I embrace the LGBT community progress, but for other issues, I don't "feel" very liberal about politics.
I just want to be a liberal from now on, but I don't feel 100% compatible with it.
There is nothing wrong with having a mixed view of politics. You never want to blindly follow a party or a leader. Instead, you should understand that we are human and as such, people are sometimes wrong and sometimes right. I will not tell you which party to vote for other than who ever you feel is best for the country. That is what each of us must decide when we cast our vote.
I changed in two important stages later in life. Prior to about 2005-2006 i was conservative, fox news watching, Rush Limbaugh listening, feminine male. I was against my own best interests. Then I began the turn away from it. First the rhetoric, fear an entertainment.
After about 2012, I identified as liberal and completely moved away from all conservatism. Spiritual, political, social etc. Doing so later in life is somewhat rare perhaps and it took my family by surprise and hurt some relationships, but for me it had become about "what does the most good for the most people". The answer was staring me in the face.
I used to watch Fox News. Then one time I was first hand involved in an incident that was all over the news for over a month. Watching what Fox News was reporting on that made me realize, to put it bluntly, they are full of crap.
It's no more than mind candy for conspiracy theorists and other semi-sentient humans.
Sapere Aude
My best advice is to educate yourself on all sides of issues... so that you can make up your own mind. There is no need to agree completely with any one party or ideology.
Sent from my SM-G870W using Tapatalk
Fair, but it seems like all I get out of my parents, particularly dad, is that liberals, MSNBC, LGBT, etc. are all a bunch of lies. What do you think of that?
Another thing that's embarrassing about being a conservate here is that it emphasizes all the negative stereotypes about Americans.
I am a libertarian so I hate both sides. If that fails to appeal to you, there are other political leanings like the green party. Don't ever feel committed to a single political party if you are uncomfortable with it. Don't let anybody tell you what to believe as that is for you to decide.
Quote from: redhot1 on March 28, 2016, 08:38:59 PM
I embrace the LGBT community progress, but for other issues, I don't "feel" very liberal about politics.
I just want to be a liberal from now on, but I don't feel 100% compatible with it.
I am neither conservative nor liberal but middle of the road and have never voted a straight party ticket in my life. There are issues on the left I believe in such as universal health care (although I think the Affordable Care Act could be much improved). On the other hand, I am a life member of the NRA and no I don't agree with all their positions. As arice said, study both sides of an issue and make up your own mind. A year ago, I thought Bernie Sanders was the most dangerous candidate in the race. Then I looked at his positions plus all the Republicans went crazy and now I hope Bernie gets elected.
I'm on the left, but not on the Noam Chomsky wing that is currently en vogue.
On the economy, the right would like to decrease the tax burden of the wealthy and cut spending in order to increase economic growth and wages. This won't increase growth though, because our low interest rates show the economy is suffering from a lack of demand, not supply, and it won't increase wages, because unemployment is already low and inequality is high.
On foreign policy, I agree with the left that the Iraq War was a mistake, because it is very difficult to create a state with such incohesive groups, and that we shouldn't repeat the same mistake in Syria, but I don't agree with callousness and lack of foresight the left has shown recently. The U.S. should give more support to the Kurds, Afghanis, Tunisians and Ukrainians.
I'm on the left on guns, the environment, and social policies, and I wish I could elaborate why, but I need to go. Also, I wish I could have wrote details on the economy and foreign policy, but there is so much to write, so could you ask some specific questions?
Why would you want to join the party of Choamsky, Che, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot...?
That's the first thought. "Liberal" of today isn't exactly a warm-and-fuzzy, worthwhile, humane, or even human, character.
And you can probably guess I fall on the conservative side - but so do "classical liberals." Please note the capitalization - it's relevant.
Most of us here actually aren't "Right" or "Left." That's Liberal, Progressive, Neo-Con, etc. They're all FAR left groups, actually - they've just changed exactly what, and exactly how, they will oppress you. BOTH sides of American Politics are the enemy. Religious Right wants to oppress you based on their "perfect" faith (Sounds an awful lot like Islam, when you think of it.) Communists and Socialists think the government should own the means of production, and central economic control works. (Central control of almost anything fails beyond a tribal scale, say a few hundred at most. And ultimately, the means of production? IS YOU. So these methods of control involve government owning YOU, in essence.)
Further, you need to ask who owns you? If you believe YOU own you (your body and mind) - the modern American political system is seen as two wings of the same vulture. They swing back and forth, but they both favor more regulations, more control, more laws - and both break those same laws with impunity.
And the simple-minded masses, acting on greed, envy, lust, etc, vote the same parasites into office time and time again. Many of the voters have NO skin in the game - government workers, for example, BENEFIT from more government. Pharmaceuticals benefit from more drug regulations. (Barrier to entry in the industry, affects almost everything, from banks to credit cards to real estate to manufacturing to the local butcher, baker, and candlestick maker. E.G.: Uber vs. Medallion cabs; Butchers; Cabs as an industry, too; power distribution; wireless carriers; internet service providers; fishermen; fish and animal and plant farming; the list is essentially infinite.)
As the anarchists used to say, (1) if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention, and (2) If voting could change anything, it would be illegal. Remember what Stalin said, "It matters not who votes, it matters who COUNTS the votes."
Other examples of wrong action abound: Toppling the Shah in Iran, for one. Creating ISIS. Creating Saddam Hussein. Being the "police force" of the world. Being PART of the UN (Biggest human rights abusers, especially evident in human trafficking.) CIA's little opium problem, our soldiers guarding the poppy fields - the Taliban was rabidly anti-drug, you see, and now we have a heroin "epidemic" in the US again.
