Forums - Politics Discussion - What Occupy movement understood and most don't.

Ten minute video:
Some inconvenient truths by Chris Hedges:
"Essentially, we are trapped in a system of political paralysis. There is an inability on the part of government to respond rationally...to the problems that beset us;
whether that is climate change or whether that is the financial collapse, the mortgage crisis, chronic underemployment or unemployment, the fact that a million people a year go bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bills....80 percent of whom have health insurance. All of our legislation is written by corporate lobbyists. The power elite understand perfectly well what's coming and is radically reconfiguring the legal system to criminalize dissent."
Much more at link.
~rc

Video below.



Around the Network



I hope we will see this fiscally conservative/libertarian part of the Republican Party seperate from the socially conservative base completely. I like some of their ideas but (if I was American) I could never vote for a party with such extreme views on social issues.

The two biggest problems with the American system are the filibuster and the amount of money in politics (lobbyists, campaign donations, the fact judges have political colour).



Soleron said:

I hope we will see this fiscally conservative/libertarian part of the Republican Party seperate from the socially conservative base completely. I like some of their ideas but (if I was American) I could never vote for a party with such extreme views on social issues.

I don't see what that would accomplish. Branding aside, the Republican Party is neither fiscally conservative nor socially extreme, and libertarians are already a people without a party except for the odd Ron or Rand Paul. If Republicans were to ditch the social conservatism altogether, they would lose far more votes than they would gain because there are plenty of socons who either luvz teh poor or love sucking that government titty themselves who would just jump on the Democrat bandwagon. There are a lot more richardhutnik types than you might think, people who don't hate Republicans because they're "racists" or "homophobes" or whatever, but because they buy into the horseshit that the Republicans are the enemy of the middle class and the Democrats are its defender.

Fiscal conservatism just isn't a winner. Loads of people like to talk about how they're "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" but guess which side always wins out? Stated preference vs. actual preference.



No... most people know that washington is at a political deadlock.

The sad part is. That's probably an improvement.

Most laws passed today seem to have the opposite effect from what's intended... mostly coming from the Democrats.  Since people generally buy into untrue rhetorics.

Dodd-Frank being a prime example.  It was supposed to be harder on banks, make it harder for crisis to happen and solve to big to fail.


What it did was, make it a LOT harder on small banks, making big banks bigger and even more systemic, going so far as calling them systemic in fact.  They mandate a "wind down" process for breaking up a failing big bank, but such processes only exist when one bank is independently failing.

 

Meaning if we had Dodd Frank in 2000 or 2004.  In 2008 chances are the crisis would of been far worse.



Around the Network
badgenome said:
Soleron said:

I hope we will see this fiscally conservative/libertarian part of the Republican Party seperate from the socially conservative base completely. I like some of their ideas but (if I was American) I could never vote for a party with such extreme views on social issues.

I don't see what that would accomplish. Branding aside, the Republican Party is neither fiscally conservative nor socially extreme, and libertarians are already a people without a party except for the odd Ron or Rand Paul. If Republicans were to ditch the social conservatism altogether, they would lose far more votes than they would gain because there are plenty of socons who either luvz teh poor or love sucking that government titty themselves who would just jump on the Democrat bandwagon. There are a lot more richardhutnik types than you might think, people who don't hate Republicans because they're "racists" or "homophobes" or whatever, but because they buy into the horseshit that the Republicans are the enemy of the middle class and the Democrats are its defender.

Fiscal conservatism just isn't a winner. Loads of people like to talk about how they're "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" but guess which side always wins out? Stated preference vs. actual preference.

It is true.  For most people social conservatism is just "spending on stuff i don't like".  With the percentage of "stuff I don't like" being overexagerrated.

In general there is an incentives gap as well.

I mean, in an argument of "Should we use our credit card to throw a party" we're talking about the incentive up upfront fun, vs possible long term problems.

Furthermore, when your alraedy half in the problem as we are now, it becomes more and more tempting to say "Well we're probably fucked anyway so we may as well make this the most bitching kegger in history anyway."



Also, as for Global Warming... i'd actually like to see someone's solution.

Global Warming is completely unstoppable short of a global dictatorship. To use the above kegger analogy, Essentially all global warming legislation does is prevent you from enjoying yourself and drinking the "cheap" booze while everybody else does. (other countries, ESPECIALLY developing nations who will tell you to fuck off if you want them to stop growing.)

Recent research actually indicates that every consumption based approach towards global warming has essentially had zero effect. Since those carbons just ended up being exported to other countries who burned them.  So you aren't even slowing down global warming as demand far outstripes production.

Global Warming prevention is nothing but a conceit of vanity.  Like bringing your own expensive hipster beer with you that's luke warm from the ride and tastes worse then the keg.

If your worried about Global Warming, what you should be pushing for is Global Warming Adaption/Proactive technology (like Geo-Engineering).

