Can we cut this left and right shit

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

For so long foolish people fight over the next president, most not even taking a step back to examine what each candidate has to offer but instead settling upon the excuse and argument of “Well this candidate is republican, we must make sure a republican gets into office.” Same thing for the left too.

This is classic divide and conquer, makes it easier for the fools who can’t lead to get into office. Why do people not examine and support the best leader regardless of which side, people need to be thinking in terms of future, even past your own lives. What we do now will HAVE an effect later down the road, just like it has already happened to us now, from before.

So we need to drop this divide and conquer garbage before our country gets severely fucked, again.

Same shit as “Oh first woman president? I have to vote for her” BE REALISTIC, just because she is a fucking woman means she is the best leader? NO. Focus on WHAT actually matters in the election instead of pride, ego and foolish “winning”. There is no winning if a fool leads our country, only loss and not only for America, for the world as well.

What can be done to fight off the divide and conquer right and left illusion?

Why let there even be an illusion of choice?

2

I appreciate that you are taking my advice, and I couldn’t agree more.

I secretly suspect that Trump was their plan all along, to make him look like an outsider when he was really an insider.
That being said, I don’t support any of the candidates, and Hillary would i think be the most disastrous one.

3

Even being a woman, I would never vote for Clinton. That’s not to say that someday I wouldn’t consider it if it was the “right” woman.
The sad part about all of this is that some of these including Trump who may plausibly just make a good president - can’t tell for sure since he’s too busy being arrogant and insulting to the others. It all seems to be about knocking one another instead of simply dealing with the issues, their issuesand staying focused on that. So everything gets a bit muddied and it’s difficult to discern who is really play acting (like Trump). It’s really sad that a bunch of politicians need to resort to this nonsense - like being in elementary school.

I wonder what would happen if absolutely no one showed up to vote? That’s a stand. :laughing:

4

Is this an honest sentiment, or just a way to get Trump supporters to look at Bernie? I ask, because I’m generally suspicious when somebody that only has leftist ideas proclaims to be against the left/right dichotomy.

5

Okay, let’s bring this down to earth.

Here is Rpublican Donald Trump’s views on abortion:
ontheissues.org/Celeb/Donald_Trump_Abortion.htm

Here is Democrat Hillary Clinton’s views on abortion:
ontheissues.org/Cabinet/Hill … ortion.htm

So, forgetting the part about them being either a Republican [a male on the right] or a Democrat [a woman on the left] what then constitutes being the “best leader” here?

As for this…

…how easily it is to reconfigure it into this instead:

Is this an honest sentiment, or just a way to get Sanders supporters to look at Trump? I ask, because I’m generally suspicious when somebody that only has ring wing ideas proclaims to be against the right/left dichotomy.

The dichotomy however does in fact exist. You either support a woman’s right to kill her unborn baby [or clump of cells] or you support the right of the baby [or the clump of cells] to be born.

But who is the Solomon among us able to finally make these conflicting goods just go away?

And, of course, the same sort of argument can be made regarding all the other issues too.

As for the “illusion of choice”, that would seem to be more applicable to a world in which determinism prevails.

6

Yes, that is a grammatically correct reconfiguration. Good job! It just doesn’t happen to apply in this case because Artimas is a Bernie supporter on the left, and not a Trump supporters on the right.