My ultimate point is: DO NOT decide to "BE" a Liberal. NOR a "Conservative." LIEberals and CONservatives are a false duality, a dog-and-pony show to distract from the real issues and solutions, and dogmatic adherence to either pole will be ultimately self-defeating.
Strive to understand the human animal, and remember - you ARE one. If you don't want someone pointing a gun at you, demanding things - don't be willing to point that same gun at someone else. Because Mao was correct: "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun." Sooner or later, it's used on you... And if you supported it? No moral high ground, even - you cannot argue conscience when you show you have none.
There's a REASON I'm a cantankerous SOB. Having an IQ of almost 130 (MENSA level starts 133, IIRC) I see a lot. And I learned history before they started revising it, and I learned MORE than most of my classmates. We're somewhere around the fall of Rome, with many aspects of the Weimar Republic conversion to Nazi Germany.... And if Americans don't wake up soon, we'll end up with a criminal in the white house. The only difference will be name and the party affiliation.
Because as Carlin said, "It's a big club - and you ain't in it!"
-Dianna
To be liberal socially all you need is a bit of empathy, the social politics are usually pretty easy for LGBT people as they deal with the ire of social conservatives a lot. As far as things like economics and foreign policy and whatnot it doesn't even matter for American politics, one side opposes LGBT rights in their platform and if you don't have rights then what good is econimic policy that you agree with?
I am far-left of any of the candidates who are currently running, but I find it doesn't damage my friendships at all talking about politics with my libertarian, Anarchist, and liberal friends, so long as they don't subscribe to the social conservatism arguments that are such the rage on talk radio. You can make an argument that minimum wages increase inflation and while I disagree o could respect the position but. If you try to make the argument that homosexuality or being transgender isn't real then we have no way to have any common ground or reasonable conversation.
So the tldr is you don't have to be liberal, you could be a libertarian or socialist or whatever just have solidarity and empathy for others and you will be fine.
Quote from: steyraug96 on March 29, 2016, 02:54:19 PM
Why would you want to join the party of Choamsky, Che, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot...?
That's the first thought. "Liberal" of today isn't exactly a warm-and-fuzzy, worthwhile, humane, or even human, character.
And you can probably guess I fall on the conservative side - but so do "classical liberals." Please note the capitalization - it's relevant.
Most of us here actually aren't "Right" or "Left." That's Liberal, Progressive, Neo-Con, etc. They're all FAR left groups, actually - they've just changed exactly what, and exactly how, they will oppress you. BOTH sides of American Politics are the enemy. Religious Right wants to oppress you based on their "perfect" faith (Sounds an awful lot like Islam, when you think of it.) Communists and Socialists think the government should own the means of production, and central economic control works. (Central control of almost anything fails beyond a tribal scale, say a few hundred at most. And ultimately, the means of production? IS YOU. So these methods of control involve government owning YOU, in essence.)
Further, you need to ask who owns you? If you believe YOU own you (your body and mind) - the modern American political system is seen as two wings of the same vulture. They swing back and forth, but they both favor more regulations, more control, more laws - and both break those same laws with impunity.
And the simple-minded masses, acting on greed, envy, lust, etc, vote the same parasites into office time and time again. Many of the voters have NO skin in the game - government workers, for example, BENEFIT from more government. Pharmaceuticals benefit from more drug regulations. (Barrier to entry in the industry, affects almost everything, from banks to credit cards to real estate to manufacturing to the local butcher, baker, and candlestick maker. E.G.: Uber vs. Medallion cabs; Butchers; Cabs as an industry, too; power distribution; wireless carriers; internet service providers; fishermen; fish and animal and plant farming; the list is essentially infinite.)
As the anarchists used to say, (1) if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention, and (2) If voting could change anything, it would be illegal. Remember what Stalin said, "It matters not who votes, it matters who COUNTS the votes."
Other examples of wrong action abound: Toppling the Shah in Iran, for one. Creating ISIS. Creating Saddam Hussein. Being the "police force" of the world. Being PART of the UN (Biggest human rights abusers, especially evident in human trafficking.) CIA's little opium problem, our soldiers guarding the poppy fields - the Taliban was rabidly anti-drug, you see, and now we have a heroin "epidemic" in the US again.
My ultimate point is: DO NOT decide to "BE" a Liberal. NOR a "Conservative." LIEberals and CONservatives are a false duality, a dog-and-pony show to distract from the real issues and solutions, and dogmatic adherence to either pole will be ultimately self-defeating.
Strive to understand the human animal, and remember - you ARE one. If you don't want someone pointing a gun at you, demanding things - don't be willing to point that same gun at someone else. Because Mao was correct: "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun." Sooner or later, it's used on you... And if you supported it? No moral high ground, even - you cannot argue conscience when you show you have none.
There's a REASON I'm a cantankerous SOB. Having an IQ of almost 130 (MENSA level starts 133, IIRC) I see a lot. And I learned history before they started revising it, and I learned MORE than most of my classmates. We're somewhere around the fall of Rome, with many aspects of the Weimar Republic conversion to Nazi Germany.... And if Americans don't wake up soon, we'll end up with a criminal in the white house. The only difference will be name and the party affiliation.
Because as Carlin said, "It's a big club - and you ain't in it!"
-Dianna
Anarchy is untenable, so the question is what is the most pragmatic way to use government. Most on the right believe the most pragmatic thing the government can do now is give the wealthy more money, but since interest rates and inflation are low (meaning demand is low), inequality is high and our infrastructure is in disrepair, wouldn't government spending on infrastructure be more pragmatic? It will eventually need to be done, so why not do it when it would be most beneficial and least expensive?
