I can’t tell if that’s a philosophical question, or a sarcastic one, or just a straight question.
it was a straight question but you can answer philosophically
You guys are aware that this thread is 4+ years old now and that the Reagan quote is 3+ years old now … A new thread should have been opened.
In my defense as I was reading through the thread I thought it was only a couple months old. I don’t even know how I stumbled on it. It was through a link of another active thread early in this conversation. So when I seen I resurrect a three year old thread I was Jesus!!
Again, I remove neo-nazi, alt-right, and other right wing propaganda where it crops up, including posts disseminating misinformation and attempting to normalize things such as the GOP’s connection to terrorist organization (such as the KKK) and the rise of fascism in the US. If you see it, flagging it, or PMing me find it.
Likewise some people have probably noticed an uptick in right wing users trying to terrorize and attack women, LGBT members, and other marginalized groups on the forum. I’ve recently added measures specifically to combat this, but unfortunately no measures are perfect.
Remember, if you see anything that is obviously intended as propaganda or harassment, you don’t have to put up with it. Flag it, or PM me, and I’ll make sure the problem is handled.
Well, I guess it’s time I throw my two cents in this topic:
- Call of Duty: Black Ops 3’s campaign absolutely sucks
- Overwatch is not my thing
- Despite not being British, I believe Conservatives do a better job running UK than Labour (Brexit might say otherwise though)
- ‘Soccer’ is the true football
- If I had to choose between Capitalism or Communism/Socialism, would choose Capitalism simply because lesser of two evils in practice despite reality
Ugh, I just projectile spit my tea, so thanks for that. That being said and at the risk of @Cataphrak gloating about it I think I might have preferred a Liberal UK government, at least we wouldn’t have had this Brexit lunacy where both Labour and the Conservatives are factually parties of Brexit. Which is I think another part of why the debate about it didn’t work in the UK since they had no major party to champion Europe.
Sadly for the political health of the UK the Liberals haven’t really been a force for ages and certainly aren’t about to become one in their current LibDem incarnation for the foreseeable future. And all this in one of the countries that ironically gave birth to many aspects of the current liberal, democratic models.
UK Labour isn’t the problem, Jeremy Corbyn and his rabid fanbase are. Ironically, the people who seem most fond of decrying reactionaries and neo-liberals as equivalently terrible are the architects of a situation where the major choices actually are “bad” and “bad, just in a different way”.
Frankly, I could think of few people who could have lost the last General Election to Theresa May, and Jeremy Corbyn is one of them.
Is that my unpopular opinion? If it’s unpopular, I guess it’ll do.
I’m not saying Corbyn is perfect but he did author the very first truly social-democratic Labour manifesto in a generation after the Blairites and “New Labour” had turned the party into another right-wing conservative lite party. Or as my new Scottish neighbour put it a few weeks back “a party for new money”, as presumably opposed to the Conservatives being a party for old money, but with the LidDems being either liberal or wishy-washy on everything that essentially left no viable options for those with no money.
Corbyn is also just one guy and the lasting damage, “trickle down”, Reaganomics, “ideology free” (which in reality stood for poorly articulated neo-liberalism) politics and the increased jingoism of the vaguely defined wars on terror have done to (European) social democracy over the last 30 odd years are not that easy to wipe away and recovering from any or all of that will take time (we may well not have that time anymore, but that is another issue).
So, Corbyn may have lost the election, but I don’t think a hard-core Blairite of Labour’s Parliamentary party would have fared any better. In fact they might have done worse.
Of course the LibDems also ran with an uninspiring leader with Evangelical Tim Farron.
If you look solely at economic issues they often are, though of course in very different ways. But generally the reactionary nationalists know how to maintain a relatively mild and benign image on economic issues, in shrill contrast with continued liberal pontificating on the joys of privatisation, austerity, the gig economy and “free” trade treaties with dispute settlement mechanisms that make them utterly unaccountable to the normal courts and civil society at large.
Maybe this is different in Canada under Trudeau, but our liberals are still at the denial stage about anything in the current economic model being fundamentally broken. Even mr. Rutte sounded more forward thinking on economic matters these last few months then most of our prominent Liberals.
Brosnan will always be my James Bond, but that is partly nostalgia, much like Connery will always be the James Bond for my mom and aunt.
Oh, absolutely. Corbyn’s manifesto was wildly popular. The problem is that the financial fallout from the Brexit he so obviously supports turns that manifesto from “a collection of good ideas” to “a collection of impossible fantasies which the UK will have absolutely no ability to pay for”.
Frankly, the idea that the choice is between Corbyn and literally Tony Blair’s ghost is the sort of false dichotomy Corbyn’s partisans love to flog, and it’s a good chunk of the reason why I have so much contempt for them. Labour has MPs which are both Remain and possess SocDem bona fides, and frankly, the idea that Labour has to unquestionably rally around one particular leader despite the fact that he has lost the popular mandate is the sort of vicious, partisan stupidity I normally expect from the sort of people who wear MAGA hats.
I’d say Corbyn’s period as leader has been the most disappointing, and darkest chapter of UK Labour’s history, but then again, Oswald Mosley was a thing.
My first urge when I read this was to be insulting - like, personally insulting.
I’m not sure if the “reactionary nationalists” are different where you are, but this is literally their economic platform on this side of the planet. All it’s missing is “start a trade war with all of your allies”. The Americans had a choice between a cautious and incremental increase in public spending and reconstruction of the welfare state and… that.
Either I am vastly overestimating the intelligence of the American voter, or the economics-first model of popular politics is utterly and completely broken.
There should be at least one unpopular opinion in there somewhere.
