus from hard, socioeconomic issues into petty identitarian fights has soured me greatly towards American liberals, specially as they try to export these asisine priorities towards the European left wing.

I just cannot help but feeling that there's a deliberate "Divide et impera" strategy behind this, as well as a huge amount natural of self-rightneoussness that it is quite probably turning voters into the arms of the extreme right wing. Do not want.

Or ya' know, we care about issues of classism, racism, homophobia, and sexism all at the same time, and the fact that in many cases, all those things are connected.

I'm sorry the fact I care about equal rights for the transgender people I know, making sure my black friends have equal access to jobs, and making sure my female friends can successfully sue against sexual harassment gets in the way of the revolution, Comrade.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

So I guess what OP is trying to say is

In the right light, study becomes insight
But the system that dissed us
Teaches us to read and right
So called facts are fraud
They want us to allege and pledge
And bow down to their God
Lost the culture, the culture lost
Spun our minds and through time
Ignorance has taken over
Yo, we gotta take the power back!
Bam! Here's the plan
Motherfuck Uncle Sam
Step back, I know who I am
Raise up your ear, I'll drop the style and clear
It's the beats and the lyrics they fear
The rage is relentless
We need a movement with a quickness
You are the witness of change
And to counteract
We gotta take the power back

Yeah, we gotta take the power back
Come on, come on!
We gotta take the power back

The present curriculum
I put my fist in 'em
Eurocentric every last one of 'em
See right through the red, white and blue disguise
With lecture I puncture the structure of lies
Installed in our minds and attempting
To hold us back
We've got to take it back
Holes in our spirit causin' tears and fears
One-sided stories for years and years and years
I'm inferior? Who's inferior?
Yeah, we need to check the interior
Of the system that cares about only one culture
And that is why
We gotta take the power back

Yeah, we gotta take the power back
Come on, come on!
We gotta take the power back

Hey yo check, we're gonna have to break it, break it,
break it down
Aw shit!
Ugh!
And like this Ugh!
Come on, yeah! Bring it back the other way!

The teacher stands in front of the class
But the lesson plan he can't recall
The student's eyes don't perceive the lies
Bouncing off every fucking wall
His composure is well kept
I guess he fears playing the fool
The complacent students sit and listen to some of that
Bullshit that he learned in school
Europe ain't my rope to swing on
Can't learn a thing from it
Yet we hang from it
Gotta get it, gotta get it together then
Like the motherfuckin' weathermen
To expose and close the doors on those who try
To strangle and mangle the truth
'Cause the circle of hatred continues unless we react
We gotta take the power back

 

[andycapps]

I don't see the changes happening that are needed short of a revolution by the American people, and I don't see the American people caring enough to do that in my lifetime. We're too distracted by all of our technology and entertainment to worry about how the government is screwing us.

I'd say one huge step that we could make is to outlaw corporate contributions to politicians. Hell, campaign spending limits. Make it a level playing field and then politicians will have to compete based on their ideas.

We also need mid-term referendums on politicians so we can vote on their job performance and vote them out if they're not coming through on their platforms.

None of this will happen though. I don't have hope in our political system anymore.

 

[Scipius]

I was simply stating that for most of the planet, right now, it means a right wing viewpoint of unregulated capitalism, ie 'economic liberalism'. In the USA, yes, it's 'liberal vs conservative', but in the rest of the world one would say 'socialist vs conservative' or 'left wing vs conservative'.

The proper meaning of liberal has never changed in many of the world's languages and neither has it in English. It's only in America where this shift has occurred and the American use is inconsistent with global standards. In the rest of the world, "socialist vs. liberal" or "liberal vs. conservative" are still very real opposites, depending on the issues involved.

This touches upon the theme of the thread of course, the fact of why American progressives seem to be such a useless lot. No matter how progressive they consider themselves to be, only a few do not subscribe to the underlying foundation of American conservatism, which is the unwavering and often unquestioned belief in American Exceptionalism.

 

[danwarb]

I'm up for a socialist revolution, the nationalization of all industry, and the radical redistribution of wealth.

I'd settle for breaking up monopolies and banks considered too big to fail. Nationalize the shit out of them if they do. Also we could stop demonizing the poor.

 

[YoungHav]

The USA should get more than two parties, giving the people real choice. A two-party system is absurd.

