Where do you stand politically? (2 Viewers)

[Jon]

No need to reveal your political affiliations in the discussion, unless you want to. I am curious where people stand. Voting is anonymous.

 

[NauticalGent]

Speaking for the US political system, both the Republitards and Democraps are equally corrupt. They exist only to give the American public the illusion of choice.

Damn fine mess it is. Sad actually

 

[Pat Hartman]

I read Atlas Shrugged in my 20's and that convinced me that I could no longer be a Democrat. Free stuff isn't actually free people. I'm much more of a Libertarian which is closest to the leaning of the people who wrote our constitution. Small government. Leave as much to the states as possible. Unfortunately both the Republicans and Democrats today have never seen a Federal program that they didn't want to expand unless it was a pet project of the other party.

A lot of the people who post here are not from the US and I'm sure our chaos is unsettling. Keep in mind that you are seeing in the news only one side of the issues. CNN is so in the tank for the Democrats, all their news should be considered a political contribution to the DNC (Democratic National Committee). We are now in the process of impeaching a president because a lot of people don't like his style or his hair. Neither is an impeachable offense so wiser heads will prevail in the Senate and Trump will be acquitted. However, you will continue to hear the defamation campaign from the left-wind media and Democratic party because they are completely unwilling to accept the fact that Hillary didn't win in 2016. You should also remember that during the debates, the "moderators" kept pushing Trump to say he would accept the election results and not make a problem. Who made the problem?

In summary, our constitution gives the House of Representatives the power to impeach and the Senate the power to adjudicate. What you haven't seen on CNN is that the House called 18 witnesses, none of which could actually name a crime the president had committed. Their testimony was essentially - he didn't follow the rules, I disagree with what he did, he ignored all of our advice, etc. Why we should care what they think is beyond me since the constitution gives the president the SOLE power to set foreign policy. We don't do it by committee. The entrenched bureaucratic class doesn't set policy. The PRESIDENT sets foreign policy. As a member of the foreign service, you are obligated to enforce the policy of the president. If you disagree, the honorable thing to do is to resign. The dishonorable thing to do is to stay and leak and obstruct at every opportunity.

The other thing you didn't see on CNN is that only the Democrats got to call witnesses in the House. The minority party was not allowed to call a single witness. The president was not allowed to have his council present. Four days before the House completed their "work" they realized how bad this was so they told the president he could send his council. President Trump being Trump gave them the finger and said he wasn't justifying their kangaroo court. Now, in the Senate, the Democrats are calling the "trial" a sham and unfair because they can't call new witnesses. Somehow the fact that they could have called the witnesses in the House doesn't seem to be relevant.

 

[Jon]

@Pat Hartman That is one long book! I bought it and started reading it, and also The Fountainhead. But, I found it heavy going and only got a little bit of the way through. No doubt they are thought-provoking books. What specifically about them turned your political inclinations?

 

[NauticalGent]

I read Atlas Shrugged in my 20's and that convinced me that I could no longer be a Democrat. Free stuff isn't actually free people. I'm much more of a Libertarian which is closest to the leaning of the people who wrote our constitution. Small government. Leave as much to the states as possible. Unfortunately both the Republicans and Democrats today have never seen a Federal program that they didn't want to expand unless it was a pet project of the other party.

A lot of the people who post here are not from the US and I'm sure our chaos is unsettling. Keep in mind that you are seeing in the news only one side of the issues. CNN is so in the tank for the Democrats, all their news should be considered a political contribution to the DNC (Democratic National Committee). We are now in the process of impeaching a president because a lot of people don't like his style or his hair. Neither is an impeachable offense so wiser heads will prevail in the Senate and Trump will be acquitted. However, you will continue to hear the defamation campaign from the left-wind media and Democratic party because they are completely unwilling to accept the fact that Hillary didn't win in 2016. You should also remember that during the debates, the "moderators" kept pushing Trump to say he would accept the election results and not make a problem. Who made the problem?

In summary, our constitution gives the House of Representatives the power to impeach and the Senate the power to adjudicate. What you haven't seen on CNN is that the House called 18 witnesses, none of which could actually name a crime the president had committed. Their testimony was essentially - he didn't follow the rules, I disagree with what he did, he ignored all of our advice, etc. Why we should care what they think is beyond me since the constitution gives the president the SOLE power to set foreign policy. We don't do it by committee. The entrenched bureaucratic class doesn't set policy. The PRESIDENT sets foreign policy. As a member of the foreign service, you are obligated to enforce the policy of the president. If you disagree, the honorable thing to do is to resign. The dishonorable thing to do is to stay and leak and obstruct at every opportunity.