There is a large gap between us on foreign policy that would take a long time to bridge, so I will just say you're giving the U.S. too much and too little regard. The U.S. didn't create ISIS and Saddam Hussein, and its actions are not equivalent to their actions. By all means, critique U.S. intervention, but I don't see why you're exonerating evil. Also, do you really think Afghanistan would be better off controlled by the Taliban and the world would be better off without painkillers?
Hopefully I'm not the one that causes this thread to be locked. While I agree with those that recommend to Redhot that she explore both sides, political questions only have one right answer, so to answer her question I'm trying to show that the left is more frequently correct. With respect to the support group nature of this website, I'm trying to do it is gently as I can.
I used to be very into politics. I found that I was getting way too upset about things I can not change. It was not making me a happy girl. I backed away, and I am much happier. I do keep informed, I vote, and I try to make my little corner of the world better for those around me. I will advocate for LGBTQ issues in my way. I will try to look out for the underdog. One of the things about women generally, I am told, is that they listen to the person they are talking to. I am trying to incorporate this into my personality. I think it is much more important to work on being a good person rather than try to be more liberal or conservative. (My opinion)
If you do want to educate yourself on issues, that is great. I would suggest you look for honest sources from the different sides of an issue. MSNBC has a liberal view in most cases. They do not claim the mantle of news. Fox has a conservative viewpoint but claims to be "fair and balanced." This is not in any way true. If you want an honest conservative perspective you should look elsewhere. This probably means doing some reading. I would not use any single source for your information. I would question everything. Whatever you do just don't become so entrenched in your views that you drive others away. This has been happening way too much these days. I would rather talk religion anytime than politics. It ends better, lol. Good luck!
Moni
Well, Autumn, you were probably more polite than I was , so I doubt anyone would be upset by you. ;)
I think we would never agree on the issues.
A few quick thoughts, though.
Taliban wasn't wonderful, don't misunderstand, and muddling opiods into the drug trade? Wrong tack. The illegal trade is an issue, and since US intervention, it's back, possibly with CIA backing... They like power, what happens to people who like power...? Power corrupts, right...?
Foreign policy to me seems pretty simple, as much as possible, MYOB. No interventionism. No nation building, no exporting our worst features elsewhere. Consumerism and corporatism come to mind... Mob rule (demos cracy, in Greek) leads us to where we are now, as people decay. (where wealth accumulates, men decay.)
And anarchism is what we actually live with in most of our day to day lives, believe it or not. Most people wouldn't immediately start killing others, like something out of The Purge. The fact I don't own a gun doesn't stop me, I have plenty of knives, and I can push people in front of trains and busses, etc. It is ME that stops me, not threat of police. Are you admitting you WOULD kill people "just because"? I kind of think you're not that sort of person. ;) Voluntaryism, voluntary socializing and cooperation, will work. Forcing people to play nice by (someone's) definition of nice is the definition of tyranny, though. Who is irrelevant, left right center Satan, the only difference is the name.
The comparison would be the USSR telling us how to feed the country... Or New Guinea, or Mexico. A bureacrat in DC doesn't know potato farming in Idaho, ya know? ;)
We probably overall agree more than we disagree, actually. The Conservatives think I'm a Liberal, the Liberals think I'm a Conservative, and both sometimes claim I'm an anarchist... Because I think we should be left alone, to act like adults, and handle our own affairs. Like the French etc. should handle their affairs.
Isn't that what we here want in the microcosm? To be free to develop our minds and bodies as we see fit, with as little interference as possible? To grow breasts, or lop them off; to express masculunity or femininity, sans public interventions declaring us crazy or social lepers?
I think that's a primary issue, and both the "big L" Libs and "big C" Cons leave most of humanity outside the tent. >:(
But I can't fix them.... And the Beltway changes them instantly, as Obama wrote... Different world.
Nice talk, though, hope to chat more. :)
-Dianna
Quote from: HappyMoni on March 29, 2016, 08:14:01 PM
[Very nice writing edited out for brevity]
Moni
Very nicely said, Moni. We need an upvote. :)
-Dianna
One other thing is that once you settle into a nice place on, say, the American left-right spectrum, the Europeans are just going to fall down laughing because it has no real relationship to their left-right spectrum. The reverse is also true, but either way really just highlights that attempting to pigeonhole yourself isn't that important. Be true to yourself, identify your priorities, and hold your nose accordingly.
On this forum, of all places, you didn't really expect people to tell you to be something that wasn't truly you just for the sake of conforming to labels, did you? :)
Here's what I would suggest: Rather than make a blanket decision to become more liberal, or conservative, pick a topic that interests you, then read honest, legitimate, intellectual opinions on as many sides of an issue as you can stand. Don't beat it to death, just read enough that you feel you can make an informed decision on that one topic. Then pick another topic that interests you, and do the same thing. There's no hurry, so take your time. Some of what you read will make you rethink your opinion on a specific subject, and some will confirm it.
A healthy dose of self-interest won't hurt either. Example: While in the abstract, lower taxes for the wealthy might improve the economy for those of us closer to the bottom, the fact is that tactic has never, ever, had that result at any point in recorded history. If like most people, you're a wage slave, your economic self-interest would lead you to think more liberally. Taxes aren't the enemy if those who collect them spend on things that benefit the most people and businesses—infrastructure!
Quote from: steyraug96 on March 29, 2016, 08:27:23 PM
Well, Autumn, you were probably more polite than I was , so I doubt anyone would be upset by you. ;)
I think we would never agree on the issues.
A few quick thoughts, though.
Taliban wasn't wonderful, don't misunderstand, and muddling opiods into the drug trade? Wrong tack. The illegal trade is an issue, and since US intervention, it's back, possibly with CIA backing... They like power, what happens to people who like power...? Power corrupts, right...?
