@Iuniper out of interest babes, where do you stand politically?

That's a good question! I'm officially registered as a Nonpartisan voter. Additionally, I'm not a moral realist, which is to say that I think morality is relative to each person and while I may not agree with some stances on contentious issues, I would like to try and make decisions which are pragmatic and benefit society as a whole. I think in general I am either uneducated or undereducated about a lot of political topics and can't make any definitive commitments as to "where I stand" on any particular issue.

:)

@Kratesis When I said politics was important I was referring to the implications, maybe I should have been clear. The goalposts remain in the same place. And I take it you dont have an argument against that position.

Against what position?

Not to derail the current conversation, but something that just struck me as an interesting angle, and to understand the company here better, is to ask the question of, "How long have you been 'involved' in politics?" By which I mean more precisely, when did you invest your time and interest in it?

Not just that you knew it was a thing or watched the news on it, but when it became of enough impottance to engage in a forum like this? No less, this is an open question to anyone, not just @Dynamo Frokane or @mdk for example. No one is compelled to answer either.

For myself, the matter began some eight years ago, but only became of priority to me when I noted the rise of civil unrest in the United States, domestic and foreign terrorism, and then the political chaos of the 2016 runnings. I had worried about the debt previously and was always wary of the administration, but that quickly escalated as time went on. From there I started to research and formulate my opinions and begin to question everything; I always resented formal education, because it felt like indoctrination and most all I do know came from reading, so the matters of looking into this all were natural.

"How long have you been 'involved' in politics?"

Since the years of George W. Bush, even if then I was way too young to do anything.

And if arguable: dimly aware of the fact a president existed when Bill Clinton was president. But at that point I was more interested in stomping about the creek and catching snakes in the woods when not playing Age of Empires 2 to actually pay one iota of attention to anything.

Not to derail the current conversation, but something that just struck me as an interesting angle, and to understand the company here better, is to ask the question of, "How long have you been 'involved' in politics?" By which I mean more precisely, when did you invest your time and interest in it?

In my elementary school elections I voted for Ross Perot.

Ever since then I've made much better political decisions.

Not to derail the current conversation, but something that just struck me as an interesting angle, and to understand the company here better, is to ask the question of, "How long have you been 'involved' in politics?" By which I mean more precisely, when did you invest your time and interest in it? ...

I alternate between 'some concern' and 'utter indifference'. I vote in presidential elections, but I largely ignore state/local because basically everyone else (according to our system of a democratic republic) shares similar political views with mine. I do like to look at "Educated' political sections as I think it helps me to think things from a different point of view. As our thoughts and Ideas today our shaped by our experiences from our past, which is usually different than what another has experienced.

I was in that generation of people who started paying attention to politics in the Bush years. Like a lot of people from conservative backgrounds at that time, I identified as a libertarian for a while, and voted libertarian in 2008.

My process of moving to the left was driven by my experience, and the experiences of those I grew up around, in the aftermath of the recession, so I would consider that to be the formative factor in my political opinions. The social stuff seems secondary imho, though I'm sure that's largely because as a white straight dude I didn't have much invested in the social justice movement to get into it, and I'm not nearly autistic enough for white nationalism.

I was in that generation of people who started paying attention to politics in the Bush years. Like a lot of people from conservative backgrounds at that time, I identified as a libertarian for a while, and voted libertarian in 2008.

My process of moving to the left was driven by my experience, and the experiences of those I grew up around, in the aftermath of the recession, so I would consider that to be the formative factor in my political opinions. The social stuff seems secondary imho, though I'm sure that's largely because as a white straight dude I didn't have much invested in the social justice movement to get into it, and I'm not nearly autistic enough for white nationalism.

The parallels here are uncanny. I became political during the Bush years as well and also came from a conservative background. But I became your typical 'college liberal' though that meant something different back in those days. There was a lot less blue hair and Tumblr didn't even exist. I was strongly opposed to the religious right, which had just swept Bush to power a second time. Most of my political activities during that time was largely oriented around fighting for gay marriage. (Victory!)

I can't say that I even moved right. I still support all the things I supported when I was young. I just happen to believe in a number of conservative moral and economical principles as well. Somewhere during all of this I encountered a libertarian who became a mentor of mine and convinced me of the truth of a number of the libertarian positions. The recession had a tremendous effect on me and I re-thought a number of my positions and took a much closer look at both globalization and immigration (which I had previously seen as purely a force for good) as well as automation. In some ways I became more liberal (for example I support universal basic income) but in others I abandoned the purely libertarian position and begin to oppose open borders and free trade agreements (though I don't oppose every open border or every trade agreement).