Its blatantly rigged and pisses me the fuck off. During the "presidential debate" of Romney/Obama, I was in the fucking middle east and on T.V. they were airing the presidential debates of the other parties w/ Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, and other candidates etc... actually talking about real issues and not the stupid robo-script theatre of Obama-Romney. The U.S. done lost.

If I were a multi-billionaire I'd bankroll Leftist candidates like The Illusive Man.

 

[Ikael]

Or ya' know, we care about issues of classism, racism, homophobia, and sexism all at the same time, and the fact that in many cases, all those things are connected.

I'm sorry the fact I care about equal rights for the transgender people I know, making sure my black friends have equal access to jobs, and making sure my female friends can successfully sue against sexual harassment gets in the way of the revolution, Comrade.

Wealth confers a set of privileges that rolfstomps any other gender, sexual and racial privilege. Not acknowleding that is naive at best, dangerous at worst, and is rightfully deemed as downright insulting for a big chunk of the blue collar working class. And yes, I know that you can (and should!) tackle several issues at once (and that these other discrimination that you mention are no joke either) but unfortunately, the public opinion is rarely good at multitasking or looking at the big picture.

And yes, all those issues are connected indeed, but they are steam, first and foremost, from economic inequality. Closing the gender gap pay is indeed doable, but helping yet another turbocharged leaning-in sillicon valley female executive to win the corporate throne means utter nothingto the actual welfare of the average woman. Tribalilsm and tokenism never solved anything ever, other than providing a cheap visceral shot of "rah, rah, one of us!". My female coworkers needs a bigger maternity leave, not "empowerment", for the first is a left wing solution, the former is just a "progressive" placebo.

 

[Eighty Deuce]

I was listening to NPR and they estimated amount of money needed this election for each party is 2 billion. There is NO FUCKING WAY anyone can win as third party because of the price tag.

 

[demon]

Wealth confers a set of privileges that rolfstomps any other gender, sexual and racial privilege. Not acknowleding that is naive at best, dangerous at worst, and is rightfully deemed as downright insulting for a big chunk of the blue collar working class. And yes, I know that you can (and should!) tackle several issues at once (and that these other discrimination that you mention are no joke either) but unfortunately, the public opinion is rarely good at multitasking or looking at the big picture.

And yes, all those issues are connected indeed, but they are steam, first and foremost, from economic inequality. Closing the gender gap pay is indeed doable, but helping yet another turbocharged leaning-in sillicon valley female executive to win the corporate throne means utter nothingto the actual welfare of the average woman. Tribalilsm and tokenism never solved anything ever, other than providing a cheap visceral shot of "rah, rah, one of us!". My female coworkers needs a bigger maternity leave, not "empowerment", for the first is a left wing solution, the former is just a "progressive" placebo.

I agree with this.

I'm absolutely all for championing equal rights for everybody, but economic equality and getting money out of politics will have by far the greatest positive impact for everybody, and social progressivism would follow. That's why I can't support someone who claims to be very socially liberal but fiscally conservative. When you're fiscally conservative, you're socially conservative, despite what you say your stances are on some isolated social issues.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Kind of. I sympathize with conservatism in that feel problems are better off solved when the responsibility lays solely with the individual and the community rather than expecting our corrupt government to magically solve these issues.

Yes welfare is a good idea but we wouldn't need it if we would all have the compassion to take care of our own. Medicine has improved greatly but at the same time, there was a time when hospitals would treat anyone in their community regardless of whether or not they had enough money, insurance etc.

If you're that troubled to make a heartfelt plea like you did, you should at least not be prone to regurgitating surface level, transparent bootstrap nonsense like that.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Wealth confers a set of privileges that rolfstomps any other gender, sexual and racial privilege. Not acknowleding that is naive at best, dangerous at worst, and is rightfully deemed as downright insulting for a big chunk of the blue collar working class.

Ask a rich or even middle class black, brown, or Asian folks how much their W-2 helps them when a cop is bearing down on 'em with a handgun and telling them to get on their fucking knees.

And as for the white working class, bluntly, as somebody who grew up among them, I'm all for helping them, but until they stop voting for conservative parties because more progressive parties dare to be friendly to non-white or non-straight people, fuck pandering to them as well. There's plenty of black, brown, and Asian working class people who won't fuck over each other as quick as a white guy will to feel above a minority.

