Obama and how liberals think

[Twangbanger]

Just getting a little to "Kumbaya" here for me, Gravitas. My comments _were_ a bit harsh towards you.

But I don't really care how much money George Soros or the Koch Brothers have, or how they spend it (Note: the Koch Brothers are big Libertarian supporters). I sure don't like how Bloomberg is spending his money, but I don't want the system rigged against it, either. I think if a popular vote election on gun ownership were held the week after a school shooting, with 100% turnout, we'd lose it in a New York minute. That's why I want groups like the NRA to have muscle, and clout, and the ability to pigeonhole politicians behind the door, and make deals with them, and strong-arm them, and all of it. And why I support them, and why I hope you do, too.

That's not totalitarianism - that's just called "Playing the Game in America." "Shut up and play the game," is my belief...don't like what the people with money are doing? Get your own money together, and that of like-minded individuals, and oppose them. (Or - gasp! - vote out the politicians who are playing ball with them). But Having an entitlement mentality that wants the game to be rigged so "your" pet interests won't lose? That just smacks of laziness. Nobody is oppressing the people. They're just too lazy or dumb to do anything about things they don't like. Most would rather just commiserate, like we're all seemingly doing here.

I don't believe democracy is broken; people just need to use it. The Right has a mechanism for doing that (eg, the Tea Party, Eric Cantor, etc.) The Left apparently does not.

 

[gravitas73]

Just getting a little to "Kumbaya" here for me, Gravitas. My comments _were_ a bit harsh towards you.

But I don't really care how much money George Soros or the Koch Brothers have, or how they spend it (Note: the Koch Brothers are big Libertarian supporters). I sure don't like how Bloomberg is spending his money, but I don't want the system rigged against it, either. I think if a popular vote election on gun ownership were held the week after a school shooting, with 100% turnout, we'd lose it in a New York minute. That's why I want groups like the NRA to have muscle, and clout, and the ability to pigeonhole politicians behind the door, and make deals with them, and strong-arm them, and all of it. And why I support them, and why I hope you do, too.

That's not totalitarianism - that's just called "Playing the Game in America." "Shut up and play the game," is my belief...don't like what the people with money are doing? Get your own money together, and that of like-minded individuals, and oppose them. (Or - gasp! - vote out the politicians who are playing ball with them). But Having an entitlement mentality that wants the game to be rigged so "your" pet interests won't lose? That just smacks of laziness. Nobody is oppressing the people. They're just too lazy or dumb to do anything about things they don't like. Most would rather just commiserate, like we're all seemingly doing here.

I don't believe democracy is broken; people just need to use it. The Right has a mechanism for doing that (eg, the Tea Party, Eric Cantor, etc.) The Left apparently does not.

I do care how much money someone has depending on how they got it. If they defrauded the American people, all the money in the world shouldn't be able to keep them out of prison.

I have no love for Soros or Bloomberg. I hope that would be obvious for anyone on a gun forum. I specifically point out the Koch's related to Citizen's United because Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia were invited and showed up to a Koch retreat before the ruling came down.

I hate the idea of anyone with money pushing their political agenda and I do realize that is the game.. but that is also the reason Washington is so corrupt and has no respect or trust by the people.

But I do think by definition that this project in democracy is broken. The people we "vote" for get chosen by the ones in positions of wealth and power as being pre-approved to not rock the boat. Anything that can curtail that influence and allow more grassroots candidates come forward on an equal playing ground brings us closer to a real democracy.

We do not live in a democracy anymore. We live in a plutocracy.

I look forward to a presidential debate where the core differences in libertarianism and "modern liberalism" are debated because all of the common ground like civil liberties and foreign policy is taken as matter of fact after learning from our history. I'd love to see real intellectuals hash out ideologies related to specific topics on a national stage.

But the moneyed interests out there don't want us talking about those things because it challenges their power.