Foreign policy to me seems pretty simple, as much as possible, MYOB. No interventionism. No nation building, no exporting our worst features elsewhere. Consumerism and corporatism come to mind... Mob rule (demos cracy, in Greek) leads us to where we are now, as people decay. (where wealth accumulates, men decay.)
And anarchism is what we actually live with in most of our day to day lives, believe it or not. Most people wouldn't immediately start killing others, like something out of The Purge. The fact I don't own a gun doesn't stop me, I have plenty of knives, and I can push people in front of trains and busses, etc. It is ME that stops me, not threat of police. Are you admitting you WOULD kill people "just because"? I kind of think you're not that sort of person. ;) Voluntaryism, voluntary socializing and cooperation, will work. Forcing people to play nice by (someone's) definition of nice is the definition of tyranny, though. Who is irrelevant, left right center Satan, the only difference is the name.
The comparison would be the USSR telling us how to feed the country... Or New Guinea, or Mexico. A bureacrat in DC doesn't know potato farming in Idaho, ya know? ;)
We probably overall agree more than we disagree, actually. The Conservatives think I'm a Liberal, the Liberals think I'm a Conservative, and both sometimes claim I'm an anarchist... Because I think we should be left alone, to act like adults, and handle our own affairs. Like the French etc. should handle their affairs.
Isn't that what we here want in the microcosm? To be free to develop our minds and bodies as we see fit, with as little interference as possible? To grow breasts, or lop them off; to express masculunity or femininity, sans public interventions declaring us crazy or social lepers?
I think that's a primary issue, and both the "big L" Libs and "big C" Cons leave most of humanity outside the tent. >:(
But I can't fix them.... And the Beltway changes them instantly, as Obama wrote... Different world.
Nice talk, though, hope to chat more. :)
-Dianna
Great! I think we can talk politics without locking the thread.
We are both socially liberal, but we disagree what our immediate threat is. I claim inequality, stunted GDP growth, social conservatives, global warming, terrorism, Russia and Iran are greater threats to liberal values than empowering the government to combat these threats, while you seem to claim government intervention is an equal threat.
Threats to liberal values will always exist and they must be resisted, or they will metastasize. Also, when people need help, we shouldn't ignore them, but rather have conviction in our values. Of course, empowering the government can be dangerous, but if you would like to discuss any of the issues I listed and others, I am willing to debate that government intervention is preferable to doing nothing.
Quote from: redhot1 on March 28, 2016, 08:38:59 PM
I embrace the LGBT community progress, but for other issues, I don't "feel" very liberal about politics.
I just want to be a liberal from now on, but I don't feel 100% compatible with it.
Don't forget that neither liberals nor conservatives have all the answers. Being 100% conservative on every issue or 100% liberal isn't going to work too well because life requires a balance of both or more of these views applied to it. I never understand people who tend to think their side or camp can solve everything when it only has one general approach to a very changeable world.
But if you want to be more liberal, as someone said you just have to empathize with more people's situations, or have experience with less fortunate situations and people and it's easier to accept as a concept. Many of the non-liberals I know were born into two kinds of situation - either they never had to worry about money or being persecuted, so they don't understand what it's like to be poor or persecuted... or they did know what it's like to be poor, worked their way up, became very successful and then forgot what it was like to be poor and assume that everybody can make it to the top like they can (a logical impossibility). Many of the liberals I know do know what it's like to be poor or in difficulties and obviously are happy about a welfare state, food stamps, LGBT rights and so on. But there's also the influence of a conservative or liberal family drumming it into people's heads that their view is THE view and that can also be hard to shake off.
I for example come from a liberal background, and some of my views do go against that of my family - but I just try to take a common sense rather than a polarized view on the world's problems. I'd rather do that than call myself a liberal or a conservative. Some liberals' views on how the world should be run are as crazy as some of the craziest conservatives mind you. So you can't really rely on one side being more "right" than another, always, or that being as liberal as possible about everything is always the best course of action. The key is not to forget that the "human" in human society is what makes any of what we do worth caring a whit about... and the other key is not to forget the flaws of human nature and not be duped into thinking that it does not need to be guided and controlled sometimes.
How to become more liberal? Care about people more than money or things.
Educate yourself far and wide, about science, government, politics, history, psychology, sociology, et al. The more you know, the more complex your view will be, and then can defend your views, which can align itself with liberalism, conversativism, middle of the way, or shifting towards one way or another, or being liberal in one issue, conversative in another, quite complex.
Your question is loaded, like the answer I gave you.
My 2 cents
Good and pertinent answer, Sonadora.
We can arrive at different conclusions from the same data. The problem is the ideologue who simplew ignores data that disagrees with the desired outcome.
And they're on both sides. :-P
-D
Quote from: redhot1 on March 28, 2016, 08:38:59 PM
I embrace the LGBT community progress, but for other issues, I don't "feel" very liberal about politics.
I just want to be a liberal from now on, but I don't feel 100% compatible with it.
First step is forgetting all the lies the right have conjured up. Such as Obama is a foreigner. Obama has ruined the economy. Liberals want everything for free. We want to take away their guns. Liberals are lazy. The ACA will bankrupt us. Hillary committed a crime with her server. Bernie is a gasp, socialist.
Nowadays, they call anyone who supports the existence of basic human rights a liberal.
My parents and early community were relatively parochial and conservative. I might have developed a more conservative politic if not for many life experiences that helped me to see how other people live and are impacted by global political factions. Education takes many forms and a liberal perspective includes compassion and empathy based on human need and less on greed.