And yes, I know that you can (and should!) tackle several issues at once (and that these other discrimination that you mention are no joke either) but unfortunately, the public opinion is rarely good at multitasking or looking at the big picture.

So, of course, the rights of minorities get tossed aside for the needs of a white guy in a mine shaft who thinks gay people are yucky and thinks white people are the ones who are victims of racism now, right?

And yes, all those issues are connected indeed, but they are steam, first and foremost, from economic inequality. Closing the gender gap pay is indeed doable, but helping yet another turbocharged leaning-in sillicon valley female executive to win the corporate throne means utter nothingto the actual welfare of the average woman. Tribalilsm and tokenism never solved anything ever, other than providing a cheap visceral shot of "rah, rah, one of us!". My female coworkers needs a bigger maternity leave, not "empowerment", for the first is a left wing solution, the former is just a "progressive" placebo.

Yeah, Sally, I know the whole power structure is entirely full of white males. But, you don't want that. You don't want any power in your life. Power is bad (until the revolution). Until then, just be a good solider and fight for the things, I as a male, say is important for you to care about, none of this representation or empowerment rubbish.

I agree with this.

I'm absolutely all for championing equal rights for everybody, but economic equality and getting money out of politics will have by far the greatest positive impact for everybody, and social progressivism would follow. That's why I can't support someone who claims to be very socially liberal but fiscally conservative. When you're fiscally conservative, you're socially conservative, despite what you say your stances are on some isolated social issues.

So, was LBJ's mistake just waiting until he got single payer health care passed to deal with those pesky civil rights?

 

[Shake Appeal]

What this thread touches is on is why the conflation of "liberal" with "left" has been poisonous for both.

 

[demon]

So, was LBJ's mistake just waiting until he got single payer health care passed to deal with those pesky civil rights?

Civil rights....how's that going several decades later? How is the black community doing economically these days?

Ask a rich or even middle class black, brown, or Asian folks how much their W-2 helps them when a cop is bearing down on 'em with a handgun and telling them to get on their fucking knees.

Police treat them like second class citizens because they essentially are second class citizens, regardless of a few rich ones. And they're second class citizens because their communities are poor. I don't know what kind of socially liberal legislation you expect is going to fix that problem. It's a deeply systemic economic one.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Civil rights....how's that going several decades later? How is the black community doing economically these days?

Yes, if only the African-American population had given up the right to vote, the good white people of the South would've been OK with massive welfare payments and infrastructure development in the black community to help with hundreds of years of subjagation.

Welfare without equality isn't justice, it's breads and circuses.

 

[demon]

Yes, if only the African-American population had given up the right to vote, the good white people of the South would've been OK with massive welfare payments and infrastructure development in the black community to help with hundreds of years of subjagation.

Welfare without equality isn't justice, it's breads and circuses.

This isn't the 1960s and LBJ isn't running for office. My point is just that socially liberal policies with economically conservative policies aren't going to get you far, and focusing only on the former while ignoring the latter is naïve and short-sighted.

Again, I'm not saying ignore socially liberal policies, but the two go hand in and a lot of liberals seem to miss that.

 

[ConsumerSquare]

Yeah, Sally, I know the whole power structure is entirely full of white males. But, you don't want that. You don't want any power in your life. Power is bad (until the revolution). Until then, just be a good solider and fight for the things, I as a male, say is important for you to care about, none of this representation or empowerment rubbish.

Do you really not see how workplace protections for American women directly relate to power structures or empowerment?

 

[n00bsauce87]

All politics are local. OP who is your representative in congress and state government? If they are republican, you should help make them democrat instead. It's nice to have a democratic president and all, but it doesn't do him or her any good with a republican led congress (if you feel that way).

See Democratic governor Jay Nixon and how the republican led congress overwrit(?) his veto to enact welfare limits.

OP, your warpath isn't set towards the right people

 

[Guileless]

Folks, human nature simply prefers consumerism and expressive individualism over any alternative, and Americans figured it out first. It's got plusses and minuses. One plus is you can freely talk about how terrible it is, which is more than we can say for some of the alternatives being proposed here.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

I'd settle for breaking up monopolies and banks considered too big to fail. Nationalize the shit out of them if they do. Also we could stop demonizing the poor.

That would be great too. If any company that ever takes federal money falters or is convicted of any crime, does wrongdoings, in some way fucks up, even on a small scale they are automatically nationalized.

