My country, right or wrong

[Deleted]

It's like someone who complains that their steak is overdone and the fries aren't crisp, but they're going to eat it anyway and don't want the kitchen to fix any of it.

its nothing like that.

[Kaleredar]

If that is true, you must be pretty upset with your leaders.

Only one prominent Democrat has denounced Antifa. Where is the outrage over that among your party? There isn't one, because you agree with the violence.

Meanwhile, not a single GOP politician did NOT denounce Nazis, because the voters would not have accepted anything else.

It's very clear which side commits violence, and which side supports violence. In both cases, it's the Democrats.

where have democratic leaders "condoned violence?"

You don't get to claim that "conservatives don't commit violence." Church bombings and vehicular assault put that notion right down the drain. I suppose you're technically right when you assert that, with enough arm twisting, trump will eventually condemn neo nazis. ("Good people on both sides!")

But beyond that, why didn't conservatives eject the white supremacists from their "free speech" rallies? (I mean, other than the fact that they were organized by white supremacists to begin with.)

These antifa boogeymen are entirely a reaction to the right's tacit acceptance of white supremacists in their ranks, it's been that way for decades. And it's going to remain that way so long as the right let's white supremacists march alongside them.

So get out of here with that holier-than-thou nonsense. People will continue to judge conservatives by the company they keep.

[Antiganon]

The only problem is, Antifa was active for almost two years before Charlottesville. They were doing these same things against main stream conservatives, like Ben Shapiro, an orthodox Jew. Hardly a Nazi, to say the least.

Where is the outrage? Why are ZERO Democrats making a stink about the conspicuous non-denouncement of Antifa? That doesn't seem strange to you, at all?

I would not punch anyone, for saying anything. Aside from free speech, I learned words don't hurt me at a very young age. Sticks and stones, etc.

Lastly, the notion that a couple thousand douche bags (2500 per FBI) have the capability to spread their ridiculous and hateful message is so pants on head retarded, it's barely worthy of correcting. Yet, here we are. We will just pretend like 2500 Neo-Nazis is the exact same thing as the German war machine in the 1930's. Yep, totally the same thing. I mean, Nazism is about to break out any minute here in the US. Any minute.... /end sarcasm

Ben Shapiro, Milo, Ann Coulter, etc - they are not the government. Antifa wants to protest their speech and shut them down? Well, Antifa has the right to peaceably assemble and speak freely, same as everyone else.

As I said, the violence is a problem, but it is a problem among private citizens, not between private citizens and the government.

Let's try to keep this on topic, rather than have yet another thread in which everyone is either a Nazi or Antifa, despite the fact that both groups have obscenely small membership (assuming you can even quantify such a thing).

Let me distill the poll to a simple question:

Your country is doing something you find morally reprehensible. Doesn't matter what they are doing, or what you consider reprehensible.

Do you work within the system to affect change, sweep it under the rug because your country is great, leave for another country where those things don't happen, or something else?

[Endus]

its nothing like that.

If you're not willing to run for office or work for someone's campaign who you believe in, if you're not voting for third parties, then you're the problem, and have no business complaining about the "big two" who run everything.

[Deleted]

If you're not willing to run for office or work for someone's campaign who you believe in, if you're not voting for third parties, then you're the problem, and have no business complaining about the "big two" who run everything.

are you REALLY general off topic moderator? dear lord.

[Louisa Bannon]

I see no reason for blind loyalty to anyone or any thing, certainly not to a society nor political idea nor to economic chains. I will serve a nation that actually protects my freedoms and interests, if that stops so does my reciprocal end of that bargain.

Much is made of the U.S., my country now and also where I was born, as the land of the free. As time progresses, I feel the U.S. is less free all of the time. I am pretty sure we have entered a new gilded age that makes the last one look very weak by comparison. The consolidation of socio, political, and economic power is unprecedented.

I know lots of you talk 100% pure bullshit about free markets - but that might apply to politics as well as economics. For myself I will shop around for a better state, or even country, if I have to. I know a ton of people that have left the U.S. for various places in Europe, South America, Asia and seem pretty happy about it.

[Tijuana]

where have democratic leaders "condoned violence?"

You don't get to claim that "conservatives don't commit violence." Church bombings and vehicular assault put that notion right down the drain. I suppose you're technically right when you assert that, with enough arm twisting, trump will eventually condemn neo nazis. ("Good people on both sides!")

