Aldebaran, Why aren’t you concerned about your own countrymen’s voting behaviour? Don’t you know the right-wing ‘Vlaams Blok’ is getting more votes every year?
Considering their goal is stricter laws for Turkish and Maroccon immigrants, I would have thought that might worry you.
“Right wing” and “left wing” are short hand labels that vary in meaning from time and place. A Swedish “right winger” might be politically indistinguishable from the average Democrat in the United States.
It is clear that Nazism in the context of Weimar Republic German politics was a right wing faction. Hitler indeed was a “socialist” of sorts, but not a Marxist. His brand of socialism (largely a gambit to appeal to the working classes) was a half baked version of fascist corporatism, which in turn was based on an idealized vision of feudal life where everyone knew their place (as long as they were members of the “Volk” of course - Jews were not let into this happy family).
Nineteenth century “conservatives” generally advocated a sort of “social contract” while the “liberals” of that time backed laissez-faire capitalism. Old school European right-wing politicians such as Benjamin Disraeli, Napoleon III, Otto von Bismarck, and Karl Lueger actually tended to support generous social welfare measures as a means of keeping order among the classes and staving off the sort of social levelling that “Liberals” advocated. So in this context, Hitler drew much of his inspiration from conservative European ideas.
Now I can see why you are peturbed by this. Someone might say…“wait Hitler was right wing, George W. Bush is right wing…that makes Dubya a Nazi!”. But that is just utter stupidity. Bush is right-wing in the context of contemporary American politics. Hitler was right wing in his own setting. That doesn’t mean they are alike.
Brutus, Hitler was in fact a right winger, as was Stalin. Of course, in Germany and Russia right wing and left wing were descriptors that were then (and in Russia are still) completely opposite of the meaning we give them.
Regardless, it’s simply a political appellation, and frankly both you and Reeder are stupid for getting into an absurd pissing contest about a damn adjective.
I read it in a book called “The Rich and the Super Rich”.
Quite a few years ago, but that stat stuck with me. It may be out of date now, but I doubt it.
I believe the underlying question of this thread is - at what point will you vote against someone even though he most accurately represents your ideas? Does he have to personally push people into ovens, or is there some other line where you would accept a less radical but differently-opinioned alternative?
Normally, this is the case. People who vote, vote according to the guy’s stands on the issues. The candidate whose stands they prefer gets their vote, regardless of trivialites such as where he’s from, if he did/did not serve in the military, if he is/is not divorsed, is/is not a womanizer, is/is not a current or past alcoholic, if he does/does not seem to be on the take, has/has not “flip-floped” on any issues, etc.
But we are not in a normal situation. Bush II’s transgressions are way more serious than the usual stuff. Consider that impeachment proceedings were brought vs. Clinton – for telling a face-saving lie about a cheap affair. Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment – for ordinary political dirty tricks. His people were trying to spy on the opposition.
Bush II and his people lied us into a war. WMDs: untrue. Real threat to us: untrue. Involved in the 9/11 attack: untrue. And not just a little Grenade type war: over 700 of our people dead, thousands of Iraqi civilians killed, Iraq’s art and archaeology treasures looted, the country in a mess – and now the prisoner abuse scandal. Not to mention undoing 30 years worth of environmental progress and reducing our civil liberties.
I not only don’t understand why the conseratives are willing to vote for him, I don’t understand why he isn’t being impeached.
Huh? Landslide? He lost the popular vote. He got into the White House on the basis of having supposedly won in Florida. Even if you believe Florida’s official results were valid, those official results were a statistical tie.
And if you “slant libertarian” at all, what do you think of the Patriot Act?
He was talking about Richard Nixon.
Please!:rolleyes: Please!
PLEASE!
Don’t be naive! ALL pols are eventually dishonest & corrupt! Accept it, then use it to your advantage.
I have no problems with partisan politics. People who carp about that have no concept what politics, and political positions & politcal parties are about.
I for one, do not find Bush a trainwreck. A kick in the ass is a far, far cry from a train wreck. Jimmy Carter was a God damn train wreck.
I have issues that I’m intense about. They are issues that are on the very top of my list of impotance to me. Abortion, taxes, and gun Control come to mind.
