Where are you politically?

[hankhavelock]

I'm curious... what are your political standpoints here at this good forum?

I've made some pretty clear postings as to where I stand (not that any Americans should care, cuz I've not been invited to vote in ur election any ways :-)), but where do you stand?

Let's have some heated debates - it's good for demoCRAZY!

Peace!

BARACK OBAMA!

Hank

[marlowe]

Originally Posted by hankhavelock

I'm curious... what are your political standpoints here at this good forum?

I'm a romantic socialist. I believe that in a society it's to the benefit of all if conditions exist where those more able can assist those less able. I believe in liberty, equal opportunity, and tolerance, and I would support political initiatives that aim to fulfill these ideals.

I'm not in the US but if I had a vote there I would choose Barack Obama over John McCain.

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by marlowe

I'm a romantic socialist. I believe that in a society it's to the benefit of all if conditions exist where those more able can assist those less able. I believe in liberty, equal opportunity, and tolerance, and I would support political initiatives that aim to fulfill these ideals.

I'm not in the US but if I had a vote there I would choose Barack Obama over John McCain.

My maaaan

[Bionca]

I would be in favor of a benevolent despotism... with me as the despot naturally.

“Instead of a Dark Lord, you would have a queen, not dark but beautiful and terrible as the dawn! Tempestuous as the sea, and stronger than the foundations of the earth! All shall love me and despair!�
-Galladriel Lord of the Rings

[marlowe]

Originally Posted by Bionca

All shall love me and despair!

I'm keen on the "All shall love me" bit but not so keen on the "despair"

Benevolent despotism is the ideal form of governance. Most people are more than happy to let someone get on with running things as long as they feel cared for, provided for, and protected. The trouble is it's virtually impossible to achieve. No sooner installed than your 'benevolent' despot will turn out to be nothing of the sort, someone else entirely, that seeks to exploit and supress people in order to maintain their own position. Then removing them is traumatic and bloody!

[Mel Asher]

Except perhaps for a man chasing a Twat ! ( Anglo-speak for an inviting minge )

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by Bionca

I would be in favor of a benevolent despotism... with me as the despot naturally.

“Instead of a Dark Lord, you would have a queen, not dark but beautiful and terrible as the dawn! Tempestuous as the sea, and stronger than the foundations of the earth! All shall love me and despair!�
-Galladriel Lord of the Rings

YES! I KNEW IT, I KNEW IT, I KNEW IT from the start... you ARE Barack (in drag)... I love you! MMMWWWWA! MMMWWWA! MMMMWWWA!

Rock on for CHANGE, giiirl!

Here I am, baby, signed, sealed, delivered!

BARACK OBAMA!

H

[twistedone]

Hmmmmmm......where would men stand in your society?

Hopefully its in a good position. (pun intended).

As far as my political position or beliefs. I don't trust any politician regardless of any party affiliation, and feel they are all liars, only wanting to fulfill their own agendas that benefit them and not their constituents.

I prefer a hardliner approach, just short of a dictatorship. The people still need to rule.

Originally Posted by Bionca

I would be in favor of a benevolent despotism... with me as the despot naturally.

“Instead of a Dark Lord, you would have a queen, not dark but beautiful and terrible as the dawn! Tempestuous as the sea, and stronger than the foundations of the earth! All shall love me and despair!”
-Galladriel Lord of the Rings

[ila]

Originally Posted by hankhavelock

I'm curious... what are your political standpoints here at this good forum?

My voting and beliefs have always been right of centre. Before anyone accuses me of being right wing extremist white supremacist remember that right of centre is a wide spectrum that involves social welfare through to extreme fascism. I don't subscribe to the extremist view. I do believe in capitalism, stock markets, and minimal interference and social engineering from governments.
For those that still want to label me a right wing kook just remember that the left wing is also a wide spectrum that involves social welfare through to communism and Stalinism. Those that vote Democrat in the US are usually looked on as lefties, but I don't call you communists so don't look on me as a right wing extremist.
It's also not a mistake on my part to say that both the left and right wing involve social welfare as both sides of the political sprectrum start from the centre and work outwards.
(so ends my political science lecture)

[lululover]

i'm a full capitalist,the best system for innovation and compétition
born free or die

[Bionca]

What I find interesting about the US 2-party system is the division of economic and social issues and how the division is pretty contradictory. For example..

The "Right" values little government influence in regards to business and feels that private charitable institutions are better able to handle social welfare needs. In essence a Conservative in the US would like to see less taxes and less government involvement in the private sector....