 

Global warming is going to be impossible to stop, impossible to slow down, and even impossible to get out of the way.  All that can be done is to develop tech that will lower the impact.



badgenome said:
Soleron said:

I hope we will see this fiscally conservative/libertarian part of the Republican Party seperate from the socially conservative base completely. I like some of their ideas but (if I was American) I could never vote for a party with such extreme views on social issues.

I don't see what that would accomplish. Branding aside, the Republican Party is neither fiscally conservative nor socially extreme, and libertarians are already a people without a party except for the odd Ron or Rand Paul. If Republicans were to ditch the social conservatism altogether, they would lose far more votes than they would gain because there are plenty of socons who either luvz teh poor or love sucking that government titty themselves who would just jump on the Democrat bandwagon. There are a lot more richardhutnik types than you might think, people who don't hate Republicans because they're "racists" or "homophobes" or whatever, but because they buy into the horseshit that the Republicans are the enemy of the middle class and the Democrats are its defender.

Fiscal conservatism just isn't a winner. Loads of people like to talk about how they're "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" but guess which side always wins out? Stated preference vs. actual preference.


The Republican Party certainly is socially extreme.  Seventy Percent of those voters that put in the 2010 Crop of Senators thoroughly believe in a totally discredited iron age book that advocates keeping those that don't wholeheartedly believe in an outmoded patriarchical social structure as second class citizens or worse.



EdHieron said:
badgenome said:
Soleron said:

I hope we will see this fiscally conservative/libertarian part of the Republican Party seperate from the socially conservative base completely. I like some of their ideas but (if I was American) I could never vote for a party with such extreme views on social issues.

I don't see what that would accomplish. Branding aside, the Republican Party is neither fiscally conservative nor socially extreme, and libertarians are already a people without a party except for the odd Ron or Rand Paul. If Republicans were to ditch the social conservatism altogether, they would lose far more votes than they would gain because there are plenty of socons who either luvz teh poor or love sucking that government titty themselves who would just jump on the Democrat bandwagon. There are a lot more richardhutnik types than you might think, people who don't hate Republicans because they're "racists" or "homophobes" or whatever, but because they buy into the horseshit that the Republicans are the enemy of the middle class and the Democrats are its defender.

Fiscal conservatism just isn't a winner. Loads of people like to talk about how they're "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" but guess which side always wins out? Stated preference vs. actual preference.


The Republican Party certainly is socially extreme.  Seventy Percent of those voters that put in the 2010 Crop of Senators thoroughly believe in a totally discredited iron age book that advocates keeping those that don't wholeheartedly believe in an outmoded patriarchical social structure as second class citizens or worse.

If i'm reading your post right... your arguement is that the republican party is socially extreme because most voters are Christian.


The abortion arguement is a fairly poignant example though.  As the US is one of the most "Pro-life" countries as far as developed nations go.  Yet we have some of the least strict abortion laws among developed countries, As the USA pretty much allows 2nd term abortions on demand.

While most countries only allow 1st term abortions on demand and then have strict restrictions.  Some countries even require counciling or etc.

 

There was a big arguement over the Neo-natal sonogram law.  I believe Rachael Maddow called it rape directly.  Interestingly soething like 70% of the country thinks you should be forced to get a sonogram before you get an abortion. Not sure if that's the same thing since quite honestly i don't give a shit about kids.



Around the Network
Kasz216 said:
EdHieron said:
badgenome said:
Soleron said:

I hope we will see this fiscally conservative/libertarian part of the Republican Party seperate from the socially conservative base completely. I like some of their ideas but (if I was American) I could never vote for a party with such extreme views on social issues.

I don't see what that would accomplish. Branding aside, the Republican Party is neither fiscally conservative nor socially extreme, and libertarians are already a people without a party except for the odd Ron or Rand Paul. If Republicans were to ditch the social conservatism altogether, they would lose far more votes than they would gain because there are plenty of socons who either luvz teh poor or love sucking that government titty themselves who would just jump on the Democrat bandwagon. There are a lot more richardhutnik types than you might think, people who don't hate Republicans because they're "racists" or "homophobes" or whatever, but because they buy into the horseshit that the Republicans are the enemy of the middle class and the Democrats are its defender.

Fiscal conservatism just isn't a winner. Loads of people like to talk about how they're "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" but guess which side always wins out? Stated preference vs. actual preference.


The Republican Party certainly is socially extreme.  Seventy Percent of those voters that put in the 2010 Crop of Senators thoroughly believe in a totally discredited iron age book that advocates keeping those that don't wholeheartedly believe in an outmoded patriarchical social structure as second class citizens or worse.

If i'm reading your post right... your arguement is that the republican party is socially extreme because most voters are Christian.

Most Republican voters are Fundamantalist Christians and are firm believers in the notion that women should be second class citizens and that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry simply because it goes against the will of an imaginary god.  All of the 2010 Senators were essentially put in office because Obama's African American and Bush won the 2004 Presidential election due to extremists being against gay marriage.