Welcome to Open Carnage

A resource for Halo 1 modding and tech, with unique means of rewarding individual content creation and support. Have a wander to see why we're worth the time! EST. 2012

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Tucker933

Who are you voting for in the US 2016 Presidential Election?

126 posts in this topic

@Waev

I've always avoided using the two-dimensional graph as it can be highly subjective and tends to present a skewed picture at times. The one-dimensional rating is more objective in where you usually stand. I'm not saying we shouldn't have two dimensions, don't get me wrong, but I believe they should be separate scales (which are possibly averaged together) and they should be economic and social, not economic and enforcement. Government power does not need its own dimension because it is implied with any combination of economic and societal views.

I'll use national socialism as an example since it's a very widely known part of history. The graph locates it on the left, while it's widely regarded as a far right movement for more intuitive (though obvious once seen) reasons: even beyond the fact that it incorporated free capitalism, it was the belief of the Nazi party that the economy was a secondary concern of the government. In addition the Nazis believed that each person, within their individual rights, should choose to work to help their neighbor and nation; contrasting with typically understood socialism (and specifically mentioning disagreement with Marx several times). "National socialism" would (in my opinion) refer to the fact that the country is somewhat socialistic as a result of being highly nationalistic.

 

This means that while the graph is technically correct in that socialism is a leftist economy, it is wrong because the government was far more concerned with being nationalistic than being socialistic, which places it in the generally understood right wing.

 

When you use the traditional "right and left" (even if you take two ratings based on economic and societal views, and average them) you end up grouping governments with more similar all-around views and behavior; I think that's what I'm saying.

 

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany

 

 

In 1922, Hitler proclaimed that "world history teaches us that no person has become great through its economy but that a person can very well perish thereby", and later concluded that "the economy is something of secondary importance".[8] Hitler and the Nazis held a very strong idealist conception of history, which held that human events are guided by small numbers of exceptional individuals following a higher ideal.
Edited by TCK

Umh7x1l.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Members of Open Carnage never see off-site ads.

From what I recall reading about censorship, he's a little better than that last lady you guys had, isn't he? Or how many prime ministers ago am I thinking of?

Edited by TCK

Umh7x1l.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Julia Gillard 2010 - 2013 was just as much a tool. 

 

They all promise the world and fail to deliver just in different areas.  I don't trust any of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see the public stop paying any attention to a scapegoat-figurehead and focus on the Senate and House elections where the people who are actually doing the governing get elected.

 

Remember 8th Grade History class? Division of the 3 Branches in Government? I can count the President's powers on one hand. He can approve or veto a law after Congress has passed one, he can ask congress to go to war, he can use an executive order (which he'll then get slammed for), he can appoint cabinet members and Supreme Court Justices (pending congress approval), and that's about it more or less.

 

 

 

Notice what most of those have in common? He needs Congress to do something first. So what happens when Congress isn't interested in doing anything to help him?

Congress is where laws get made and passed, Congress is where the country goes to war, Congress is our Government, and if I asked 100 people who the Senators in my state were I bet 95 of them would have no fucking clue. If I asked them who our Representatives were not a single fucking person of the 100 would know. I bet there's probably a few of those Reps who don't even realize they were elected, that's how obscure they are.

But everyone pays attention to the President, blames him for everything wrong in the country, and assumes it's all his fault that things are the way they are. Even though he can't do anything except agree or disagree with the  actual lawmakers, it must be his fault.

 

Because of this, Congress doesn't have to make people happy, they just have to make it look like the other party is in the wrong for everything that's fucking up. Because come election time, it doesn't matter what they did during their term, all the voting public looks at is if the candidate has a [D], or an [R] next to their name. They vote for the party they associate closest to, because they have no clue who the fuck the Senators or Representatives are.

They stick to the party, make the others look like shit, get reelected and continue to be bribed by public interest groups, PACs and other political organizations. (Teacher's Union, NRA, Planned Parenthood, Oil, etc.)

A Two-Party system is a fucking joke. They pick a few passionate things to disagree on while they all make millions and get nothing of value completed.