 

[Twangbanger]

Not to keep bringing this back to the Koch Brothers, but they always seem to come up as a poster child in these types of discussions. You mention "defrauded" the American People above. Fraud is a specific term with a specific meaning. I can see that applied to, say, Goldman Sachs...but what's the deal with the Kochs? As far as I can see, they didn't earn their money by fraud, they earned it in a legitimate business that produced a needed product. Then, they turned around and gave their money to causes they supported, including Libertarian ones. But they drive liberals nucking futs. Based on what I've seen about them, I don't understand why someone who professes to have libertarian leanings would take issue with them. What is their major cause that you don't like?

 

[JS1911]

Blanket statements are bad.. mmk?

Not when they're true.

 

[jamil]

Not to keep bringing this back to the Koch Brothers, but they always seem to come up as a poster child in these types of discussions. You mention "defrauded" the American People above. Fraud is a specific term with a specific meaning. I can see that applied to, say, Goldman Sachs...but what's the deal with the Kochs? As far as I can see, they didn't earn their money by fraud, they earned it in a legitimate business that produced a needed product. Then, they turned around and gave their money to causes they supported, including Libertarian ones. But they drive liberals nucking futs. Based on what I've seen about them, I don't understand why someone who professes to have libertarian leanings would take issue with them. What is their major cause that you don't like?

But they made some of their money in <gasp/> PETROLIUM !!!

doesn't that make them <sinister-voice>EEEVIL</sinister-voice>

 

[jgreiner]

<I think we need more emphasis on education.>


I think we need an emphasis on education, rather than INDOCTRINATION.

 

[MisterChester]

But they made some of their money in <gasp/> PETROLIUM !!!

doesn't that make them <sinister-voice>EEEVIL</sinister-voice>

The businesses aren't the problem, it's how easy they can buy lawmakers that's the problem. If I walked into my Rep's office with a check of $50 grand and telling him it's his if he helps to pass a bill that declares every Friday is now "Silly Hat Day" I don't think he'd hesitate to take it.

 

[Consciouscitizen18]

I've learned a lot about Liberals in the last 5 days since it was my first week of college. Everything sounds GREAT on paper! But they forget to factor in that people are selfish, corruptible, and completely unique. They are far more concerned with pushing to help the social minority to the top while completely screwing over the actual majority in order to prove a point. They would rather see America change it's values to accommodate minorities than to keep it's core values and beliefs and God is now not welcome in the Pledge of Allegiance by many. What ever happened to "If you don't like it here, then leave?"? The Liberals happened.

 

[Tombs]

The businesses aren't the problem, it's how easy they can buy lawmakers that's the problem. If I walked into my Rep's office with a check of $50 grand and telling him it's his if he helps to pass a bill that declares every Friday is now "Silly Hat Day" I don't think he'd hesitate to take it.

There should be a clear distinction between businesses and corporations.

Corporations are a creation to counter the government's regulations.

Corporation Definition | Investopedia

I've learned a lot about Liberals in the last 5 days since it was my first week of college. Everything sounds GREAT on paper! But they forget to factor in that people are selfish, corruptible, and completely unique. They are far more concerned with pushing to help the social minority to the top while completely screwing over the actual majority in order to prove a point. They would rather see America change it's values to accommodate minorities than to keep it's core values and beliefs and God is now not welcome in the Pledge of Allegiance by many. What ever happened to "If you don't like it here, then leave?"? The Liberals happened.

I notice this as well and am still baffled by it. If they wanted to take a little more workable stance, they would seek to update our civil liberties to what are enjoyed elsewhere in the world, enhancing them as opposed to removing them.

There are so many things the US could be leading the way in the western world with, regaining respect that was squandered with our endless wars.

But no, they'd rather focus on non-citizens or self-harming communities. I think they often forget, to fix the issues with minorities in the communities they want to fix, politics will not accomplish much. They need to get out there and work to improve the education system, by getting an education and becoming a teacher or administrator themselves. Begging a politician to invest more money into it will do very little.

And I believe firmly, the US should be restored to what our founders intended. Which, yes, would include removal of God from the Pledge of Allegiance. If you weren't aware, it was added in 1954.

The original pledge was: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible, with liberty and Justice for all.”

 

[jamil]

The businesses aren't the problem, it's how easy they can buy lawmakers that's the problem. If I walked into my Rep's office with a check of $50 grand and telling him it's his if he helps to pass a bill that declares every Friday is now "Silly Hat Day" I don't think he'd hesitate to take it.