The great mass of us are quite capable of seizing control yet are seemingly the pawns and minions of power brokers. What will it take for the real political revolution we need where people form more cooperative systems than those based on domination? The dominator systems now in vogue are not our total history or our necessary future.
Like the label "transgender" political labels often lead to more questions than answers. And then beauty still has something to do with the observer's subjectivity right?
Liberals in the USA have a proud history that includes advances in civil rights, work place and environmental protections, social security and much more.
I used to be an active Republican. I find that I am a strict conservative. I want to conserve things. Like clean water and air. Equal rights. I want my government to spend its money wisely. These days, the GOP conserves nothing. They are not "for" anything and "against" everything except for bumper sticker phrases that are meaningless.
As the party moved away from my conservative ideals, so did I. But I'd still vote a mixed ticket. I believed in voting for the best candidate. In the mid nineties, I noticed that the GOP representatives started voting as a block. Dissenters in the party were chastised and penalized for voting on bills, confirming judges, etc. with the Democrats. In later years, they supported nothing that Democrats put forth. They wouldn't even put up solid legislation for a vote, not even if they themselves supported such legislation just a year before. They have refused to do their most basic job in passing a budget. They refuse to do the very things they were elected to do.
In the past six election cycles, our rights as trans people have come under attack. The GOP is driven by the far right religious constituency to strip us of all rights. Since they vote as a block and refuse to support my very right to exist, I can no longer vote for any of them.
If you want to understand politics, you must read. You must understand some history as well. Our involvement with the world is necessarily complicated. We can not detangle ourselves from it. It is never as simple as what you hear from the campaign stump. Barring that, you should examine your self interests. You should determine what is most important to your life and vote accordingly.
Cindi's post is my story too. The Republican Party of today is not the party of the 60s and 70s before I could vote nor is it the party of the 80s when I did begin to vote. Today it has morphed into a thinly veiled party of religious fundamentalism. So, if you are a religious fundamentalist then the Republican Party is for you!
We have spent the past 12 years fighting wars against religious fundamentalists abroad. I can see where that type of rule leads and I find that to be an extremely ugly place. Maybe I could again be a Republican, but not until they dump the evangelical platform they currently embrace.
Sapere Aude
Quote from: Tessa James on April 04, 2016, 12:15:47 PM
My parents and early community were relatively parochial and conservative. I might have developed a more conservative politic if not for many life experiences that helped me to see how other people live and are impacted by global political factions. Education takes many forms and a liberal perspective includes compassion and empathy based on human need and less on greed.
Before I offered a material argument, but I agree with Tessa that there is an equally strong moral argument.
Not only does the right view redistribution as economically pernicious, but they also equate it to theft. The problem with this argument is that while we have free will, we are all doing our best and it is material circumstances that dictate the trajectory of our lives. Therefore, those with propitious circumstances are lucky and have a duty to help the unfortunate.
If you still don't believe the fortunate should help the unfortunate, then put yourself behind John Rawls' "Veil of Ignorance." Wouldn't you want a government to temper the results?
I wonder how many here actually know the difference between a democracy and a republic...I could never be a liberal for I don't believe in taking someone's hard warned money and give it to someone who is lazy and don't work. I have a iq above mensa level and knew more about our govt and history by the time I was 9 , this was one part of why it was hard to make friends for I was a know it all for I'm always studying something on my own. I never went to college for school bored the hell out of me and the teachers found it was hard to teach me so they left me to my own studies which made the smart kids upset. I know all about liberalism,go to n.korea,china,iran,or Cuba how that worked out..In venezuela they are revolting against liberalism,for liberalism is a fancy word for socialist...
Quote from: cheryl reeves on April 12, 2016, 11:32:27 AM
I wonder how many here actually know the difference between a democracy and a republic...I could never be a liberal for I don't believe in taking someone's hard warned money and give it to someone who is lazy and don't work. I have a iq above mensa level and knew more about our govt and history by the time I was 9 , this was one part of why it was hard to make friends for I was a know it all for I'm always studying something on my own. I never went to college for school bored the hell out of me and the teachers found it was hard to teach me so they left me to my own studies which made the smart kids upset. I know all about liberalism,go to n.korea,china,iran,or Cuba how that worked out..In venezuela they are revolting against liberalism,for liberalism is a fancy word for socialist...
I concede that empowering the government can be dangerous, but no one advocates that the U.S. should become like the countries you listed.
On the issue of redistributing wealth, everyone agrees this must occur in some capacity, but you believe it should occur in a lesser capacity, while I believe it should occur in a greater capacity. The reason for my conclusion is that all the data I've read dictates that greater redistribution would increase utility.
Before I explain my position, could you explain why you believe it would be more beneficial to decrease redistribution?
Liberalism (Does Not Equal) Communism
Liberalism (Does Not Equal) Islamic Theocracy
Both of those often used comparisons are Red Herrings.
Sapere Aude
So you believe in taking someone's wealth from them that they worked hard for and give it too someone who doesn't have wealth because they squandered the opportunity and didn't become wealthy? It would be like me taking your car because I can't afford one but you can,wouldn't I be stealing? Same way with redistribution of wealth,your stealing from those who have and giving it too someone else after you take your cut. I know how this plays out and no one wins. Liberalism is socialism both have the same agenda and no one wins but the pigs..whoops almost quotes animal farm which I wish more would read.
:police: This thread has been drifting off topic and isn't answering the OP's question. Bring it back on topic or this will be split off to a separate topic 10 post back :police:
To answer the question truthfully,if you want to be a liberal take your neighbor's lawnmower and give it too someone who needs a lawnmower and charge a handling fee for your trouble. You do this your a liberal.