Also prohibit the current or former heads/leadership group/beneficiaries of multimillion dollar and multinational corporations for running for public office as long as they still profit from those companies.

Put a term limit on the House and Senate, something generous like four terms, but still a limit. Do a mandated nationwide redistricting to undo gerrymandering, with UN oversight if need be.

Completely rescind all voter ID laws and ban attack ads.

 

[JesseEwiak]

This isn't the 1960s and LBJ isn't running for office. My point is just that socially liberal policies with economically conservative policies aren't going to get you far, and focusing only on the former while ignoring the latter is naïve and short-sighted.

Again, I'm not saying ignore socially liberal policies, but the two go hand in and a lot of liberals seem to miss that.

I agree, which is why I'm supporting the most socially and economically progressive eligible candidate who can win a national election in the year of somebodies Lord, 2016 - Hillary Clinton.

 

[Cheebo]

Also the OP's conservative leanings make me highly questionable of his motive here. He just doesn't want liberals to rally around Hillary so whoever the GOP nominates can win.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Hilary, like Chris Christie, is exactly as left or right as it takes to get the maximum amount of campaign contributions. I will not ever vote for a scumbag like either one of them. At least fucking hide how fucking corrupt you are.

 

[SomTervo]

The proper meaning of liberal has never changed in many of the world's languages and neither has it in English. It's only in America where this shift has occurred and the American use is inconsistent with global standards. In the rest of the world, "socialist vs. liberal" or "liberal vs. conservative" are still very real opposites, depending on the issues involved.

This touches upon the theme of the thread of course, the fact of why American progressives seem to be such a useless lot. No matter how progressive they consider themselves to be, only a few do not subscribe to the underlying foundation of American conservatism, which is the unwavering and often unquestioned belief in American Exceptionalism.

I guess the difference here is context, as you said, 'depending on the issues involved'. According to etymological topographs, the meaning of 'liberal' has categorically changed – but you're probably generally right. I imagine I'm in the minority using 'liberal' to mean right-wing, even in the UK.

Also re context: I'd wager that in political contexts, in the Rest of World, 'liberal' means 'economic liberal', ie right wing, free market capitalism, etc. Eg the 'Liberal democrats' in the UK, who are slightly right of centre.

But I have heard many use 'liberal' in non-political contexts to mean 'free-thinking', which is etymologically correct but not necessarily correct in political contexts, where the meaning has changed.

 

[Chococat]

Kind of. I sympathize with conservatism in that feel problems are better off solved when the responsibility lays solely with the individual and the community rather than expecting our corrupt government to magically solve these issues.

To me, this type of thinking is flawed. Government is made by people. If it is corrupt, it is because the people working within the system are corrupt, the necessarily the government itself which is just a collections of laws and procedures.

It is magical thinking that everything would be better in the hands individuals and communities when the are comprised of corruptible human. If humans were pure and nice to each other laws and governments would not be needed.

Yes welfare is a good idea but we wouldn't need it if we would all have the compassion to take care of our own. Medicine has improved greatly but at the same time, there was a time when hospitals would treat anyone in their community regardless of whether or not they had enough money, insurance etc.

What are you, a commie?

Seriously, the compassion you asking for is not compatible with the current American conservative capitalist society. People don't like to be forced to pay for welfare though taxes. If Government gave taxpayers back that money, how much do you honestly think is going to be used to help out their fellow man?

Hospitals do treat everyone, they legally cannot turn people away. That is why for those of us who can pay, or who have insurance the price is high and undisclosed- they're trying to make their budgets work when a great majority of their customer don't pay.

The root of our problems is out modern American conservative capitalist culture. People pay lip service to being compassionate, while actively being assholes to one another. We can't have universal healthcare cause some unworthy person is taking my money. We can't have welfare, those lazy people don't deserve my money.

American way of life is individualism gone too far. You can't have a society when no one want to band together to help each other grow.

 

[inki]

You can believe what you want and I will believe what I want (as in how best to help the country). Which is why I think this country is so great. I won't go any deeper into any of your specific points as there is no point. I won't change your mind and you won't change mine. I refrain from speaking about politics and religion for the most part all together. I do what I can to help what I think needs help and leave it at that.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Edmund Burke

 

[Guileless]

The root of our problems is out modern American conservative capitalist culture. People pay lip service to being compassionate, while actively being assholes to one another.