But beyond that, why didn't conservatives eject the white supremacists from their "free speech" rallies? (I mean, other than the fact that they were organized by white supremacists to begin with.)

These antifa boogeymen are entirely a reaction to the right's tacit acceptance of white supremacists in their ranks, it's been that way for decades. And it's going to remain that way so long as the right let's white supremacists march alongside them.

So get out of here with that holier-than-thou nonsense. People will continue to judge conservatives by the company they keep.

The fact that only ONE prominent Democrat, has denounced Antifa, shows tacit support. I mean, who would NOT denounce Antifa, other than someone who agrees with them. Democrat leaders continue to be asked to denounce Antifa, and they don't. It is what it is. They are in agreement with Antifa. You would think, at a minimum, establishment Democrats would have denounced them. Nobody expects Bernie Bros to, as they are literally the same people.

I don't consider the alt-right as part of the right, since their movement is a collectivist and authoritarians movement that runs counter to the Libertarian Conservatism that defines the GOP right now.

Trump was right as rain to say there were bad people on both sides at Charlottesville. But saying there was good on both sides is incomprehensibly dumb for him to have said, both factually and politically.

I don't think "boogeyman" really fits for a group that has been classified as a domestic terrorism group, by the DHS.

Idiots who disregard how strongly the right has denounced Nazis, are not worth worrying about, as they have no standing anyway.

To recap:

Number of GOP who denounced Nazis = 100%
Number of DNC who denounced Antifa = 1 leader

[Arewn]

It's about ownership and personal responsibility. If your country's doing right, it's your duty to support that. If they aren't, it's similarly your duty to fight that. Which doesn't mean violence, it means voting, campaigning, providing alternatives, etc.

For instance, every single person who pulls the "both parties are awful" nonsense to explain why they don't vote or treat politics as a joke? They're the problem, not the parties. If the two main parties are that awful, provide an alternative. It's not complicated. That's not the same as saying it's easy, since there's funding issues and such, but the process isn't complicated. People just won't be arsed to make the effort to fix anything; they're too happy complaining and doing nothing.

It's like someone who complains that their steak is overdone and the fries aren't crisp, but they're going to eat it anyway and don't want the kitchen to fix any of it. They're whining, because they like to hear the sound of their own voice, and have no interest in changing a damned thing.

There are already alternatives to the two main parties. And there are people who get out there and try.
It's not all that useful when there isn't a realistic chance of them actually winning though.

And you don't have to be better then the chef to criticize the food they made. That's ridiculous.
People have other things going on in their lives. Even if they had the means or the ability (which they likely don't), they might simply prioritize other things over politics. So politics becomes a joke to them. Not because "they're whiners who like to hear the sound of their own voice, and have no interest in changing a damned thing", but because the entire population can't drop what they're doing to get involved with politics. Because they're busy. Because they have other priorities in life, so even if they do want change, they don't want it enough to flip their life upside down to attempt (and that's all it would be, a risky attempt with no semblance of a guarantee at success) to change things.
So they look at what they can do in their lives, take in the information they can in their busy schedules, and many of them conclude "what a joke, no point".

But then people on forums will come around on their high horse to point down at people and tell them that "they're the problem". All while doing nothing but complaining themselves.

And just to repeat it: there are alternatives parties already. They don't matter. They don't really get anywhere, because our (and most countries') electoral system is broken.

[Garnier Fructis]

The Tea Party taught us that you don't need third parties to enact change. They worked within one major party to shift it to the right. If a group of idiots living in the middle of nowhere can amass such influence in Congress in a relatively short span of time, then others don't really have an excuse.

[Allybeboba]

are you REALLY general off topic moderator? dear lord.

Very difficult to believe sometimes

[TheImperios]

I find this to be the greatest problem with Russian liberalism: they forsake patriotism, and thus in turn allow militarists in the Kremlin to have a monopoly over it.

Our liberals should stop saying that our Motherland is bad, or that the Russian people are slaves: no, it must say that our Motherland is great, which is why it must be freed from tyranny and its people emancipated, so that its greatness could be fully realised.

But nope! Our liberals shit on the memory of World War 2, on Russia's proud history, on its traditions and culture - even on its cuisine, for God's sake! What do you not like about dumplings and buckwheat?! Can Americans even fathom that? Your Republicans are patriots, your Democrats are patriots, and both fight for democracy. This is pathetic.

Perhaps these Russophobic swines are shills for the regime, trying to equate a struggle towards democracy with Russophobia and thus present the masses with two equally false choices?