Quote from: cheryl reeves on April 12, 2016, 06:07:24 PM
So you believe in taking someone's wealth from them that they worked hard for and give it too someone who doesn't have wealth because they squandered the opportunity and didn't become wealthy? It would be like me taking your car because I can't afford one but you can,wouldn't I be stealing? Same way with redistribution of wealth,your stealing from those who have and giving it too someone else after you take your cut. I know how this plays out and no one wins. Liberalism is socialism both have the same agenda and no one wins but the pigs..whoops almost quotes animal farm which I wish more would read.
To speak directly to the original post, if you accept materialism and compatibilism, then you appreciate the products of our exertions, but you view our good and bad fortune as products of luck. Therefore, when someone asks for help, you understand that their situation is caused by material circumstances (both internal and external), and they are doing their best. As a result of this empathy, you believe the fortunate have a moral imperative to help the unfortunate, and you believe the world is a better place when we guarantee each other a decent minimum standard of life and a decent chance of upward mobility.
If the data showed excess spending (high interest rates and high inflation), then I might agree with you that we would be better off with less spending, but the opposite is true. While conservative economics is based on some economic theory, because of the fear of becoming an autocracy, conservatives are afraid to take nuanced approach to improving the aggregate human condition. It is precisely because of our nuanced approach though, that we aren't an autocracy.
Become a judge.
That is not a snide remark. Statistics have shown that over the length of their careers, judges tend to move their entire ideology to the left. In particular supreme court judges. Obviously, there are exceptions to every generalized study or truth. It is speculated that if they allow themselves to see from multiple perspectives, an empathy is established.
With regards to your parents or anyone putting one news media outlet on a pedestal and all others in the trash, it is unreasonable. Lumping groups together and saying they are all bad is a simplified way to proceed through life.
Very little is black and white. The variations of grey are what make things kind of cool and realistic. I would encourage you to read or watch two or three news outlets with differing places on the political spectrum. It is very eyeopening to see two reports of the same incident. You don't have to become a liberal. Take a look at which view from the outlets makes the most sense to you and be what they represent.
Do not close yourself off to possibilities. It is hard in a dark very politically polarized world to be objective and find truths in more than one way. However, I would suggest that is what the original deep thinkers would have encouraged us to do.
However, these are purely my truths. They may not be yours or anyone elses.
With warmth,
Joanna
in America i am so far left i might as well be in space aka democratic socialist on the world scale and yes there a difference I'm consider a moderate. Really being liberal is all apart of how you are raise how likely you are to fall away from main stream media. How you see other people if you can have sympathy for them. If you believe people are inherently evil or good. Not to mention how you set your own morals or if you let others set them for you through religion, family values and political to.
Quote from: cheryl reeves on April 12, 2016, 10:33:32 PM
To answer the question truthfully,if you want to be a liberal take your neighbor's lawnmower and give it too someone who needs a lawnmower and charge a handling fee for your trouble. You do this your a liberal.
I appreciate that you've listened to/watched conservative propaganda. Unfortunately, that doesn't explain your so-called "redistribution" theory.
The purpose of a system of progressive taxation, i.e., those with higher incomes pay a higher tax rate, is that the revenue is utilized for the public good. So what constitutes the "public good?" Let's start with infrastructure projects. Those earning the highest incomes are likely owners (at least through stock purchases) of entities that use publicly owned roads, bridges, and public transportation systems to move goods and people who provide services. When governments, local, state, or federal, use tax-generated revenue to fund maintenance and improvements to roads, bridges, and public transportation systems, additional high-paying construction jobs are created.
The people who are newly employed as a result of the new projects will use their wages to purchase goods and services from companies that will need to hire additional workers to meet demand. Those workers will purchase additional goods and services which will result in even more workers to meet demand. That's a lot of economic growth for the price of repaving roads and structurally improving bridges.
Cheryl, you've been sold a bill of goods about "communist" governments confiscating wealth and giving it to those who refuse to work. In the American democratic republic, that's not how it works. Gainful employment provided by those who value legitimate work promotes human dignity. Claiming that legitimate taxation represents government confiscating wealth fails to recognize the benefit to society as a whole, including your plutocrats, who will still be able to afford all the houses, yachts, and private jet airplanes their precious little hearts desire.
Quote from: cheryl reeves on April 12, 2016, 11:32:27 AM
I wonder how many here actually know the difference between a democracy and a republic...I could never be a liberal for I don't believe in taking someone's hard warned money and give it to someone who is lazy and don't work. I have a iq above mensa level and knew more about our govt and history by the time I was 9 , this was one part of why it was hard to make friends for I was a know it all for I'm always studying something on my own. I never went to college for school bored the hell out of me and the teachers found it was hard to teach me so they left me to my own studies which made the smart kids upset. I know all about liberalism,go to n.korea,china,iran,or Cuba how that worked out..In venezuela they are revolting against liberalism,for liberalism is a fancy word for socialist...
I do know that a republic is a representative democracy. I also know that dictatorships are neither far left nor far right. They are dictatorships. Communism (a democratically elected government) has never survived the revolution. Those countries who have tried have ended up with dictatorships.
Socialism necessarily exists throughout our self government AND capitalistic economy. We all help pay for the roads, schools, libraries, medical care (yes ALL of us help with medical care even before the ACA came around), military, law enforcement... on and on. Socialism is another form of the word society. The fact is, even in a dictatorship, everyone gets to help pay for socialistic infrastructure. If you don't want to grow and make everything you need in your life, then by definition, you will require some form of socialism... you know like money. Yes, even currency is a form of socialism. Indeed, people frequently and incorrectly make a false equivalence between Communism, Socialism and sometimes even National Socialism (Nazis who were far right). Go figure.
