Politics

[8bit_samurai]

Alexander, Anderson

Alexander Anderson would make an awesome President. Well, maybe not president, but perhaps the Secretary of Defense or something similar.

[Kionon]

I'm only slightly to the right of Otohiko:

[trythil]

We have a big population vs. production problem. It seems like (and I don't have facts to back this up, so correct me if I'm wrong) we are producing less and procreating more. I used to live in a highly populated area with a pretty low density of businesses, and it was damn near impossible to get a job without going to Chicago (a 45-minute commute on good days, or about 70 minutes by train) even for people with degrees. We have to find a reasonable way to curb our population growth and, at the risk of sounding like an asshole, especially in unstable, poorly educated families. I support everyone's right to raise a child, but too many people are doing a shitty job of it. Over and over and over. And I know part of the reason is because of government support. I've known unemployed couples that keep breeding because the government keeps paying them for it. They don't live well, but they don't need to. They've got a roof and they've got food, and I guess that's enough for some people. But it's an awful way to raise children, an unhealthy way to live your life, and it's just generally parasitic.

I have no facts to back you up, but I think you've got a point.

That also seems to be an explanation for why both candidates have such a focus on job count, but no consideration given towards whether or not those jobs are in fields that push humanity forward.

[zibbazabba905]

Sorry for jumping around in this, I don't really feel like turning it into an essay and segueing into paragraphs.

I always felt that when someone didn't like either party, they used the "Mickey Mouse" vote; and that 3rd party candidates were saying "Mmmm, look at all these votes, gee, if you were to lean in my direction and pick up some of my ideas, these could be yours..."

After we had our state governor elections, the nominee who didn't get in went into talk radio. I didn't like what he was selling, I didn't vote for him, blah blah blah. Then I started hearing him on the radio, and some of the viewpoints I liked... WHY didn't you bring these things up when you were running?!?

I'm getting sick of all the soundbite news, I mainly hear right-wing stuff because my Coast-to-Coast-AM show is on fox news. VERY sick of Romney's snarky "...are you better of now than you were 4 years ago?" quote. It kinda sucks where I'm at, we only have 2 talk stations in the FM, NPR/BBC and fox news. It was funny that when the acceptance speech was going on, I could only hear it on NPR because the fox news station was covering college football.

However on the other side, the BBC went into some story about the speech; how it was received in Africa and what kind of changes they could have on the elections. WAT? I like hearing what other countries have to say about us (and really liked the global "thank you" when Obama was first elected) but I don't think other countries have that much sway when holding our own elections.

I also find it intriguing that other countries have things such as a "communist" "socialist" "fascist" and "nazi" party. But that's probably something completely different.

Wow, I saw the topic and only came here to ask if anyone was still undecided, or if anyone has changed candidates at all. They seem to be wasting their time and money with all this campaigning and advertising.

[EvaFan]

I read your post, and my opinion came after. Why would I change it after reading it again? Also, I don't care to argue, I was just stating it.

[Fall_Child42]

I have a question about this political compass.

How does this bottom left corner even make any sense?

How can somebody be against government involvement but pro social programs?

A strong government influence is needed in order to have social programs at all. Somebody with libertarian ideals should not be willing to accept anything like healthcare, having roads built for them, or free education. So in order to be left economically you would have to lean at least somewhat authoritarian.

[Otohiko]

How can somebody be against government involvement but pro social programs?

What does the bottom left corner have to do with social programs?

To simplify and extremize, bottom left corner is hippie utopia where no government or authority exists at all, but everybody lives in agreement with each other while respecting everybody else's uniqueness.

(Of course, consider the other 3 corners too, top left being a permanent "dictatorship of the proletariat", top right being cyberpunk-esque corporate hell, bottom right being some sort of post-apocalyptic dog-eat-dog world. They're supposed to be unrealistic and extreme, and noone is actually supposed to end up in absolute corners on the compass.)

[Fall_Child42]

How can somebody be against government involvement but pro social programs?

What does the bottom left corner have to do with social programs?

To simplify and extremize, bottom left corner is hippie utopia where no government or authority exists at all, but everybody lives in agreement with each other while respecting everybody else's uniqueness.

(Of course, consider the other 4 corners too, top left being a permanent "dictatorship of the proletariat", top right being cyberpunk-esque corporate hell, bottom right being Mad Max. They're supposed to be unrealistic and extreme, and noone is actually supposed to end up in absolute corners on the compass.)

If you are left economically you are pro taxation, protectionism, and government spending (likely on social programs)

[Fall_Child42]

Also, how come in your extreme simplifications, the bottom left one was the only one you portrayed positively?
two of the others you described incredibly negatively, and the third just neutrally. I see your tricky language games.

[Otohiko]

No, not really. Those things are not simply a matter of left-right, and are determined by up/down as well. Communism, for example, is not about government spending, taxation or protectionism at all (despite what Fox News says), but very clearly about the eventual elimination of all those things including government. You're forgetting that leftist economics and politics, by and large, are fundamentally about the eventual dissolution of the state, market economy, etc., and only see taxes and state mechanisms as means to get there (someday...) What you're describing are not "left economically" but very much "upper left", because that involves a definition of the state and its function, an inherently authoritarian construct.