In the end I became the Frankenstein monster of politics, both far left and far right simultaneously lol.

Anyway, I shall cut this wall of text short but the parallels were interesting.

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

The parallels here are uncanny. I became political during the Bush years as well and also came from a conservative background. But I became your typical 'college liberal' though that meant something different back in those days. There was a lot less blue hair and Tumblr didn't even exist. I was strongly opposed to the religious right, which had just swept Bush to power a second time. Most of my political activities during that time was largely oriented around fighting for gay marriage. (Victory!)

I can't say that I even moved right. I still support all the things I supported when I was young. I just happen to believe in a number of conservative moral and economical principles as well. Somewhere during all of this I encountered a libertarian who became a mentor of mine and convinced me of the truth of a number of the libertarian positions. The recession had a tremendous effect on me and I re-thought a number of my positions and took a much closer look at both globalization and immigration (which I had previously seen as purely a force for good) as well as automation. In some ways I became more liberal (for example I support universal basic income) but in others I abandoned the purely libertarian position and begin to oppose open borders and free trade agreements (though I don't oppose every open border or every trade agreement).

In the end I became the Frankenstein monster of politics, both far left and far right simultaneously lol.

Anyway, I shall cut this wall of text short but the parallels were interesting.

I suppose it'd just be normal for our cohort to be effected primarily by the Bush years. A lot of watershed shit happened then. The Obama years were really not that exciting by comparison.

I'm glad to see a general rebellion against global capitalism. I've very concerned this rebellion is nationalistic in nature. It inspires that emotion you get watching a horror movie, where the victim finally smarts up and realizes something is wrong so they start running, and you get all excited for them until they lock themselves in a bedroom with no exit. Or in this case, they lock themselves in the first chapter on a book about what causes World Wars.

I need to practice saying "nuclear fire" in a dramatic way. Might just become the Homer of the next civilization.

I have to disagree that the Obama administration years were "not really exciting by comparison", mostly because the decisions of that administration deeply eroded stability, reliability and security. Coming from a background that lives and breathes it, it became deeply troubling. To which I also make note of, owing to this field I find my upbringing from, the dangers of "nuclear fire" and a "World War" in the sense of what many outsiders think are unlikely. There has not been a more consistent, notable degredation in those areas of concern since the Cold War officially ended; the Bush administration may have had many issues, but the more recent ones caused actual harm.

Mind you I am only speaking for one particular angle because it is important to note that unless you are familiar with this area of topic, many are comfortable with saying it is "heightened" and "more likely now than it was"; it is not. The only real threat worth noting, and that of which is capable of starting a multinational war, is that of radical Islam. Not because it will ever unify into some "great caliphate", but because it has eroded many traditional understandings and dynamics of foreign nations.

Unfortunately, a more potential incident to arise in the future is from that aforementioned disdain for capitalism, especially at the youth base, and can be found on the home seat of the United States of America. By law, the acts of "protesting" you have seen have qualified in a number of cases for Use of Deadly Force and the mobilization of the National Guard in localized areas to restore order. This is unlikely to become large scale, but is on the verge of what I fear most; what we saw with the 2016 Texas incident as domestic terror that left six police officers dead.

Again, while I cannot make a threat assessment on the nature of this strictly hypothetical outcome, I believe there is reason to be deeply concerned about some of these groups who are protesting against the United States. This I believe mainly because they have demonstrated competency and willingness to use crude improvised explosive devices and mortal injury and have had minimal law enforcement leveraged against them compared to what is authorized.

In short, more people are bound to be injured or killed, for certain in Europe under increased radical Islamic pressure, and with the dangers born domestically in the United States.

I have to disagree that the Obama administration years were "not really exciting by comparison", mostly because the decisions of that administration deeply eroded stability, reliability and security.

What are we talking about specifically? Most of the things that happened in the Obama administration were following a pattern that has been going on for some time. That he failed to put out the fire is completely true, but the fire has been burning for a while now.

To clarify what I meant earlier, whereas the negatives of global capitalism are notable enough, there has been one major positive outcome for the world since the system was put in place after the second world war, in that it has kept the west from erupting into another nationalistic freak-show type war. There are other problems with nationalism as a central philosophy, but the biggest is that its focus on honor and superiority tends to get wars started. Now, if this were the early twentieth century still we could make the argument (as many did) that wars are necessary and they cleanse the spirit of the nation or whatever, because those wars just claimed millions of lives in concentrated areas. But with technology where it is now, another World War would be apocalyptic. Capitalism, if it does nothing else, replaces the honor and superiority motives of nationalism with corruption and profit-making, which might love itself a small war, but wants no business with a generalized World War. As for radical Islam, it's certainly been the stick that whacked the hornets nest, but thus far it hasn't show itself to have apocalyptic capabilities. The worse they have going for them is the potential that somebody gets a hold of nukes and unleashes unprecedented terroristic destruction. But, though that is absolutely horrifying, it's not quite end of the world stuff. If we do end up backtracking completely into old-school turn of the century Nationalism, I'm afraid radical Islam, as horrible as it is, would only be the intro-chapter to the real great big shit show that would follow.