While Bush wasn’t an A+ on all these, John Kerry raises a finger to me over them and says @#$% YOU! Why would I vote for him when he’s almost 100% opposite to my views?? And why would I waste my vote on a 3rd party idiot who’s wasting his time and uglying up my television screen?
pkbites says:
So, not to pick on pkbites in particular, but…
This is what I really don’t get about that perspective - John Kerry is really barely any different than Bush. It makes no sense to say they are opposites - maybe Kucinich, okay, but Kerry? I wouldn’t classify him as a Democrat (what little that means nowadays) and I certainly wouldn’t classify him as a leftist.
For example, http://www.politicalcompass.org
aurelian
ps. damn, i have a busy semester, i’m away for a few months, and k’bam! (totally whooshed by the whole registration thing)
Sorry to tell you, but you’re just not gonna get through to these people. Doesn’t matter who had won the primaries, The Right would have painted him as the most bleeding-heart liberal. That’s just what they do. I actually had a fellow doper in another thread swear up and down that Kerry is far more liberal than Kucinich!!!
I’m not going to get into the other points, which are valid enough, but I distinctly remember the economy was on it’s way down the tubes at least 6 months prior to the 2000 election. You can’t blame him for that, nor that 9/11 was a big blow. If you want to blame his tax cuts on not helping the economy, go ahead, but he didn’t just push a button on the first day in office and made a wonderful economy suddenly come a screeching halt.
Are you talking about Kerry or Bush?
If you’re talking about Kerry, you’ve got to be kidding me! Kerry has been called left of Ted Kennedy!
This is not to imply that G.W. is all that right wing. His lack of right wing is what I object to. But he IS far to the right of Kerry. And (hopefully) a Republican controled House/Senate will keep him there, and pull him further right.
pkbites:
I was referring to Kerry. Seriously, check out the website - the link is on the left frame. And if you think Bush and Kerry so diametrically opposed, what exactly are you referring to? (ie, specific policy differences - I’m asking the question in all seriousness)
Aldeberan, I hope your question is answered. True believers will vote regardless of evidence. So we’ve got a $500 billion dollar deficit, and still a net job loss? (Big deal, the economy is recovering. Economies do, and I’d love to see the evidence the tax cuts for the rich had anything to do with it.) So we’re in a trainwreck in Iraq? So everyone hates us, or Bush, at least. Big deal. I’ve been convinced by the NRA that Kerry will take my gun from me, and I’m outraged that women might have control of their bodies (not that they mostly do now.) Oh, and no right-winger can do any wrong, so both Nazis and Ku-Klux-Klanners are actually left wing.
I hope this thread has been as enlightening to you as it has been to me.
Despite what the faithful say for public consumption, the true test will come in November when we will see if they will actually pull the lever for Bush, sit out the election or horrors of horrors, pull the lever for Kerry. To steal a phrase, “God willing”, Bush II’s name will be added to the list below. 
Good analogy. For me, as much as I dislike True Believers in Bush and think that his whole WOT has been a total fuck up, coming to this site and seeing all of the left wingnut posts on domestic issues, really shows me who the greater enemy is.
…preferring actual solutions to lies, crap and soundbites makes me a left wingnut?
Yes, that is certainly a correct interpretation.
And it is not that much that I am appalled. I am even much more stunned that such a man can still count on people willing to give him an other term.
What I see as one of the reasons for this is the system itself. In the USA only two parties are able to really run the show. Hence at the end only two candidates really have a chance in the rush for the White House.
In my opinion that must be a frustrating situation for the public and in which I see one of the reasons why so many people even don’t bother to vote.
Those who want to vote support the candidate of “their” party no matter who he is because they see no alternative.
Do you think that this situation is democratic?
Salaam. A
Note to Stalking Gum, always showing up where I post with nothing substantial to say : If you by any chance have something to add to this discussion - which goes about the USA - then write it. If you want to discuss politics of other nations then I suggest that you make your own thread. And by the way: het Vlaams Blok in Belgium (mostly in the Flemish part but it seems they also try to win votes from within parts of the French communion) has in my view absolutely a very useful function. You seem to have not much knowledge about local situations and politics.
Oh… forgot to say…
I am not “left” and not “right”… What people in the US tend to call “left” and “right” does not match with my interpretation.
I find for example the US interpretation of “Liberal” and “Socialist” also a bit strange - to say it midly 
- because it does not match at all with the liberalism and socialism I’m familiar with.
Salaam. A