The other thing you didn't see on CNN is that only the Democrats got to call witnesses in the House. The minority party was not allowed to call a single witness. The president was not allowed to have his council present. Four days before the House completed their "work" they realized how bad this was so they told the president he could send his council. President Trump being Trump gave them the finger and said he wasn't justifying their kangaroo court. Now, in the Senate, the Democrats are calling the "trial" a sham and unfair because they can't call new witnesses. Somehow the fact that they could have called the witnesses in the House doesn't seem to be relevant.

Well stated Pat.

 

[pbaldy]

I'm another person who read Ayn Rand in my youth. Atlas Shrugged is definitely a handful, but worth it. I've read it several times, though not for a while now.

 

[Steve R.]

Same here. Atlas Shrugged was made into a three part movie. Saw the movie. Difficult to review. The actors appeared to be reading from the book itself. The script is still relevant for today. Production quality was highly erratic. Reviewers panned the movie. But, I would say that was because the reviewers would tend not be supportive of Rand's thoughts. Audience review was a bit more positive.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

My political position these days seems to be "bent over" based on what both sides are doing at the moment.

But more to the point, I tend to be inconsistent as a voter because at each election, the quality of the candidates offered to me has been inconsistent. So long-term, I don't fit into any molds. I just wish some of these politicians could break out of THEIR molds.

For instance, in the "Hillary vs. Donald" vote, I went Republican because I found Hillary to be a far-left socialist and an arrogant witch (with alternate spelling, perhaps). Her past excesses including the Benghazi debacle and the mail-server scandal tipped me over the edge towards Donald.

But in Louisiana, we just had a governor's race where we had Eddie Rispone, a Trump wanna-be, vs. Jon Bell Edwards, a Democrat. I voted for Edwards because he was a moderated liberal, whereas Rispone would have put the state in debt with all the tax cuts he promised. He was also going to diddle with our homestead property-tax exemptions that tend to moderate the state's "grab" power at property tax time. Edwards isn't rabidly insane in his approach to liberal policies. His predecessor, Bobby Jindal, put the state in an incredibly bad situation. We had a state surplus from Governor Blanco and Bobby Jindal left office eight years later with the state in debt to the point that we cut all sorts of educational, senior, and medical services. Since my mother-in-law was using the senior and medical services, I saw that first-hand.

I vote for the person who makes the most sense at the time. Or against the person who makes the LEAST sense at the time.

 

[vba_php]

Speaking for the US political system, both the Republitards and Democraps are equally corrupt. They exist only to give the American public the illusion of choice.

Damn fine mess it is. Sad actually

NG,

Don't forget that the reason the world is in "insanity" mode right now is because the moronic USA *always* get its way, in terms of spreading its idiotic capitalism and greed all over the world (and yes, that means even unsustainable places like China and Africa), even if that means starting a war to do it. There's evidence all over history of THAT happening! Unfortunately that inevitability is also destroying world cultures that would otherwise be, quite fascinating to get involved with. and to further this post, considering that the monk I talked to today in Dubuque said that he could give me a room anytime via the "vocation" issuance (which is meant to be given to aspiring monks), my political position remains MOOT, because politics means nothing to me.

 

[vba_php]

I'm another person who read Ayn Rand in my youth. Atlas Shrugged is definitely a handful, but worth it. I've read it several times, though not for a while now.

that woman seriously thought too much about everything, just like Edgar Allen Poe and the rest. and if I'm not mistaken, Poe committed suicide....

 

[The_Doc_Man]

in terms of spreading its idiotic capitalism and greed all over the world (and yes, that means even unsustainable places like China and Africa), even if that means starting a war to do it.

Adam, I believe that though both of us are familiar with US history, your viewpoint and mine differ as to where and why certain conflicts were started. I will avoid demeaning comments, but I will state for the record that I believe your position is merely another example of your own negativity seeping into a discussion. Given the venue, not seeping through in a way that would get you banned this time. But still oozing with negativity.

Capitalism is the ultimate rendition of the parable of the sower and the seeds, if you look at it carefully enough.

 

[vba_php]

but I will state for the record that I believe your position is merely another example of your own negativity seeping into a discussion. Given the venue, not seeping through in a way that would get you banned this time. But still oozing with negativity.

not negativity, but rather a disdain for making too much money when it's not necessary. I'm not a democrat either, which is the exact position a dem would take. so you're wrong again, friend. =) IMO, of course, to keep things "civil", as you like to call it.