The tension you mentioned is interesting, but it isn't new. We've had plenty worse is the past. The protests going on right now wouldn't make it in the top five most divisive in American history (The list is probably something like Bleeding Kansas, Shay's Rebellion, The early Labor Movement, The Civil Rights movement, and the Vietnam protests.). Not to say I don't see danger possibly happening in the future. Things go from interesting to really interesting when we get our next financial crisis. I admit, I am nervous that our system might not be able to survive another financial disaster so soon after the last one. But again, as a member of the cohort that was so royally fucked back in 2008, I have something of a phobia for financial meltdowns.

What are we talking about specifically? Most of the things that happened in the Obama administration were following a pattern that has been going on for some time. That he failed to put out the fire is completely true, but the fire has been burning for a while now.

There was a distinct shift in doctrine and execution of aspects vital to stability, security and reliability. The first factor is one of the most obvious, in which I mean I point to the neglect of the Korean Peninsula, the expansion of ISIS and its evolutions, the interactions with Iran, ignoring of Israel and of course the on going diplomatic problem which has become Turkey and greater Europe. I will reiterate that this is not leveled squarely on the Obama administration, but under that extended period territory gained all but vanished. They had many opportunities to improve these elements not on a prospect of globalism or "unity", but of national interests; they did not, as was their policy.

The next element is security, which is one that can only be discussed to varying lengths, but the lacking of secured borders, extensive screening and vetting of foreign nationals, and a failure to fight a dynamic threat at its core has escalated the odds (as we have seen with the increased issues of detection for electronic devices). It is sad to comment on, but vehicle ramming type attacks, knife attacks and similarly cheap, expedient, efficient means will continue to rise to. More notably, to address the issue of "nuclear terrorism" that is an extremely unlikely scenario, what is more likely is an improvised radiological device that contaminates an area after detonation because of its psychological, not physical, potential; all of this stems from an eroded environment lacking a focus on physical national security.

As a side note, the real threat of radical Islam is the conversion of the non-native populace and conditioning them to their customs or forcing them to abide laws foreign to their land. This is considered by some to be an "extreme" statement, but it is one I believe to be accurate because the radical Islamic leaders have realized, as a relative whole no matter their particular leaning on Wahhabism, that they cannot alter the strategic level without doing so. Looking at Europe as my point of reference, with its absolute and continued collapse between this factor and a broken economy, I believe it safe to say the mainland might be regrettably lost for the foreseeable future.

But I digress, last is the tenant of reliability, which is to say politically and militarily, the United States lost immense footing. The readiness of the armed services dwindled, its numbers waned, its morale dipped and its prominence again faded. It was not made a priority in a time where the enemy is active and in many forms and faces. This is not to say it cannot be effective, but it is not to the standard expected of it. This was compounded by the insult to injury given where the military and related services were not backed, most infamously in the Benghazi scenario. That example has been beat to death, but it will stand as testament.

To transition to the current topics, the credible threat is not nationalism in any case, be it found in the United States, China, Russia, the United Kingdom and so on. Political ideology is not the greatest external threat to anyone and the abstract demon of capitalist society is, in fact, its saving grace. Since the end of the Second World War, the booming defense industry has continued to display technologies and developments that are on the level of science fiction... all while pinching every pretty penny it can from the pockets of taxpayers. It is just the nature of the beast; it wants to be fed. Conflict and war feed it, with those times in between when it is most hungry. However, without it, I believe we would be worse off. I also need mention that it is not even linked with nationalism in the United States, to which I can only assume you are meaning in majority.

How do I come to that conclusion? No one is under the illusion that these companies have any other objective other than to make money off of martial technology. There's not the honor and superiority of the warfighter in it, but the understanding that without their presence, the United States would be lacking some of its core military assets; air, space and cyber warfare advantages. This is not to ignore how well prepared and equipped the land or sea based elements are, but it is no secret that the future of conflict is moving smaller and larger at the same time. Realistically, the only issues I really have politically with the behemoth is that the government is terrible at making deals and prioritizing anything, especially with independent contractors or agencies, at all levels, local all the way up to federal.