What form of societal organization would cure corruption and the existence of assholes?

 

[Mr. Blonde]

You dismiss the "got to stop Republicans from winning argument". Why?

If you care about our country, that is a fucking vital piece of our future. Look at how horrible the policies of Reagan and Bush were. We are STILL reeling from the disastrous policies of Reagan.

When you have a political party whose policy anti-middle class that kind of makes things difficult.

And just look at simple things like Supreme Court. If McCain won he would have put two conservatives on the bench. And the gay marriage case would have no chance. That is more damaging to our nation than anything in your OP. You can't really trump human rights as an issue.

if mccain won, then stevens and souter don't retire during his term.

 

[Chococat]

What form of societal organization would cure corruption and the existence of assholes?

If I had the answer to that, I'd be a god.

Seriously though, corruption and assholes can't be cured, it can only be managed and lessened. To be managed, consequences for doing wrong have to be enforced at all levels of society. The government has too much power over people because American let it.

Occupation Wall Street accomplished nothing because the public attacked the surface qualities of the protesters and failed to take the issue at hand seriously- the need to punish and regulative the out of control banking system. Government didn't have to fight against it corporate backers because the people were too busy infighting amongst themselves over scrapes of ideals. So much for peaceful protest.

Ferguson and Baltimore are only making waves because of violent protest, peaceful ones did jack shit. Even then, the majority of the public still doesn't understand why they happened at all. They are okay with government/police overreach along as it doesn't effect their lives.

The fact is American don't want the face the hard true- we are no longer exceptional and we need to change to accommodate that fact.

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

You can believe what you want and I will believe what I want (as in how best to help the country). Which is why I think this country is so great.

The freedom to believe what you want is good but merely having the option to believe ANYTHING is not what makes a country great, as there is nothing inherently valuable about having a belief. Anyone can believe anything about anything for any reason. What makes a country great is when people hold beliefs that are demonstrably true and can be backed up by evidence.

 

[Guileless]

Seriously though, corruption and assholes can't be cured, it can only be managed and lessened. To be managed, consequences for doing wrong have to be enforced at all levels of society.

So if we looked at a corruption index, would you expect capitalist countries to be high or low?

 

[Chococat]

So if we looked at a corruption index, would you expect capitalist countries to be high or low?

Any government/ruling body can be corrupt- I don't think those countries with a capitalist economies are more or less prone to corruption. And honestly, I don't care what the corruption index is unless it actual sheds some light onto why America is slipping backwards into an oligarchy like that of the early 1900s.

 

[YoungHav]

FDR's ".. and I welcome their hatred" is one of the best diss tracks a president has dropped against The Capitalist.

Obama would be shaking in his boots at the thought of being that uppity.

 

[entremet]

I'm not a liberal in the current sense, but I've lost faith in federal elections due to Citizen's United.

I'm more focused on local elections.

The only thing that keeps me on the Dems for Presidents side is SCOTUS appointments.

The Republicans are totally off base for me to even consider them.

 

[Guileless]

Any government/ruling body can be corrupt- .

Of course, and every single one is corrupt to varying degrees. Transparency International measures it. Their website is fascinating, I recommend it.

I don't think those countries with a capitalist economies are more or less prone to corruption.

How did you reach that conclusion? Here's the TI index. (Well played, Denmark.)

And honestly, I don't care what the corruption index is unless it actual sheds some light onto why America is slipping backwards into an oligarchy like that of the early 1900s

If you're interested in what types of societal organization discourage corruption and how we Americans can improve our own anti-corruption measures, what method is better than comparative analysis of the different approaches to see who is most and least succesful?

 

[Green Wiggly]

I agree with this. We need fundamental changes in our priorities and attitude toward each other on a global scale if we are going to move forward as a species. Sadly, it seems like humans are incapable of doing anything mildly inconvenient as a preventative measure and only get pushed into motion out of necessity after something happens. I'm sure the shit will slide out from under us at some point and there will be much finger pointing.

 

[Chococat]

If you're interested in what types of societal organization discourage corruption and how we Americans can improve our own anti-corruption measures, what method is better than comparative analysis of the different approaches to see who is most and least successful?

If you wanted to do that, you could have presented the information from your link first instead of presenting your idea and facts in a "got you" question.