Whether or not you could get your rep to take your check depends on context. There's a difference between a bribe and a campaign contribution. Supposedly. But like I said earlier our system is more money dependent than ever. The candidates have learned that often, whoever has the biggest war chest wins. So they have to constantly raise money for campaigns. And the bigger the donation, the more strings are attached to the money.

My comments were more just being a smartass because the left likes to whine about the Koch brothers as if democrats don't have their own obscenely rich people pushing their agendas.

 

[billt]

Liberals believe everything in this country is an injustice. They think american stole its riches. They think the 1% stole their money, because they are told this daily from their politicians. The liberal politician is markedly different than the liberal voter. The politician knows exactly what he/she is doing and saying. They say idiotic things because they know their voter base. That is why almost everything they say is a LIE. They know their base will believe it no matter what. Facts do not get in the way of emotionally attached people. Thats why the left race baits, thats why they say things like "war on women", 99%er, undocumented worker, "what difference does it make", etc. They know that their voters will believe everything they say, regardless of facts. The politician knows the voters are stupid. The voters blindly follow the left based on pure emotion and hatred of everyone else. Its very succesful, and its how people get elected and stay in power regardless of what they actually do.

This hits the nail directly, and squarely on the head.

 

[jamil]

This hits the nail directly, and squarely on the head.

Which voters?

 

[tetsujin79]

Lemme butter INGO up and say great thread. On to my

Facts do not get in the way of emotionally attached people.

This cuts both ways. Both sides do this. Same coin?


I look at American politics like this: you're voting where you want the knife by those that have the knife or the money to direct said knife. If you want knife in chest, choose republican. If you want he knife in your back, choose democrat.


In the long run, it breaks down to slaves & slave owner for me. You want stability for nothing? That's a slave. You want to make stability for everything? That's a slave owner. If slave is a trigger word, just change it all to prisoner & warden. Or maybe make it an east/west thought process or maybe insect/hive versus survival-of-fittest/adaptive living. It's all about who has control. Even the founding fathers couldn't help themselves. They made a republic and then spent the rest of their lives carving it up into a democracy. Dummies...


I do find it ironic that the left in this country tends to shun religion and champion science and evolution, yet they don't have lots of kids (which would be the only point of just existing) and vehemently support people that are biological dead-ends (two gays can't sexually reproduce, i.e. biologically ineffective at passing their genes on).

Somebody told me that lefties are brain damaged to think that all their opposing views somehow work together. I can't help but agree to that when I read about gay black women telling straight white women that they need to shut up because of privilege. Is that how it works? "Even though we are both rape victims in waiting, because I'm black, you're racist for thinking we're equal." Seriously, how does anything get done in that political party?

The right is no better. A bunch of hucksters selling snake oil at a revival in the dust bowl. At least you know they're in it for the cash & prizes?

Like the Bush/Gore choice, it seems to be about figuring out the least evil choice. Maybe the key would be to keep electing opposing parties based on house/senate splits and presidential parties. Those damn judges though...

 

[jamil]

Somebody told me that lefties are brain damaged to think that all their opposing views somehow work together. I can't help but agree to that when I read about gay black women telling straight white women that they need to shut up because of privilege. Is that how it works? "Even though we are both rape victims in waiting, because I'm black, you're racist for thinking we're equal." Seriously, how does anything get done in that political party?

The right is no better. A bunch of hucksters selling snake oil at a revival in the dust bowl. At least you know they're in it for the cash & prizes?

Like the Bush/Gore choice, it seems to be about figuring out the least evil choice. Maybe the key would be to keep electing opposing parties based on house/senate splits and presidential parties. Those damn judges though...

I seriously lol'd.

To me the most important and pragmatic factor in a presidential choice is the likely choice of judge appointees a party might make. With democrats, anymore you're going to get communists like Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg and self worshiping, empathetic "wise latinas". With republicans you're going to get corporatists like Roberts and social conservatives like Thomas. Pick your poison I guess, but the former voted the wrong way in Heller and the latter voted the right way.