The question is not whether we have socialism in our government, but how much of it should we allow? Unfortunately, we can't seem to get to that debate. Classically, the conservative (right) side attempts to spend less and the left wants to spend more. But we don't discuss this. Rather, we fight over basic human rights. Those shouldn't ever be considered for debate. But that is where we are. Until we get these "social issues" resolved and get religious dogma out of politics, we won't have that discussion.
Cindi
Quote from: Cindi Jones on April 19, 2016, 12:26:41 AM
I do know that a republic is a representative democracy. I also know that dictatorships are neither far left nor far right. They are dictatorships. Communism (a democratically elected government) has never survived the revolution. Those countries who have tried have ended up with dictatorships.
Socialism necessarily exists throughout our self government AND capitalistic economy. We all help pay for the roads, schools, libraries, medical care (yes ALL of us help with medical care even before the ACA came around), military, law enforcement... on and on. Socialism is another form of the word society. The fact is, even in a dictatorship, everyone gets to help pay for socialistic infrastructure. If you don't want to grow and make everything you need in your life, then by definition, you will require some form of socialism... you know like money. Yes, even currency is a form of socialism. Indeed, people frequently and incorrectly make a false equivalence between Communism, Socialism and sometimes even National Socialism (Nazis who were far right). Go figure.
The question is not whether we have socialism in our government, but how much of it should we allow? Unfortunately, we can't seem to get to that debate. Classically, the conservative (right) side attempts to spend less and the left wants to spend more. But we don't discuss this. Rather, we fight over basic human rights. Those shouldn't ever be considered for debate. But that is where we are. Until we get these "social issues" resolved and get religious dogma out of politics, we won't have that discussion.
Cindi
But even today it seems that the republican party still believes in social Darwinism and racial hierarchy as they try to gerrymander minority out of vote and passing religious liberty bill to limit other rights. But in any case the republican/democratic party is link to the insanity of are military industrial complex. Were we spends billions on war with money which we do not have, in country we should not be in. Trying to press American imperialism on the whole world.
For republicans to say we need to pull money out of schools and the va and cut social programs like social security. how come we never focus on military spending or audit them to check the spending. Why can we create more wars and more cost but not be able to create more social programs to help the nation disadvantage. Why can we not invest in our infrastructure to fix are crumbling sewer system and outdated electrical grid. Are poor and under performing transportation system.
Now there are many democrats that fall in line with republican and many moderates as well. thus the ideal we need to cut social programs and pull funding from those who most need it. When all we really need to do is pull the military out of there occupation of other nations, were there mostly there to protect u.s. interest in oil. Or to force are unwanted culture upon them.
But i am democratic socialist and don't believe in ether of the party's. I value economic stability with same respect to social equality. Nether party achieves this and are not worth the effort. you can be liberal on social issues or economic issues or environmental issues. There are so many little things that you can be moderate, liberal, conservative on that if you think freely you will never be a true liberal or conservative.
Party's of political alliance are worthless especially considering that the rich owns them and don't care about the people they just want there tax breaks and there financial interest. Which includes war which brings them financial success in selling oil and guns, Not to mention it helps them keep there grip on foreign profits by controlling oil in other parts pf the world.
Quote from: redhot1 on March 28, 2016, 08:38:59 PM
I just want to be a liberal from now on, but I don't feel 100% compatible with it.
My only suggestion is to read up on liberalism. A lot of people use the term incorrectly.
Have a nice day,
Paige :)
I have mixed views. It's perfectly fine, you don't have to put a label on yourself. I stopped doing it because I realized no political label really fits me. I have mixed views, I can go from conservative, right-wing ideas when it comes to issues like illegal immigration, borders, national culture and security, etc. to left-wing socialism when it comes to economics and social issues. So I'm just mixed. I changed my ideas a bit, as I used to reject socialism completely in the past.
Keep in mind concepts and terms like conservatism, right-wing, left-wing differ depending on where you come from. As a European citizen, the modern US Republican party is a very strange type of conservatism, also very extremist, and maybe only the craziest extremists here have similar views.
You shouldn't force yourself to be liberal, or any other political label. You can be conservative and support LGBT rights (like some conservatives in Europe), but if you're American, being Republican and LGBT is kinda like saying being black and a member of KKK ::)
QuoteCindi's post is my story too. The Republican Party of today is not the party of the 60s and 70s before I could vote nor is it the party of the 80s when I did begin to vote. Today it has morphed into a thinly veiled party of religious fundamentalism. So, if you are a religious fundamentalist then the Republican Party is for you!
I'm extremely interested in American politics and spend a lot of time reading or listening about it, and I absolutely agree with this. The GOP became the Christian ISIS. I don't like democrats either, but I kinda see them as the lesser of two evils. I do support Sanders though, because our ideas about economics are very very similar.
The Tea Party is particularly scary. I've heard it's now a large portion of the GOP? Just saying....I can't believe these people have followers.
When I see anti-masturbation campaigns, conversion therapy for lgbt people, and all that "pray the gay away" crap, and hugging random men to "cure homosexuality", or beating pillows screaming "mom why did you do this to me?" to beat the gayness away, I totally lose faith in humanity and I don't know whether to laugh hysterically or cry and slap my face cause I just can't believe what I see.
Quote from: Paige on April 19, 2016, 08:52:28 AM
My only suggestion is to read up on liberalism. A lot of people use the term incorrectly.
Have a nice day,
Paige :)
That too. It's especially Americans who do this, with the liberal vs conservative thing.
Jossam, maybe it's just me being an American citizen, but I find it fascinating now that one can be conservative about immigration and national issues, but liberal or socialist on economic and social issues.