[Doctor Amadeus]

If you're not willing to run for office or work for someone's campaign who you believe in, if you're not voting for third parties, then you're the problem, and have no business complaining about the "big two" who run everything.

Honestly that is really very much spot the fuck on, people who can't be bothered to give a shit but one every 2 to 4 years then get complacent or do nothing any other time really IMO are part of the problem, not attributing that to what you said, but honestly Money, Mind, or Sweat if one can't really be bothered to give one or better yet all of the above then bitching is pretty irrelevant.

[callipygoustp]

If you're not willing to run for office or work for someone's campaign who you believe in, if you're not voting for third parties, then you're the problem, and have no business complaining about the "big two" who run everything.

Indeed.

Even further, what shocks me post elections, is how often some of the louder complainers in my social spheres admit to not participating in the easiest form of participation: voting. That's always a WTF moment for me!

[PC2]

The Tea Party taught us that you don't need third parties to enact change. They worked within one major party to shift it to the right. If a group of idiots living in the middle of nowhere can amass such influence in Congress in a relatively short span of time, then others don't really have an excuse.

The command economy and laissez-faire platforms have the most consistent principles. To me this is a natural dividing point in a sustainable mixed-economy democracy.

[Antiganon]

The Tea Party taught us that you don't need third parties to enact change. They worked within one major party to shift it to the right. If a group of idiots living in the middle of nowhere can amass such influence in Congress in a relatively short span of time, then others don't really have an excuse.

Counterpoint - the Freedom Caucus is largely the reason the GOP doesn't have any actual legislation passed yet this year.

[Garnier Fructis]

Counterpoint - the Freedom Caucus is largely the reason the GOP doesn't have any actual legislation passed yet this year.

I didn't say it was a good influence.

[PC2]

I didn't say it was a good influence.

A good influence to you is more taxes and regulations? If you are confidant in policy that is the opposite of Tea Party ideas then all this means is that voting choices are clearer. More differentiation between the parties.

[Garnier Fructis]

A good influence to you is more taxes and regulations? If you are confidant in policy that is the opposite of Tea Party ideas then all this means is that voting choices are clearer. More differentiation between the parties.

I don't look at politics through the lens of more or less taxes/regulations.

Taxes and regulations aren't goals. They are tools. I don't have a desire to tax and regulate everything to death. We need enough taxes to pay for everything we want government to do. We need enough regulation to protect consumers and the public in general. If there are archaic regulations, remove them. Many agencies like the FAA already do that, and it doesn't bother me. It doesn't bother any of us.

Cutting regulations for the sake of having less regulations is real bonehead shit.

[Antiganon]

A good influence to you is more taxes and regulations? If you are confidant in policy that is the opposite of Tea Party ideas then all this means is that voting choices are clearer. More differentiation between the parties.

Nobody is in favor of taxes and regulations on their own merits.

Democrats want the government to provide robust social services, and taxes are required to fund those programs. Republicans are more concerned with lowering taxes at the expense of social services, taking the view that the free market provides for those willing to work, and that your money is better spent from your pocket than from Washington.

Democrats want businesses to operate responsibly, in the best interest of consumers, and regulations are required to force businesses into compliance. Republicans are more concerned with removing regulations to streamline business growth, as the free market will self-regulate.

While both positions have some merit, it is fundamentally unrealistic to suggest that a civilized country can exist without any sort of social safety net, and even more unrealistic to believe that businesses will operate in a way that does anything to reduce profits if not explicitly ordered to do so.

If we had an extremely robust economy where everyone had a high paying job, and miraculously nobody had any kind of medical or social reason they were unable to work (such as being physically unable, or having to care for young children), we could have much lower taxes, as they would only need to fund things that the free market is ill-suited to handle (public works, military, law enforcement, education, government bureaucracy, etc).

If all US businesses operated in good faith, and in the best interests of their customers, 100% of the time, there would be no need for regulations. This would further reduce the need for tax dollars, because there would be no regulatory agencies that required funding (EPA, FCC, FTC, etc).

[PC2]

While both positions have some merit, it is fundamentally unrealistic to suggest that a civilized country can exist without any sort of social safety net, and even more unrealistic to believe that businesses will operate in a way that does anything to reduce profits if not explicitly ordered to do so.

Only a tiny fraction of people don't want any safety nets, such as AnCaps. Most all people and politicians agree on social safety nets, but not on the exact implementation details and amount.