This pretty much sums up my view on political discussions

[Deleted]

Slightly NSFW (mild language) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkCgkf25Tus

The whole democrat vs republican is narrowminded.

[Knight Gil]

So anyone that assumes a political position is narrowminded?


I'm just going to throw this here:

The worst illiterate is the political illiterate, he doesn’t hear, doesn’t speak, nor participates in the political events. He doesn’t know the cost of life, the price of the bean, of the fish, of the flour, of the rent, of the shoes and of the medicine, all depends on political decisions. The political illiterate is so stupid that he is proud and swells his chest saying that he hates politics. The imbecile doesn’t know that, from his political ignorance is born the prostitute, the abandoned child, and the worst thieves of all, the bad politician, corrupted and flunky of the national and multinational companies.

- Bertolt Brecht

[Brytryne]

So anyone that assumes a political position is narrowminded?


I'm just going to throw this here:



- Bertolt Brecht

Call me back when politicians keep the promises they make during the electoral campaigns.

[Knight Gil]

Call me back when politicians keep the promises they make during the electoral campaigns.

People's fault that they vote on the wrong politicians. Also, this isn't really the point up to discussion

[Aeluron Lightsong]

I wouldn't call it narrowminded. It's childish and immature if you ask me. Really it's just a mud fight. They want to win at all costs. That is what I think of politics.


"Victory at all costs."

[Endus]

So anyone that assumes a political position is narrowminded?

No, it means if you self-identify as a party member, and cannot in detail explain that party's specific policies and ideals and why they are important, without at any point being antagonistic towards another party and attempting to define yourself solely as "not-them", then you have chosen to espouse a belief system about which you are admitting you are grossly ignorant of.

For instance, if your party claims to be "fiscally conservative" and for "smaller government", but they push for double standards under the law, or increased Defense spending, or "hard on crime/drugs" programs, those three concepts are the antithetical to the first two ideals. Fiscal conservativism means spending less money, which typically means cutting BACK on Defense spending and other programs. "Smaller government" means reducing the government oversight and control of people's actions.

I'm picking on traditionally conservative parties there, but the same is true for all parties. If your ideals are not supported, in practice, by the party you support, you're either ignorant, or you're lying about your actual ideals.


For instance, I'm a fiscal conservative, small-government, social liberal. A small-l libertarian, basically (which is nothing like the US capital-L Libertarian party, FYI). Going by party rhetoric in Canada, we've got the Conservatives, who claim to be fiscally and socially conservative, the NDP who are fiscally and socially liberal, and the Liberal Party, who are trying to take a moderate route. Seems pretty simple, but in actual practice, the Conservative party is not fiscally conservative; there's a boondoggle about an F-35 purchase that was downplayed in cost that's bitten them in the rear recently. So while no party actually represents my ideals, the Conservatives are right out because they represent nothing I want, the NDP are good on social issues but want a high-cost nanny state to support it, and the Liberals have been relatively spendthrifty but are starting to go a bit more fiscally conservative in actual practice, and are starting to win me over more and more.

I don't identify myself with any party; I identify my own ideals, and then I look at the parties and figure out which best represents what I want to see, on a per-election basis.

If democracy is run properly (and I don't mean by the government, I mean by the population), there's no such thing as a "registered party member". The "independent" voters should be 90%+ of the population. When people start picking political "teams" and treating governance of our nation as if it's a freaking sports match, and you only care about not letting the other team "score", you're actively harming the political system.

[Deleted]

haha ye that's exactly how i feel.

[Collegeguy]

A lot of people vote because they see a D or an R next to a name. What's worse is trying to have a discussion with one of them.

It's always the same discussion to them because they are always fed the same ammo from their affiliates. It's like speaking to a clone that you heard on the radio or television 5 minutes ago.

[Shadowmelded]

As long as people still respond to 'Us Vs Them' arguments, people will take advantage of it to amass power.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Endus pretty much sums up how I feel. You are based on your ideals not what party you lean towards. I always call myself a republocrat.

[GreatOak]

Yeah, I completely agree. I don't identify with a party and don't like being grouped up. I guess if you had to categorize me I'd be a Left-Libertarian, meaning I'm a libertarian that isn't opposed to governmental programs that help people with little negative effects (real healthcare programs). The two party system here is destroying this nation. Both sides suck. Ill probably vote for Gary Johnson, Rocky Anderson, or a write in for Ron Paul just because I respect him.

TJ made a funny video about this:

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Nice video. Sadly enough for someone who rants...he has glints of truth in it.

[Torq]

Anyone who assumes a political affiliation is, in my mind, narrow-minded. They're assuming an affiliation with people who are of vaguely alike mindsets, and rely too much on the "party consensus" to make decisions for them. Having "parties" just biases people via what's essentially peer pressure. If you personally agree with people in your political party on 7/10 issues, you're more likely to vote on the other 3 the same way they do; especially if you haven't looked into them yourself.

In other words, I think political parties are basically huge circle-jerks.

Political involvement should be on a personal level. "Parties" are just for the weak-minded, those who are unwilling to think for themselves, and those who require validation to uphold their own self-esteem.

[Knight Gil]

I wouldn't call it narrowminded. It's childish and immature if you ask me. Really it's just a mud fight. They want to win at all costs. That is what I think of politics.


"Victory at all costs."

That is how politics work. Some politicians want to do the best for their people. Most of them want a high seat so they can get power and money. Both of them need to win to achieve their goals. The real questions are 1) how to tell a politician who is actually concerned with his country and those who are only in for the money and 2) if such a system is corrupt, how to develop and put into practice another one that might work better?