I for one can't find a consistent political views. I might read more.
Do you want to be liberal or openminded very openminded
like you mind your own business in ppl issues, and this is the thing to be openmindness
minding our own business.
I am a mixed bag of both the right and left to be completley honest. Although generally i learn much more to the left on most issues i do have a few conservative tendencies. The issue is how far does one go. In Canada I could support either the Liberal Party , which I did in the 2015 Federal election or the Conservative Party ,which I probably will do in the next Ontario Provincial election as the provinical Liberals have been in power since 2003 and are getting very arrogant and too comfortable in power. We have a very strong 3rd party up here called the New Democratic Party which has done our country a great service too.
If i were an American I would vote Democrat in every Senate and House election for the time being and for the near future more the likey, the Presidency itself. On the other hand if I were living in say Vermont or Massachusetts I could very well support a state wide Republican as they are much more moderate and more of a live and let live variety. Govenors Baker and Phil Scott seem reasonable :)
Think for yourself!!
Isn't there, like, a pill or something? >:-)
I identify politically as a socially liberal, Adam Smith libertarian, fiscally conservative, constitutionalist. None of these terms mean what most USAians think they mean. I've actually been thrown out of one political organization that claimed these words while actually insisting on being strict authoritarian internally! I couldn't handle the mental gymnastics to believe in both sets simultaneously.
I don't really think it is possible to significantly change a persons bias toward or against being liberal. The bias appears to be linked to a primitive balance between curiosity and fear. A personality that is biased towards fear rather than curiosity tends to be less liberal, more risk averse and reticent to accept change. A bias towards curiosity leads to being more open to change and exploration.
Quote from: Paige on April 19, 2016, 08:52:28 AM
My only suggestion is to read up on liberalism. A lot of people use the term incorrectly.
Have a nice day,
Paige :)
Yep, that's quite possibly one of my biggest pet peeves. It kind of drives me up the wall when people (especially Americans, which I think comes from the fact that they have a two-party system without much actual socialist representation) equate being liberal/liberalism with socialism. Liberalism and socialism are two very different things and are very much at odds with each other, especially from an economic perspective (which also tends to drive social policy as well).
Although to chime in, I find it a bit strange that people here are discussing immigration as something separate from social issues. Immigration is very much a social issue and human rights issue. I think that its being separated in the minds of many is perhaps a sign of the times we're living in where immigrants (including migrants, refugees, and those without status), especially from the global south, are routinely dehumanised.
I also find it a bit hilarious when Americans rail on against undocumented workers and migrant workers. Yeah, go ahead and try deporting all undocumented workers, your entire agricultural system would collapse :D Maybe try thinking about who's growing, spraying (and suffering the health consequences), harvesting, and packaging all your food for ridiculously low wages (we're talking just over $2.00 per hour low) while still paying taxes on (nearly $12 billion per year in tax money comes from undocumented workers). Let's see how US agriculture would do without a massive workforce of underpaid, tax-paying people working in an environment where workplace safety doesn't exist and they can't do a thing against human rights violations. Not to mention that over 500,000 of those workers are children as young as 11-12 years old who make even less money for the same work and same risk.
Honestly, this government-created anti-immigration craze continues to be one of the biggest swindles ever. Encourage people to hate or be suspicious of "illegal aliens" (because heaven forbid they be called people) while an entire economy thrives off undocumented labour :eusa_clap:
And since we're stating our political leanings, I am indeed a socialist :P
Live in a densely populated city. Most densely populated cities are majority liberal, and most liberals live in these cities.
There's a theory going around that living in a large community and interacting with people from all sorts of backgrounds makes people more open minded and extroverted, which is associated with liberalism.
Of course the correlation could be the reverse and that people who are naturally more extroverted and open minded are drawn to the city. Probably a mix of both.
I would suggest you develop your own views on each issue, one at a time, rather than embracing one particular political belief. It's perfectly ok to have mixed views about things.
But I would also state that you might want to set boundaries for yourself. For me, I try to ensure that my beliefs do not initiate harm against others. Defending yourself is different, but try not to directly harm others is one of my tests for my personal belief system.
Now having said that, I find myself lining up with liberals on most issues, because I do not hold strictly to ideology the way many want to do, and because I use history to guide me on ideological questions.
So, for instance, the "social liberal/fiscal conservative" position doesn't wash with me because history in the United States shows no instances where civil rights progress was made without government intervention. That's a fact. If I minimize government as much as possible, I am therefore harming others by allowing their civil rights to be abridged, thus I am for an expansive Department of Justice that is very activist at all levels of society. I also oppose relegating civil rights enforcement to states because states have a 200+ year history of using those opportunities to discriminate and segregate. So the evidence simply does not fit my view that allowing states to be the controlling factor in civil rights discussions is moral or ethical. There's no historical evidence for that.
There is also no historical evidence that states will adequately regulate the environment. Just ten years before I was born, the state of Ohio allowed the Cuyahoga river to catch fire. In the 1970's when I was in high school, smog lay thick over the Ohio Valley and you could tell when you approached the valley just because of the smell. That's all within living memory. So I support a strong and activist EPA, because the states have shown little regard for the environment or keeping it clean.
On the other hand, states have shown good management of infrastructure, even federal infrastructure, when provide the funds to do so in block grants.
These are all positions that I take not because I am conservative or liberal but because I've bothered to learn what worked and didn't work in real life in the last 150 years or so.
That's how I form my political positions. Mostly that takes me to the liberal side of the aisle but not completely. You might discover that researching and forming well rounded opinions about each issue, one at a time, is a good method for you. Or maybe you'll decide you want to do it another way. It's all good! I'm just sharing how I arrived at my own positions.