Tell me, does that pretty colored chart detail which countries had their borders redrawn by the seemingly "good" less corrupt imperial minded nations (Africa, Middle East, India subcontinental, and China)? Or have their trade policies dictated to them by outside forces? Who were subject to the proxies wars on their soil by the Cold War founders? Who had drugs decimate their people in the name of western profits (the Opium Wars) or continuously has puppet regimes installed to forward their western causes (South America and the Middle East).

What that chart shows me the result of Western powers til this day corrupted influence over those weaker than themselves. How can supposed non corrupt nations considering them selves such when they historical have preyed and used other human beings to further their profit?

Why do we do business with them if we are above corruption? Could it be that earning money is better in western eyes surpasses laws that protect humanity?

How did you reach that conclusion? Here's the TI index. (Well played, Denmark.)

I've recently been self studying the history on government of other counties including China, Russia, and England in comparison to America. The reoccurring theme is no mater what form the government is and what its particular economic leaning is, it is corrupt individuals installing themselves into position of power that leads hardship for the very people they claim to serve while pocketing profits for themselves.

It great to look at history and data to help correct problems. But the way your response was worded, I don't believe that was your intention. I think you wanted to show, hey we're doing fine, look at all those other people who are worse than us to dismiss talking about our own corruption.

 

[boiled goose]

Get money out of politics.
Lots of orgs pushing for that at the moment.
Join the fight

 

[commedieu]

Again, we start out talking about liberals but who are you describing when you talk about having the same lobbying interests? Sure as hell not liberals.

As for disagreeing: the party system is irrelevant. My issue is not with a party and the label exists strictly for convenience. My issue is with conservative values. We don't disagree because I call myself a liberal and they call themselves conservatives. We disagree because I think that a modern society should embrace communal, secular existence, universal health and education, protecting the environment, and a diplomatic foreign policy, and they think we should pray for rain, outlaw abortion, increase the war on drugs, teach abstinence, start more military conflicts abroad, then clutch our Bible and await the impending, second coming of Jesus.

I mean what are we even talking about here? EVERYTHING you listed is part of the standard, progressive agenda. Sure, things like guns are not a focus of that platform, but it is totally in line with letting people "keep their guns."

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're part of a team that is demonizing conservatives 'values' then lumping their hive mind into a quaint bin to shit on. Your identical attitude has continued this entire time, while our country is falling apart due it being controlled by lobbying, donations, and corporate interests that enjoy pitting us at each other, as while we are arguing, they are just lifting money from our pockets, and children from our families for their wars. Not their own kids, always ours.

This continues to happen, no matter if conservatives, or liberals are in the office.

This continues to happen, no matter if conservatives, or liberals are in the office.

This continues to happen, no matter if conservatives, or liberals are in the office.

And you continue to insult other citizens intellect. Which has no productive outcome besides dividing our nation. The same could be said for liberals and the vaccination issue, or GMOs, or equal rights for victims of the justice system. We've had liberals in office, not much has changed. Rights for people to marry getting traction is superb! Now, what about equal rights? Women are still paid less in the USA. Not much jobs and education is embarrassing. Our diplomacy is non-existent. We are creating more and more enemies with our drone program, that has its own flaws. Everything can be cracked up to waste, lost money, school systems buying IPADS for their schools, only to realize the program is a failure, etc.

There are plenty of modern conservatives. There are plenty of rational people in the USA. They are just played by the Lobby/Media to be reactive and vote against their own interest to allow some coal company to poison west Virginia's water over and over again, on accident. Just like Liberals are played by the same media to have this shitty view of the other team.

Fox news is the most trusted news source in America. This is a problem, as its just political propaganda spun by the same people that pay for our presidents to be in office. We are talking about working with conservatives to get a united voice in the nation that wants our government representatives representing us citizens, and not business or military interests. Our safety, not the safety of someones bank account.

We all need to work together on this. One side can't do it alone.

My mom could be described as conservative, but just speaking with her in respectful ways has really brought her to light on some issues, and the same has happened for me on some of her concerns. We need genuine compromise between the citizens of the nation for a productive government to work. Right now, we just have lobbies and businesses compromising, which means that we get the short end of the stick, always, as the population. No one wants flammable water, or a child to die of measles, they've just been played.

Keep up your mindset, and we will be right back here, with less rights in a few years. Its been proven at this point that this system and the prevailing attitudes isn't working to create a better America. We need to squash a lot of things, re Lib vs Conservative, and the first thing starts with respectful conversations.