Until we come to social/personal issues. Then we have the "Right" fighting against Gay Marriage (or any legal recognition of the relationships), fighting against Trans* folks getting the legal sex changed on their documentation, wanting government policy to dictate legal sex acts and partners, and having authority to determine what medical options are available to people with HIV, and having a say as to whether a pregnancy comes to term or not.

And the "Left" here takes the opposite - strong government influence in business and taxes and social welfare with a "hands off" approach to personal/social issues. No wonder people think Americans are nuts!

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by Bionca

What I find interesting about the US 2-party system is the division of economic and social issues and how the division is pretty contradictory. For example..

The "Right" values little government influence in regards to business and feels that private charitable institutions are better able to handle social welfare needs. In essence a Conservative in the US would like to see less taxes and less government involvement in the private sector....

Until we come to social/personal issues. Then we have the "Right" fighting against Gay Marriage (or any legal recognition of the relationships), fighting against Trans* folks getting the legal sex changed on their documentation, wanting government policy to dictate legal sex acts and partners, and having authority to determine what medical options are available to people with HIV, and having a say as to whether a pregnancy comes to term or not.

And the "Left" here takes the opposite - strong government influence in business and taxes and social welfare with a "hands off" approach to personal/social issues. No wonder people think Americans are nuts!

What a fabulous observation!

But I believe that the left rightfully understands that without strong government influence in certain areas then the socalled "vulnerable" will be completely overrun by the "laissez faire" approach. Basicly, "strong government" in a capitalist, democratic society means "to protect and serve every body" including the minorities.

Luckily, this entire presidential campaign seems to have opened at least quite a few American eyes to the fact that "strong government" is neither marxism nor a stopper of personal freedom. I guess that eight years with an ultra right (and really not very bright) administration finally paved the way for a new awakening in your beautiful country.

But I do love you wit and your wonderful way with words ;-)

BARACK

[marlowe]

Originally Posted by Bionca

No wonder people think Americans are nuts!

I don't think Americans are nuts. Traditionally the European view has been that mainstream American politics is a fairly narrow spectrum, ie. not a lot of difference between the two main parties. This is changing, in part because European politics have become more narrow and perhaps American politics have become more polarised.

The question is whether the right's idea of minimal goverment is just a way of not dealing with the more difficult issues of poverty, health care, minority rights, etc. whilst discretely favouring their own (the rich). And for the left, will interventionist policies deliver genuine benefits or simply give more control and power to the politicians.

I'm optimistic about American politics. This is the country that gave us "The Rights of Man".

[ila]

Originally Posted by marlowe

I'm optimistic about American politics. This is the country that gave us "The Rights of Man".

Democracy, as we know it, had its origins in ancient Athens. Although it was not a truly democratic equal rights society. Women had no rights as we know such rights today and Athens still had free men and slaves. Rome for a while had a form of democracy, but was still not an equal society. For the true origins of modern democracy you should look closer to home Marlowe. England is the model for all modern democratic societies. It is through many struggles and travails that the English endured and persisted in that gave the world modern democracy. The 'Rights of Man' actually started with the Magna Carta, but that was only just a beginning and didn't, in and of itself, bring about true democracy and equality.

[ila]

Originally Posted by Bionca

What I find interesting about the US 2-party system is the division of economic and social issues and how the division is pretty contradictory. For example..

The "Right" values little government influence in regards to business and feels that private charitable institutions are better able to handle social welfare needs. In essence a Conservative in the US would like to see less taxes and less government involvement in the private sector....

Until we come to social/personal issues. Then we have the "Right" fighting against Gay Marriage (or any legal recognition of the relationships), fighting against Trans* folks getting the legal sex changed on their documentation, wanting government policy to dictate legal sex acts and partners, and having authority to determine what medical options are available to people with HIV, and having a say as to whether a pregnancy comes to term or not.

And the "Left" here takes the opposite - strong government influence in business and taxes and social welfare with a "hands off" approach to personal/social issues. No wonder people think Americans are nuts!

In a functioning democracy the right and the left will always oppose each other, but at the same time they will find elements in each others' ideology that they can support for without support from the opposition issues would not move forward to the satisfaction of the majority. In this you will find what appears (or is in fact) the contradictions of left wing ideologues sometimes espousing what most people think of as right wing and of right wing ideologues voicing what most people consider left wing ideas. Democracy needs these apparent contradictions in order to function.