The tension I mention is of a different brand and methodology, again which is why I cite it as more dangerous. The fact alone you turned to the prior references is why I use it. In this era you are seeing a portion of the American populace directly sympathize with the enemy, to the extent of supporting or defending them both in word and action. You have citizens of a country attempting to defend tenants of radical Islam, ignoring the aspects of Sharia Law alone, and welcoming fundamental elements of foreign indoctrination that make self-radicalization possible. But, this does not end there, in that you have anarchists, socialists and communists often working hand in hand with this threat spectrum, all the way down to the bystanders who tend to get in the way rather than pose any threat at all. That is what concerns me and how easy it is to carry out an act of terror because of it. With the current political and social environment, such an action would not go unnoticed and with excuse; it is dangerous waters and should put anyone involved, regardless of their political or ideological side, on edge.

A financial crisis I am not unfamiliar to, as I think all of us here are of the age to remember it and be affected by it, but it still is not nearly as concerning as a depreciation in safety and security. Not to say it is of negligible impact, but this entire lengthy ordeal was just to explain my point and rationale. It should not bear repeating, but all of this is my opinion, formulated through my experiences and personal understanding.

All this talk of the radical Islamic threat is giving me a nice mid 2000's vibe. Broad swathes of the West are going to implement Sharia law any day now ect ect.

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

That's a good question! I'm officially registered as a Nonpartisan voter. Additionally, I'm not a moral realist, which is to say that I think morality is relative to each person and while I may not agree with some stances on contentious issues, I would like to try and make decisions which are pragmatic and benefit society as a whole. I think in general I am either uneducated or undereducated about a lot of political topics and can't make any definitive commitments as to "where I stand" on any particular issue.

:)

That's a really long way of saying 'Libertarian'.

;) ;) ;) ;)

I kid...I kid...

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

I love that 'news' is in quotes

I'm putting 'news' in quotes because there is nothing new about it. The information they recieve is largely lifted from stories that have already been broken by other platforms such as Fox News, Info Wars or Brietbart. And thats not including them lifting from other subreddits such as r/conspiracy

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

Fourth, I never hear these sorts of critiques for the Daily Show or Samantha Bee or Colbert Report or John Oliver --

Are you saying that you cant get Right Wing/Conservative opinions and talking points from left wing comedy shows? GASP I cant believe that! Next youre going to tell me that you cant play Xbox One discs in a PS4 console, crazy world we live in.

Link me, plz. I'll totally go there too. Maybe one that's a teensie bit less islamophobic.

Dont forget Anti Semetic.

Look overall you are right about the donald being popular, but that wasn't the original claim, it seemed like you were coming at it the T_D was the only place to find opinions that were right wing/populist/conservative.

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

Against what position?

That the implications of politics are serious, that was my position all along, like I said I probably didn't specify enough, but that's the claim you cant argue against.

I identified as a libertarian for a while, and voted libertarian in 2008.

@Vilageidiotx@The Harbinger of Ferocity
I'm getting very excited watching you two debate




Oh and to answer your question LolCat, I identify as an Authoritarian Centrist, I'm right of center and left of center on a fairly equal amount of views.

<Snipped quote by Kratesis>

That the implications of politics are serious, that was my position all along, like I said I probably didn't specify enough, but that's the claim you cant argue against.

Why not? I'm curious here as I feel I can argue against (or for) any claim I want. The moon is made of blue cheese? No problem. The President is a reptile in a human suit? Sure thing. True communism has never been tried? You got it lol. What makes this particular claim so special that I cannot argue against it?

<Snipped quote by Iuniper>

That's a really long way of saying 'Libertarian'.

;) ;) ;) ;)

I kid...I kid...

Haha. I'm a determinist, which means I don't believe in free will. This the antithesis of libertarianism. : )

All this talk of the radical Islamic threat is giving me a nice mid 2000's vibe. Broad swathes of the West are going to implement Sharia law any day now ect ect.

When there are government and law enforcement no-go zones in France, sexual assault numbers elevated in Sweden, laws that target Islamophobia and "hate speech" new to the books in Canada and mass, uncontrolled, and extensive illegal immigration by mostly male refugees who refuse to conform to their new country's customs across portions of Europe, I find this to be a completely different game and set of stakes than it was. That is what spurred me to make the claim of an "evolving threat".

And to note for the record, no, radicals are not likely to do so now, but based upon the numbers currently in play with regard to Europe, they will advocate it in the relative future and resist external, national laws and request exception for themselves; they already have, although their success is still slower going.

Any day now....