 

[lednerg]

Republicans should join in scuttling Citizens United

As January 21, the fifth anniversary of the Citizens United decision, approaches, it’s time to outline why conservatives should get behind an amendment to overturn that U.S. Supreme Court ruling, which unleashed an unprecedented flood of money into our elections.

The case for an amendment should not be partisan, as some members of Congress have tried to make it. It should be common sense. After all, it’s not a partisan issue for voters. For them, it is a commonsense solution.

Poll after poll shows that the majority of voters of all political stripes are alarmed at the record amounts of money pouring into elections. Voters feel they are being drowned out.

A bi-partisan poll conducted last year by my firm, Chesapeake Beach Consulting (Republican) and Lake Research Partners (Democratic), found that voters favor a constitutional amendment by a 61-28 percent margin. Presented with arguments for and against an amendment, Republicans strongly favor the amendment – by a 54-36 percent margin. Our poll also found that by a 6-1 margin, voters say that reducing the influence of money in politics is an important issue.
[...]​

If you're looking for one issue to take up which would have a positive domino effect on the current state of politics, then this is it. Repealing CItizens United is a necessary step towards real campaign finance reform, something which citizens all over the political spectrum would benefit from. If we're ever going to hinder the corruption of our elected officials, then the way campaigns are funded needs to be addressed in a substantial way There are non-partisan groups such as Wolf PAC and Mayday which are getting local officials to commit to move towards fairer elections, but there is also serious pressure [read: money] being applied to keep things the way they are. If doing the work to call or write your congressman is too much for you, then at the very least you should look into which of the candidates on your next ballot support campaign finance reform.

EDIT: oh, also #FUCO

 

[mkenyon]

I'm up for a socialist revolution, the nationalization of all industry, and the radical redistribution of wealth.

I like drawing the line at industries which are no longer growth industries, and are essentially "utilities". Power, Internet, Healthcare, that sort of thing. Keep a market open for innovation and more efficient distribution of goods.

Those utility or replacement industries have no real "invisible hand" to help keep them efficient and innovative, so there's no real reason to keep them as a market industry.

This guy did a lot of things right:

It's a shame their economic model isn't brought up more often due to the Yugoslavian Wars. Because it was a really fuckin good one.

Also, as a side note, I think the major bone I have to pick with Liberal GAF is that they're obsessed over easy to digest social issues that are no-brainers to just about anyone who is able to think critically and without moral judgement. There's zero talk of actual economic issues. I get that, because they're far more complex issues, and most people don't really have the knowledge or understanding to even have a coherent point on most things related to economics.

But they could, if they put the effort into trying to understand. But they don't.

If the SJW could be turned into the EJW, you'd end up achieving the end goals that SJW seek through economic stability and a more equitable distribution of capital. But, it's hard, so I'll just post snarky comments about how stupid conservatives are.

 

[Heartfyre]

FDR's ".. and I welcome their hatred" is one of the best diss tracks a president has dropped against The Capitalist.

Obama would be shaking in his boots at the thought of being that uppity.

Decided to read through that speech after you mentioned it, and came across an interesting section:

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

How often I've been told that history does not repeat itself...

 

[soleil]

I agree 100% with the OP. And my suggestion on what to do about it is vote for Bernie Sanders.

You do realize that was exactly what Occupy Wall Street was doing?

Yes, except Occupy Wall Street had no clear plan presented. My plan: Vote during primaries and vote for the candidates who are NOT bought out, like Bernie Sanders.

 

[commedieu]

My plan: Vote during primaries and vote for the candidates who are NOT bought out, like Bernie Sanders.

hear! hear!

 

[inki]

The freedom to believe what you want is good but merely having the option to believe ANYTHING is not what makes a country great, as there is nothing inherently valuable about having a belief. Anyone can believe anything about anything for any reason. What makes a country great is when people hold beliefs that are demonstrably true and can be backed up by evidence.

Very True, you much more eloquently stated what I meant by that comment. I was vague.

 

[soleil]

Just wanna add again that the OP is right that without tackling the bribery problem, we just won't make progress on many domestics issues at all. Stop voting for candidates that are in the pocket of big corporations. All the problems we have like the ACA not being anything close to a single payer stems from us choosing bought-out candidates during the primaries.