 

[tetsujin79]

To me the most important and pragmatic factor in a presidential choice is the likely choice of judge appointees a party might make.

Pick your poison I guess, but the former voted the wrong way in Heller and the latter voted the right way.

Hell, even Nixon got screwed by his lock of a judge pick, LOL. Both parties got the crazy in 'em!

 

[MisterChester]

I seriously lol'd.

To me the most important and pragmatic factor in a presidential choice is the likely choice of judge appointees a party might make. With democrats, anymore you're going to get communists like Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg and self worshiping, empathetic "wise latinas". With republicans you're going to get corporatists like Roberts and social conservatives like Thomas. Pick your poison I guess, but the former voted the wrong way in Heller and the latter voted the right way.

Its amazing how pretty much no one on the court is interested in preserving freedom. They all are interested in taking away some form of it.

 

[Twangbanger]

...we'll have our exceptions (Eric Cantor losing even though he outspent his opponent by A LOT) but these are far and few between. It only happened because enough voters were angry enough to go to the polls. Honestly, that's the only way I can see entrenched politicians like that get the boot. Not enough voters are aware how bad of a problem it really is.

Isn't this really the solution? If we's all get our heads out of our azzes and our knuckles up off the ground, and start voting the cretins out as soon as they begin to exhibit cretin behavior, doesn't that make the money irrelevant? What the politicians are using the money FOR, is to buy ads with which to influence ignorant people at election time. That all relies upon US being easily to manipulate. We can all make that irrelevant in the next election. And it's a solution which is actionable, by us little people.

Now: if you're going to say it's impossible to get enough people to pay attention or use their heads, then we've hit a dead-end in the "root cause analysis" chain, and might as well stop talking right now. Just as I don't think you can ban enough guns to make people stop killing people, I also do not think you can ban enough use of money in politics to make voters un-stupid. It's a losing race, bound to fail, and you can bet your bippy you're going to have a less-free country after those avenues are exhausted.

Tetsujin said some intelligent things above. One side pays politicians to twist the knife to the right; the other side wants it twisted left. And that's the crux of why we don't find agreement here, despite all the INGO Kumbaya-ing about money in politics. I still go back to the Youtube video on Page 2. The vid really isn't about the buying of political influence or how we think that's harmful to democracy. It's just about WHO HAS WHAT, the jealousy it causes, and what "the people" think that wealth curve "should" be. Things like that don't get shared unless they _really_ resonate with someone.

What I suspect we have here is a bunch of people pretending to be Libertarians kibitzing about money in politics and wanting "power of the people" to prevail. But that definition of "power of the people" differs from person to person. For one guy, it's leave my guns alone. For another, it's "my Union says I deserve $15 an hour to flip hamburgers." That's what "power of the people" means to him. And, I suspect when election time comes around, those people head into the voting booth, the white light beam of Libertarianism gets prism-split into red and blue preferences, and we find out some of those people are just flat-out Liberals voting for Liberal ideas (ie, redistributing that "wealth curve" back to the way it "should be," etc.).

This is why I say: there is no consistent, compelling electoral constituency for Liberty. It is just not a winning issue. And the politicians notice this. Most people seem to want that government knife twisted one direction or the other. And you really can't blame politicians for riffing on that, when THE PEOPLE seem to be indicating that's what they really want. In the attitude of many voters, "Freedom is nice an' all, for what that's worth...but a shiny new Obama-Phone comes in real handy sometimes, too!"

Democracy isn't broken. "We have seen the enemy, and he is us." We just can't get enough people to put down the knife of government, and use the tools of Liberty constructively. Including, I suspect, some people talking on this very thread. When I hear dedicated wealth-redistributionists like Occupy getting mentioned in discussions like this, rolled into a defense of how Liberals really do have some nifty Libertarian ideas (which I see as dubious), it just occurs to me that some on the Left are finding a way to disguise their ideas as Libertarian in order to try to make their agenda resonate with a whole new group of people.

 

[zippy23]

Lemme butter INGO up and say great thread. On to my



This cuts both ways. Both sides do this. Same coin?