7

We look at this “LEFT” and “RIGHT” because that is our viewpoint.
We can change the viewpoint. For example, we can view it in terms
of income inequality which is rich man, poor man. we can view it Male vs Female.
We can view it, religiously those who believe and those who don’t. But realistically,
there can only be a certain number of ways to view it. Left and right seems to cover
most of the bases needed. Now one of the things that happens is
shifting within left and right. By that, what is considered “left” and what is
considered “Right” changes constantly. What was once considered far left wing
is now mainstream, specifically gay marriage and weed. But the country as a whole,
is far more conservative than it was say, 15 or 20 years ago. (soon the pendulum will
swing the other way and we shall become far more liberal and back and forth it goes)
So to say, he is left wing. You have to place that into some context. Bernie for example,
20, 30 years ago, he was mainstream, nothing special. He hasn’t moved whereas the country
has moved right thus making him look more left than he really is. In Europe, he is barely
left wing but that area has shifted also. Obama is a right wing politician, barely two steps
over from bush jr. This is shown by how few changes in policy that occurred when he took office.
Obama basically kept the bush jr policies going. I have been waiting for 40 years for a liberal
president and I am still waiting. Clinton is another center right politician. We will not begin
the necessary change that is needed in our country until we elect someone who is left of center
and Bernie is the only one who has a chance, (abet a small one) to be elected. But the Bernie
phenomenon is a sign of the population growing desire for a true liberal president.
The center right policies are barely working and need to be overhauled and those
center right politians certainly won’t do anything to overhaul those policies and this
is why we need a left wing president. It is all about context. Left, right, center, changes
yearly, monthly and even daily. Until we learn to flow within the every changing
nature of reality, we will still have battles, fights and confusion about left and right.

Kropotkin

8

Right, as though it is not applicable to any number of folks who embrace either one.

And what of the other point I raised? How does your own rendition of that which constitutes the “best leader” not fit into your own carved-in-stone objectivist agenda?

Over and again you point out all of the terrible things that the liberals do as though the liberals can’t come up with reasonable facsimiles regarding the conservatives.

But that’s what happens when one becomes anchored to that “one of us” vs. “one of them” mentality. You see only what you already know. But [in my view] you don’t really explore in depth [existentially] how it is that what you have come to know is really just [or largely] embodied in dasein. Instead, you insist it is anchored in your “superior judgment” – as though this judgment itself is not largely embedded in the political assumptions that you start out with. Yours on the right, theirs on the left.

You simply have too much to lose when you abandon this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

And I know this because, well, I already lost it.

9

I bet iambigous had a mental orgasm from this. Like the puzzles falling right into place.

Someone makes a topic about left and right dichotomies, and its time to post that dasein thing again, but this time, its the perfect fit. Like putting the peg in the hole. Or a lego brick on top of another lego brick. You must have came loads.

10

A man is born.
Eventually, he is taught right from wrong.
He learns from his parents what right and wrong is, and then he goes out with his friends.
His friends teach him different moral values, which conflict with what his parents say.
He finds himself following what is parents say, but also following what his friends say.
This makes him confused, and eventually he stumbles onto someone like minded as he is.
He hears what they have to say, and eventually, he follows the same politics and morals as they do.
Then, eventually, he gets old, realises the subjective value judgements of it all, and realises about dasein.
He has no choice, but to preach about it to forums.
Normally, he floods unrelated threads with dasein comments.
But every now and then, he finds the topic, with the perfect fit.
Its like putting a puzzle in the perfect hole.
And he puts the dasein topic in it, and it feels wonderful, and he cums loads.

11

I’m independent. I think Bernie has some good ideas, while I also approve of Trumps immigrant policy about shipping illegals who dont take time to legally enter our country, the wall, the rebuilding jobs back here instead of in China and where ever else. I do not support his racism, ad hominem approach to politics however. I also don’t support his being a billionaire while running, using money to get into office is pure corruption of politics at the very least. Also, billionaires are MUCH more of a threat to our country than illegals are. Sorry if that is disappointing, but it is true. I don’t support creating illnesses and false treatments for quick bucks.

The reason I support Bernie is because instead of placing blame on the immigrants, on the work over seas where we shipped our jobs, etc. He instead offers solutions that would have more or a permanent fix instead of a temporary. If we are going to invest reaourcea into solutions I would say it would be better off to invest in long term ones… Not short term.

I support pieces of both sides. I don’t support blind patriotism on the right, nor blind liberalism on the left. Not all new ideas may turn out disastrous, some old ideas need to be replaced for newer generations society to function properly.

12

More Kids Stuff?

He notes this intellectual drivel instead of actually engaging the point about that “dasein thing” that I make.