Capitalism is the ultimate rendition of the parable of the sower and the seeds, if you look at it carefully enough.

the only thing I tend to read is the words of Christ, and nowhere in any of his statement will you hear anything about the joys of making money, the necessity of it, or anything else for that matter. I can give you endless amounts of passages, but I'm sure at your age you know what they are. The parable of the sower and the seeds....now wasn't that told by Christ himself? If I remember the story right, you're wrong again, whereas Christ is not talking about capitalism, but is rather teaching a lesson to unbelievers regarding the way to live life in a righteous manner regardless of what type of political and economic structure you're thrown into. I'll get back to you to verify that though.....I'm headed to work. I have to read it again, as it's been quite a while since I've read a parable of any sort.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

I noticed that the Conservatives would get in privatise a lot of stuff, then the Labour government would get in and nationalize practically the same businesses again. This ping pong back & to has gone on for decades. I realised it just didn't make sense, and from a monetary point of view, it was costing a fortune. I was brought up in a conservative environment but I always thought the working man was unfairly treated. I suppose you could say I was/am a bit conflicted. I knew that the liberals were supposed to be halfway in between but, I just couldn't be a liberal, there was all the stuff about Jeremy Thorpe being gay and and a lot of the liberals were supposedly gay and this was at a time when being gay was illegal, I think that basically put me off.

I like some of the things the conservatives do and I like some of the things that labour does. I get the impression that liberals will do anything to get a vote.

I think I see the good and bad in both parties and choose something in between, but not liberal!

As per usual I'm sitting on the fence!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Adam, the parallel between the the parable and capitalism is that, like capitalism, the sower recognizes that each field produces differently - and it is OK that they do so. With capitalism, each person earns differently - and it is OK that they do so.

Just so you don't get bonkers on this one, I believe that there is a split here. The folks who take risks and get wealthy through a return on their investment are not doing anything wrong. The folks who take insane salaries to run a company but end up running it into the ground and then running with the money? Those folks are a problem. Capitalism without an OCCASIONAL check or balance, when it deals with obscene salaries, is not good. But investments that return value? I cannot get bothered about that at all.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Jon,
I had trouble getting into Atlas Shrugged the first time. Just skip the first chapter and go back and read it later. I've read it twice and listened to it on tape as well as watching the 3 movies. Although I enjoyed the movies, I think the book makes the points more clearly. On the second reading, which was 30 years after the first, I was a little more critical of Rand's style. She's not a great writer but the story does bring home the point.

One of the things that drew me in was the very strong female central character. Those weren't all that common in the 60's. The central point of the book is that Socialism, no matter how fair it sounds is not fair at all. Rand's device was to have the producers of the world drop out one by one leaving the leaches to fend for themselves as society collapsed. We no longer seem to teach our children why Socialism and Communism simply don't work. They sure sound good on paper but to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, "eventually you run out of other people's money".

The liberals of the world (and I was once a card carrying member of the group) have convinced themselves that they are moral and therefore taking money from me (because I am a producer) and giving it to someone they deem more worthy is charity when in reality, that is simply theft. When I willingly give my money (or time) to people I want to help, THAT is charity.

Look at it this way. You and two other people are in a room. They vote to take your money and split it between themselves. That's democracy??

Adam,
To a certain degree, you are correct. In the past century, the US has interfered way too much in foreign affairs. Always with the best of intentions but usually with poor results. Thank God for Trump is all I can say about that. At least he knows that you cannot "give" people democracy. They have to earn it for themselves or they'll never keep it.

But you have no understanding of history if you think the US is the problem in the world. Do a little research on King Leopold and the Belgian Congo and many of the other colonies around the world. Look at how the slave trade started and look at which country stopped it. You might also want to look at which countries around the world (mostly Muslim) still embrace it. In fact, I had a sex slave who lived with me for a short while when I was working in Kuwait. That's a sad story, I'll tell it if anyone is interested. The US was never in the colony business except for our taking over Hawaii which was disgusting. Do some research on what China is doing in Africa and South America if you want to be frightened about the new colonialism.

 

[vba_php]

The folks who take risks and get wealthy through a return on their investment are not doing anything wrong.

ok ok, no question.

But investments that return value? I cannot get bothered about that at all.

it's part of life. I also have some of my money invested, as it is necessary. but....again per the event in Christs's life => turning over the money changers' tables in the synogogue and saying:

It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves

 

[Pat Hartman]

Our Congress has become a den of thieves. Are you going to just turn your back and complain?

 

[vba_php]

I think you're in the same boat as Richard, Pat. I'm not even sure who you're talking to. me?

 

[ColinEssex]

Being a southerner and not blue collar, I can't bring myself to vote Labour especially as Corbyn looks like a down-and-out wino. I can't vote Libs as most seem to be woofters. Tories are poncy stuck up gits. So I don't bother, I will when someone comes along who is normal and tells the truth.

Col

 

[NauticalGent]

Being a southerner and not blue collar, I can't bring myself to vote Labour especially as Corbyn looks like a down-and-out wino. I can't vote Libs as most seem to be woofters. Tories are poncy stuck up gits. So I don't bother, I will when someone comes along who is normal and tells the truth.

Col

Do not hold your breath, this might take awhile...