 

It's more than just the President, or House and Senate. When the Supreme Court struck down any and all laws forbidding gay marriage, that was wholly and unconstitutionally outside of their power. 

 

The entire purpose of the SCOTUS is to determine the constitutionality of a law that is brought before them, upon which dependant on their ruling,  it is repealed or upheld by the establishing body, not by the Court. The SCOTUS may offer it's opinion and advice, but it does NOT have the power to unanimously declare laws be repealed.

 

With that, as masses cheered, belated individuals celebrated, your Civil and Constitutional Rights died. The debate on Gay Marriage was the living definition of States Rights, which has now been nullified. It started with the ACA, when the US Government told states and individuals it had the power forced them to have insurance through the penalty of taxes...using the "Commerce Clause" as the excuse.

 

This doesn't even touch the AG, SecDef, Sec of State, BLM, EPA, ect... all of which have far reached outside their legal boundaries or committed criminal acts.

 

It's not really that big of a deal though, the country and system can't take the stress much longer. Something, somewhere is going to give, be it the economy, war, what have you... you can only run a superpower using corruption, incompetence, and weakness for some many decades before it just crumbles apart.

 

Friends, I hope you're enjoying these days, because they're the "good days".

Edited by WaeV
Spoiler'd quote
MrWonka likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Waev

I've always avoided using the two-dimensional graph as it can be highly subjective and tends to present a skewed picture at times. The one-dimensional rating is more objective in where you usually stand. I'm not saying we shouldn't have two dimensions, don't get me wrong, but I believe they should be separate scales (which are possibly averaged together) and they should be economic and social, not economic and enforcement. Government power does not need its own dimension because it is implied with any combination of economic and societal views.

Hmm, that's an interesting stance. Do you mean to imply that your stance on one dimension implies your stance on the other? In that case, people would tend to fall along a diagonal line, rather than be scattered all over.

In the US we definitely seem to have either/or politics, but I wonder if simplifying to one dimension remains valid across all countries.

 

I'll use national socialism as an example since it's a very widely known part of history. The graph locates it on the left, while it's widely regarded as a far right movement for more intuitive (though obvious once seen) reasons: even beyond the fact that it incorporated free capitalism, it was the belief of the Nazi party that the economy was a secondary concern of the government. In addition the Nazis believed that each person, within their individual rights, should choose to work to help their neighbor and nation; contrasting with typically understood socialism (and specifically mentioning disagreement with Marx several times). "National socialism" would (in my opinion) refer to the fact that the country is somewhat socialistic as a result of being highly nationalistic.

This means that while the graph is technically correct in that socialism is a leftist economy, it is wrong because the government was far more concerned with being nationalistic than being socialistic, which places it in the generally understood right wing.

I have to disagree with you here. The Nazi party called themselves national socialists, but weren't they actually fascists? They were definitely more national than socialist.

Other arguably misnamed countries:

  • Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) - Neither Democratic, the People's or a Republic
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo - "Semi-Presidential Republic" which in practice is not free
  • Democratic Republic of Afghanistan - Dissolved 1992, was a single-party socialist state
  • People's Democratic Republic of Ethiopia - Dissolved 1991, was single-party Marxist-Leninist
  • People's Republic of Bangladesh - You'd think "People's" might be shorthand for Communist at this point, but Bangladesh is a parliamentary democracy.

Even in the US, you'd think the debate between "Republicans" and "Democrats" would be whether we should have representational government (republic) or direct voting (democracy).

 

When you use the traditional "right and left" (even if you take two ratings based on economic and societal views, and average them) you end up grouping governments with more similar all-around views and behavior; I think that's what I'm saying.

I'd have to see more examples to agree with you. For example Stalin and Gandhi are both "left"... how do you reconcile that?

FWIW, here's a two-axis chart that uses different axes:

Political%20Compass%20A.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't even bothered to register for voting.


"You're nothing but a thing to me." -Tucker933 2016   

"Mine's not huge, but neither are my hands, so it's a real good fit." -Badga666 2017                

"It's not incest until it's in." -Caesar 2017

"Poison dart frogs aren't poisonous. Mankind is a poison and the dart frogs are the cure."-Somewhere on the internet  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.