Here, I’ll direct him to the thread I created in order to do just that: viewtopic.php?f=25&t=189516

13

So I can’t tell which side of the discussion you are on. I will have to check these threads out when I have time.

14

Back in the 20th century, left and right were convenient descriptions of fundamental political attitudes.
Those who advocate tradition (usually including religious and cultural), authority (a punitive legal system), patriarchy, consolidation of property and wealth, and a defensive, isolationist foreign policy - generally, top-down rule - have been called right-leaning.
Those who advocate a progressive, inclusive, secular, egalitarian form of governance; education, conciliation, preventive law and diplomatic foreign relations - a generally citizen-oriented administration - have been called leftist.
There was no conquering aspect to this division: it’s a perfectly legitimate and honest difference in vision. Most people hold opinions on most subjects that fall roughly within one belief-system or another - but there are always exceptions and dissent; attitudes and situations are changing all the time. Good government is a constant negotiation between the two kinds of approach to whatever issue must be dealt-with, usually ending in compromise.

What’s happened to the US isn’t about left and right. The Republican party has been anything but isolationist or fiscally conservative (No, it doesn’t mean cutting taxes to the rich: it means keeping the wealth of the nation in the nation). It’s made a stand “against big government”, while actually expanding both the powers and budgets of government agencies and the military. They yell about the constitution, but have, in fact, made more changes (not to mention fraud on a grand scale) to election procedure, the franchise, law-enforcement and state power than the so-called left has. The American “right” is no longer conservative - it’s become just a tool of the Koch brothers. They have systematically driven out moderate, informed and reasonable conservatives. That’s how they ended up with the current crop of sorry candidates.
The present divide-and-conquer aspect of American politics dates back (approximately) to Nixon, who blatantly harnessed dormant racial tension to get elected. His right-wing successors have built on that technique, fanning whatever resentments they could, sowing fear, xenophobia and suspicion, scapegoating minorities, gays and women, enlisting Big Pharma, Big Sugar, Big Agro, Big Banks, Big Religion, Big Spies, Big Guns and Very Big Oil, expanding the military-industrial empire, interfering in the politics and suborning the economies of hundreds of sovereign nations, invading dozens … all the while advertising against big government.

The left has all but disappeared since 1965. It’s a poor, ragged rearguard action. Sanders is the last of his kind: a consistent, honest advocate of a liberal, civil society. And he’s old.
You have nothing to worry about: this whole circus is about to fold.
Well, by nothing to worry about, I mean, besides catastrophic weather and civil war.

15

Well, economically speaking, the left will find it hard to win again given the past disasters of complete planned economies. However, culturally, the left are the Establishment. Victimhood politics reigns supreme.

16

People that do not understand power or the individuals that wield it fall into the idiotic naive paradigm of left versus right and vice versa. This includes a majority of human beings.

17

any political leader arguing for military spending and/or social programs is an oligarchic collectivist.
their cures will be proven much worse than the disease. Today students master in debt, a college degree worth 150-250K of debt. What for?

Building a wall will do nothing against the NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO and trans pacific agreements, americans are too hooked on cheap stuff from china, brazil, mexico, etc… meanwhile the factories’ robotization is already in full swing, millions of jobs will be soon lost forever.

The end of the world as we know it is right around the corner

18

I agree with the three points above. I hope Sanders wins, he is the only truthful campaign. No it isn’t only because he is on the left that I want him to win. It’s because you can tell he is geniunely a nice person with leadership skills and history. All of those traits are very important to lead a society. Well I would say anyways.

19

“sanders has a truthful campaign”

No such thing as an honest politician.

20

Politics is like women clamoring like a rave mob, with their hands in the air, saying “Fuck me…please…FUCK ME…HARDER, HARDER!!! I dont care who you really are, or if you’ll really bring change to this country… I JUST WANT YOU TO TOUCH MY GENITIALS and I JUST WANT TO scream like a maniac about it!!! It’s really the hysteria, the spectacle…is what I CRAVE”.

Its all a subconscious game.