Ah, I think being in a tiny nation might account for that, as many of ours are touting a Benelux revival instead. Of course that discounts that aside from a brief moment in the 1970’s federalizing the Benelux has always been much less possible then reforming the EU DIEM 25 style. At best you might, with emphasis on the might get the Flemish to agree on something, but Luxembourg and Wallonia or not in a mood or position to be convinced. Still even our reactionary nationalists, or at least a substantial minority of them, are cognizant of our need for allies as a tiny nation and the impossibility to go at it alone Brexit style.
I’m not saying the benign economic image of our reactionaries is anything except a mirage, for it very much is exactly that, but until recently they managed to outmaneuver all our other parties in the pr. department. Even now, for all that I may have personal and political issues with him, our own party leader is the only one on the left side of the spectrum who is personally effective at rebutting many of those reactionary tactics. Which may be due to the fact that he is the only prominent younger left-wing leader we currently have on the national level. All of the others still appear wooden, ill at ease and prone to knee-jerk reactions whenever they’re confronted with reactionary antics even after more then a decade.
I think it was more a choice between a return to the gradual decline of the Bush era and in some ways even the Obama intermission, particularly if Tim “let’s deregulate the banks some more” Kaine had gotten his way. Which, until Bernie pushed her on it was also Clinton’s own first instinct. I believe a Clinton administration, even with democratic majorities, would have done less reconstructing then Obama.
Again Hillary herself was still slightly to the right of our mr. Rutte and Tim Kaine would probably not even get past the internal party politics of even our Conservatives with some of his viewpoints to actually appear on the ballot over here.
While Hillary and the Democrats did manage to put some good and decent points in their platform and manifesto her choice of Kaine, as well as her personal history always indicated a strong conservative policy preference in the face of likely very limited political captial on the part of a hypothetical Hillary Clinton administration to me. Hillary as a politician is somebody who seems to have always needed significant pressure to choose the liberal, instead of conservative compromises as it seems to go against her natural instincts. Much as conservative and certain liberal compromises would go against mine. Which is why she probably would have needed someone like Warren to keep up the necessary pressure.
Every political opinion is guaranteed to be profoundly unpopular to somebody.
Unfortunately none of them seem to have possessed both the stature and willingness to successfully challenge both Corbyn and their right-wing colleagues.
I am not very good in Politics, but i remember Austria has a first ever Green Party President right ? Hope The Global Green Party can find some momentum in the future and perhaps rule one of the European Country one day …( I don’t believe the Greens will win anything in the US though, it will be a miracle to have a Green congressman or Senator there)
I know… that is an unpopular opinion …
Social Issues: Liberal
Economic Issues: I don’t know a single thing about money…so idk.
Or Sanders. I know Paul Ryan was mostly using it as a bogeyman, but Sanders ending up in charge of one of the major spending committees under a Clinton presidency probably would have been a best case.
Well yes, because Corbyn has a persistent habit of firing them and doing everything he can to deprive them of the clout needed to challenge him.
Of course, all this is because Corbyn himself won’t do the decent thing, accept that 80% of Labour supporters are in favour of Remain, and step down in favour of someone willing to fight for the cause which one of his MPs was literally murdered over.
If I recall correctly mr. Van der Bellen was more of a compromise candidate from a minor party, because the alternative would have been a right-wing extremists in Norbert Hofer. In any case your mr. Kurz let the extreme right-wing into the Austrian government anyway.
In coalition or by majority? Cause the first is easier and in this country is virtually the only way. I suppose if our Green party can repeat the previous electoral success another time or two it would become either the largest or the second party, which would mean it would be difficult to govern without it.
True, but the vice-president is still the one person the president can’t really fire and they tend to have better access to the president then Congress critters, often on par with other senior White House staff. Speaking of that much like Bolton re-enforces some of Trump’s worst (political) instincts Kaine would in all likelihood have fueled some of Hillary’s worst political tendencies.
That access is very valuable to all kinds of lobbyists and we all know which lobbyists Kaine liked best.
But access isn’t necessarily power.
Remember, the office of Vice-President used to belong to the guy who came second in the election. The office carries no formal power, and mostly exists as a consolation prize. While we do have recent examples of strong-willed individuals (Dick Cheney, for example) using their access to wield power, it is far more common for the Veep to be intended to be a harmless non-entity which a strong-willed PotUS can safely ignore, something which has occasionally worked out really well (in the case of Harry Truman or Theodore Roosevelt) or really poorly (like in the case of Andrew Johnson).
The amount of power a Veep possesses is inversely proportionate to the strength of will of the President, and I don’t think anyone, supporter or enemy, could say in good faith that Clinton lacked that.
Most logically by coalition … I think Germany used to have a coalition government of Social Democrat and Greens , but some claim the Greens had been “softened” in the environmental issue once they hold the ministry post…
I would love to witness a strong Greens governmen,t any where in the world who can stay true to environment issue … banning of whales hunting , shark hunting, deforestation … animal cruelty , and of course the pollution plus global warming issue
Depends on how far you go with that as this is the point that caused our Party for the Animals to split off from our Greens. Personally I think the Party for the Animals is nuts in often valuing fauna more then people and their harsh approach to many issues would make this country practically unlivable if they should ever hold majority power. Though, fortunately, any party holding majority power in our system is virtually impossible.
Already banned by most EU countries as far as I recall.
I agree with that … am always hoping there are tolerance in some of the issues , for my opinion the Nature should be “Balanced” , not totally “Protected”
If i am not mistaken , Norway and some other Asia country still practice it …but we can’t interfere with their internal policy
Norway and Japan are the main, remaining, culprits, yes.