[sesame]

The Senate or Parliament is a place where card game is played.
Here, an issue which is not profitable for the players becomes a dead issue.
Like in the Cartoon: The poor Little fellow sitting on the President's lap is a Mega Insurance Company. And the real poor fellows become non-issue here.

On the other hand, if it turns out to be a sensation, everybody tries to take credit for the policy even though they opposed it initially!

In this game, you think of something, now... watch the other players, then, you say something else, watch some more for public reaction, do something different from what you said.

Ah, before entering the clubhouse, leave your ideology at the doorstep, along with your umbrella . And murmur Shakespeare before standing up to speak:

"Fair is foul, and foul is fair,
Hover through fog and filthy air."

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Bionca

What I find interesting about the US 2-party system is the division of economic and social issues and how the division is pretty contradictory. For example..

The "Right" values little government influence in regards to business and feels that private charitable institutions are better able to handle social welfare needs. In essence a Conservative in the US would like to see less taxes and less government involvement in the private sector....

Until we come to social/personal issues. Then we have the "Right" fighting against Gay Marriage (or any legal recognition of the relationships), fighting against Trans* folks getting the legal sex changed on their documentation, wanting government policy to dictate legal sex acts and partners, and having authority to determine what medical options are available to people with HIV, and having a say as to whether a pregnancy comes to term or not.

And the "Left" here takes the opposite - strong government influence in business and taxes and social welfare with a "hands off" approach to personal/social issues. No wonder people think Americans are nuts!

I think you are absolutely right on that. It's backwards. Also... the right is allied with the christian coalition. If someone were an atheist, you'd much more often than not find them on the left. But it's the left who economically seems to be doing more of "god's work". Giving to the needy, it takes a village, equal health benefits and education for all, etc. Although citizens on the right do donate heavily, the political party tries to stay out of that.

It is backwards.

[jimnaseum]

A 2 party system hinges on 50-50 topics like abortion and gun control, and from the electoral map of the last election it looks like the 50-50 cut is urban-country.
Proposition 8 in California....the blacks voted against gays! Gov Arnold said he was always in favor of two people in love. One thing is for sure, presidential elections make for great TV. You can't write this stuff.

[racquel]

Originally Posted by marlowe

I'm a romantic socialist. I believe that in a society it's to the benefit of all if conditions exist where those more able can assist those less able. I believe in liberty, equal opportunity, and tolerance, and I would support political initiatives that aim to fulfill these ideals.

If people truly had equal opportunity, wouldn't it be horribly unfair to force the more productive ones to support the lazy ones who didn't take advantage of said opportunity? And that would lead to general ennui among the populace and nobody would accomplish anything.

Admitting that some are "less able" means that they do not have equal opportunity. Pick an ethos.

Socialism in practice has proven that attempting to give everyone the same standard of living lowers everyone's standard of living. Of course, if we're talking about the US, capitalism has been totally perverted and the middle class is disappearing. Nothing better exemplifies this than the countless companies that go bankrupt losing the jobs and pensions of all the workers while the CEOs are given millions for no reason.

Originally Posted by Bionca

What I find interesting about the US 2-party system is the division of economic and social issues and how the division is pretty contradictory.

The 2-party system sucks, but it would be a lot better if it was as you point out split differently. I'd love to vote for smaller government and more social freedom. In the end (seeing as neither Republican nor Democrat social policies are truly oppressive), I think it's more important to vote for smaller government and economic responsibility. The problem with that is that Republicans have proven that they do not actually have any interest in those ideals. I don't think I need to get into the details of how massively Republicans have expanded the size of government, and on what a ridiculous scale they have pissed money away on not just war but handing out trillions to corrupt business.

Originally Posted by tslust

My personal politics are contradictory.

They sure are. You're a self-loathing homophobic homosexual. It's probably your parents' fault for instilling you with a bunch of religious guilt.

I'm a gun owner, too. I have a concealed carry permit to deal with guys like you who would probably like to fuck me then chain me to the bumper of their pickup.

Seriously, if you engage in gay sex but are against gay marriage, just go ahead and kill yourself. Or at least get sterilized. It'd be nice if we didn't have to worry about people like you continuing the cycle of abuse and cranking out kids to indoctrinate with your BS.

I also hate people who are against abortion but don't want to do anything to help all the unwanted kids who just end up filling the prisons.

[Arthur]

Democracy........yes, started off really well until you notice that it favours the top few percent of the population.

It's not the best political system only the best of what is currently available.

Anyone getting into the position of president or prime minster gets there by the greatness of their campaign and that is paid for by those that will take their profit later on.