No, it means if you self-identify as a party member, and cannot in detail explain that party's specific policies and ideals and why they are important, without at any point being antagonistic towards another party and attempting to define yourself solely as "not-them", then you have chosen to espouse a belief system about which you are admitting you are grossly ignorant of.

For instance, if your party claims to be "fiscally conservative" and for "smaller government", but they push for double standards under the law, or increased Defense spending, or "hard on crime/drugs" programs, those three concepts are the antithetical to the first two ideals. Fiscal conservativism means spending less money, which typically means cutting BACK on Defense spending and other programs. "Smaller government" means reducing the government oversight and control of people's actions.

I'm picking on traditionally conservative parties there, but the same is true for all parties. If your ideals are not supported, in practice, by the party you support, you're either ignorant, or you're lying about your actual ideals.


For instance, I'm a fiscal conservative, small-government, social liberal. A small-l libertarian, basically (which is nothing like the US capital-L Libertarian party, FYI). Going by party rhetoric in Canada, we've got the Conservatives, who claim to be fiscally and socially conservative, the NDP who are fiscally and socially liberal, and the Liberal Party, who are trying to take a moderate route. Seems pretty simple, but in actual practice, the Conservative party is not fiscally conservative; there's a boondoggle about an F-35 purchase that was downplayed in cost that's bitten them in the rear recently. So while no party actually represents my ideals, the Conservatives are right out because they represent nothing I want, the NDP are good on social issues but want a high-cost nanny state to support it, and the Liberals have been relatively spendthrifty but are starting to go a bit more fiscally conservative in actual practice, and are starting to win me over more and more.

I don't identify myself with any party; I identify my own ideals, and then I look at the parties and figure out which best represents what I want to see, on a per-election basis.

If democracy is run properly (and I don't mean by the government, I mean by the population), there's no such thing as a "registered party member". The "independent" voters should be 90%+ of the population. When people start picking political "teams" and treating governance of our nation as if it's a freaking sports match, and you only care about not letting the other team "score", you're actively harming the political system.

Thing is, parties exist so that people can easily identify with those who share the same beliefs. Generally, you can trust those parties to a degree. I mean, if you look at a communist party, or a neo-liberal party, or a nationalist party, etc, you know they are most likely going to work around those ideologies, if they get to a seat of power. Everyone has their own beliefs, and it doesn't have to necessarily align with everything the party one supports. The party is a mean to achieve the end, because more people = more power. Therefore, people group together so that they can get to power. Then, when someone gets elected, that person has to conciliate his own beliefs, with those of the party supporting him, and what the people that voted on him expect him to do. Not an easy task.

So no, people who assumes a political affiliation generally knows what he's talking about, why he has joined that party and why he supports it. Everyone has their own views, but alone you aren't going anywhere. Democracy means a lot of people need to vote on you so you can win. Therefore, you need a team. A huge team.

The real problem of elections becoming something like a sport match is not directly on the politicians, though, it's on the people. The system is corrupt because some people vote according to such futile things as how good looking a politician is, how fat / slim he is, how old, gender, race, how good he talks and how much he promises a better future. People don't really know how to vote. They aren't informed of the parties' specific policies. They are prone to propaganda because, and correct me if Im wrong, there isn't such thing in the basic educational system as Political Education in most places. There should be. Unfortunately, as long as politicians can win votes with the ignorance of the people, the political system will always remain corrupt. It doesn't help that people have a lack of interest in politics and think it's all a matter of "which team wins". There's a lot to it, and you can't really oversimplify it to that point. Wanna improve the system? Do something about it. Go vote in an alternative party. Go join a party. Make your own party. Whatever. But merely criticizing and not doing anything is no good.

[Decagon]

Just because I consider myself a democrat doesn't mean that I agree with everything they do. In fact, I disagree with A LOT of what they do, but I disagree with republicans more, and since the US is a two party system with no alternatives, I support the democratic party. I don't make up my mind before I see the issue, because it doesn't matter what I think because it's all what the democrats would think or what the republicans would think. Until that changes, I have to blindly trust in my party because there is nothing I can do about it.

[Skizo]

All forms of massive collectivism trend toward stupidity

[Fuzzzie]

I just think it's sad when politicians are more concerned with their image and careers than actually getting anything useful done. It's not just an American problem either. It happens here in Canada, it happens overseas and I imagine it happens on other planets too.

I do agree about forming your own opinion though. On a lot of issues I'm conservative and on others I'm Liberal as well. Voting is often a massive exercise in compromise.

[Deleted]

Political discussions are necessary and enternaining. If your system allowed for other parties to win, you would agree.

[Torq]

I just think it's sad when politicians are more concerned with their image and careers than actually getting anything useful done. It's not just an American problem either. It happens here in Canada, it happens overseas and I imagine it happens on other planets too.

The problem is that the ones who don't put their image above everything else get mudslung into oblivion, thanks to the public's voracious appetite for sensationalist news. The social environment caters towards those politicians that can make and maintain the best image, almost regardless of their actual stance on anything.

That, and they don't have to have a good image, just a better one than their opponents.

[E] In other words, politics really hasn't gone much further than Homecoming King/Queen.

[Fuzzzie]

The problem is that the ones who don't put their image above everything else get mudslung into oblivion, thanks to the public's voracious appetite for sensationalist news. The social environment caters towards those politicians that can make and maintain the best image, almost regardless of their actual stance on anything.

I think the problem there has to do with people treating the news as entertainment.