I look at American politics like this: you're voting where you want the knife by those that have the knife or the money to direct said knife. If you want knife in chest, choose republican. If you want he knife in your back, choose democrat.


In the long run, it breaks down to slaves & slave owner for me. You want stability for nothing? That's a slave. You want to make stability for everything? That's a slave owner. If slave is a trigger word, just change it all to prisoner & warden. Or maybe make it an east/west thought process or maybe insect/hive versus survival-of-fittest/adaptive living. It's all about who has control. Even the founding fathers couldn't help themselves. They made a republic and then spent the rest of their lives carving it up into a democracy. Dummies...


I do find it ironic that the left in this country tends to shun religion and champion science and evolution, yet they don't have lots of kids (which would be the only point of just existing) and vehemently support people that are biological dead-ends (two gays can't sexually reproduce, i.e. biologically ineffective at passing their genes on).

Somebody told me that lefties are brain damaged to think that all their opposing views somehow work together. I can't help but agree to that when I read about gay black women telling straight white women that they need to shut up because of privilege. Is that how it works? "Even though we are both rape victims in waiting, because I'm black, you're racist for thinking we're equal." Seriously, how does anything get done in that political party?

The right is no better. A bunch of hucksters selling snake oil at a revival in the dust bowl. At least you know they're in it for the cash & prizes?

Like the Bush/Gore choice, it seems to be about figuring out the least evil choice. Maybe the key would be to keep electing opposing parties based on house/senate splits and presidential parties. Those damn judges though...

I know the republican party isnt EXACTLY what people want, but thats a huge problem with non liberal voters. They look at candidates like Romney, and say "he's too liberal, or just another Rhino." Would he try to take your guns? Would he be expanding every gov't agency? Would he be racking up 8 trillion in debt? Would he expand the EPA? Would he nominate crazy communist judges? The lesser of 2 evils?? NO, The left is for sure evil, the right at least helps business and touts balancing the budget. Lower taxes for everyone? Great, the left increases taxes on everyone. Those are not both evil positions. The republicans would in no way be doing the things the democrats are doing in just a little bit less evil way. There is no arguing that. I didnt agree with romney on everything, and no one person is going to find a candidate that will do that. Hence one good reason for a party. Many different people with mostly the same goal. The republicans goal is not to disarm the people, rack up trillions of debt, raise taxes, destroy religious liberty, allow two men to marry and call it equal to a man and woman......i think its unfair to call it "the lesser of two evils." More like, the left is evil yes, the republicans are not exactly what you want, but by far WAYYYYYYYYY better and have the only real chance of winning, unlike the libertarian party, which in every circumstance HELPS the left win elections. Voting third party is pointless in our system today.

 

[tetsujin79]

i think its unfair to call it "the lesser of two evils." More like, the left is evil yes, the republicans are not exactly what you want, but by far WAYYYYYYYYY better and have the only real chance of winning, unlike the libertarian party, which in every circumstance HELPS the left win elections. Voting third party is pointless in our system today.

I'll concede a lesser of two evils in some respects. As I mentioned, you're voting to either look in the eyes of the person gutting you, or you'd rather remain ignorant right up until the the blade sinks into your back.

It's just about WHO HAS WHAT

Exactly. Always and forever. Barbarians take it, civilized people vote for it.

"We have seen the enemy, and he is us."

Bingo!


The ultimate irony for me with politics is that most people in the US have a smart phone or computer with internet. Think about the fact that people today have access to almost all the knowledge and history of all humanity, yet we seem to get more ignorant and divided as time passes. That's either the most evil bug or the smartest feature ever...

 

[tetsujin79]

I know the republican party isnt EXACTLY what people want, but thats a huge problem with non liberal voters.

A political party doesn't have to be everything to everybody, just 42%.

Seriously though, for the most part the republican party aligns with most western thought and morality, of which America still seems to be adhering to.

There's your rub. You could tell the public and even show them that they're voting for an alien philosophy, but most don't have the patience to see it for what it is and/or the time for the introspection required to figure things out. Politics have been hollywooded. See Rick Perry's indictment. Take out the names and that could be a TMZ story...

The question is who's complicit in that change? Who stands to profit from that change?