Politics

[mikey]

Here's the joke, he's been a democrat forever but ran as a republican because republicans are stupid

And the left and right are both very large areas, both can be authoritarian/libertarian.  Most people in America seem to err toward authoritarianism if you ask me.  Not that that's bad.  The only "bad" area in the political spectrum is the extremes, everywhere else I think is totally ok as long as it's an educated opinion

[Tobbeh99]

Here's the joke, he's been a democrat forever but ran as a republican because republicans are stupid

Are you talking about me?

If so, then you're sort of right. I use to support the left-party (or left-parties), a lot of it has to do with my family as well as my friends being very left-leaning people. But more importantly my dad, whom I respect a lot on politics and economics as he's very educated and has read a ton of economic articles, a ton of stuff on history and knows a lot on politics, and he's very far on the left, having some radical economic ideas that other less leftist people that he argued with are skeptical to. So I grew up thinking that the right was just worse, and only cared about the rich and how companies made millions and billions of money and how the stock market basically was a casino. So it looked as the left cared for the average person.

But as time has gone by and as society has changed I've noticed that the left just seem so radical and just has worsened leaving me the logical conclusion to switch side and think that they had the answer. Mostly I'm more to the right on social issues. The left seem so much like trendies that just pick up the latest ideas and how society has successfully gotten better all the way since the beginning and that they've been the ones pushing that. And I don't fully agrees with them on that. And there is when I think the right is better, because they are conservative and by name are more skeptical to changes. i've always been against most changes that I've come across in my life, so why should I support changes when made in politics? There is a branch of the left known as "reformative socialism" which is basically "slow socialism", so they make changes slower so that people can get used to them. But the problem is that even the more center-socialist party in Sweden doesn't seem to care about that, they literally tries to do they're best to pick up on all the latest trends like feminism and multiculturalism and all other stuff.

But on economics I'm more in the middle. I'm not super-right saying "fuck the taxes, they steal our money" wanting the tax as low as possible. I'm more pro a balance between state-owned sections and private companies. And you need tax money to even fund the state-owned sections of society. I do however have more trust when it's state-owned rather than privatized, but that comes from experience, and is not like some objective fact. Because the right-wing parties did privatize some industries that were state-owned, namely the post-industry and the pharmacy-industry. And looking at the result, I think it went worse. I didn't help anyone really. All it did was that it caused some confusion, because instead of having just 1 company doing it all, you had like a bunch of companies doing the same thing, competing with each other. And the big problem was that all those companies were practically the same, so why even privatize it!? The reason to privatize something should be so that you can get different results that appeal to different people. Like having different cloths-shops, so that you can buy cloths in whatever store you like. Or different brands of things like cars etc. But they're all the pharma-shops are literally the same, they sell the same medicals, so it's pointless privatizing it. And in some areas like private schools they seem so greedy, offering like smart-books and laptops and stuff to make people come to their school. Which kind of shows that they care more about the money than the education.

So I really has changed in terms of politics. And moved more to the right, thinking that all the stuff the left taught me about the "evil companies" were more just hysteria. Which I really think it is. Why shouldn't you get credit for running a good company? I mean we look up to sports-athletes, scientists, cultural persons when they succeed, but why do we look down on CEOs, entrepreneurs and companies when they do? I get the fact that some companies treat they're workers poorly, but it's far-fetched to jump into the conclusion that all companies are bad because of that.   

[Dudeman]

Good god, Tobbeh, he was referring to Donald Trump.

[Tobbeh99]

Good god, Tobbeh, he was referring to Donald Trump.

I also kind of thought that but was unsure.

[mikey]

Well I didn't really mind reading that anyway lol

But yeah I meant president trump

[Tobbeh99]

There is a small minor election coming up in Sweden, in September, - the church election. Basically who should lead the church, or something along those lines. It is to be honest pretty insignificant, mostly because how little religion matters in Sweden. A lot of people care about politics, but way fewer care as much about religion. But there are some things that bothers me about the election. First of, why it even exist. Like why have an election, like a political election, for the church. The church should be able to take care of it's administration by themselves. Secondly, how political parties really tries to use the election and the church as some sort of place or platform to expand their political beliefs onto. It is very clear when you have the Social-democrats who think that the church should be a part of the welfare more or the less, help the poor and people who have troubles in their lives. And also very clear with the national-conservative Sweden-democrats party, who kind of thinks that the church should be like "a museum" to show and preserve the Swedish culture.

And it gets really ridiculous when you got candidates who doesn't even believe in god, or are religious at all but still wanting to voice their opinions and have power over the church and the religion. Like there was literally 1 social-democrat candidate who wasn't any religious at all who thought that the church should care less about issues concerning "marriage and theology". The first one, well "I mean you could have different opinions on that one" but the later one makes absolutely zero sense. If the church and religion shouldn't care about "theology" then what should it care about!? It's like saying to musicians to not care about music. It just doesn't make any sense. The same person also didn't seem to care much about the election, and talked about how his party sort of pushed him to candidate for it. And if that was enough there an "info-site" about the election, that is run by the Socialdemocrats youth party (which you don't know because it's called "churchelection.info pretty much), voicing clear opinions about what you should vote for. Y, what a smart "info site". Imagine having that for the real political election. So sick o the Social-democratic party to even do so. Their opinions expressed aren't that crazy and political (they are: "Vote for: same-sex marige, women as priests, and against conservative and rasists views). But you should clearly not call it an "info-site" if your stating your parties opinions on it. And the Social-democrats are clearly doing this to prevent the Sweden-democrats from gaining ground in the election, because the Sweden-democrats see it as "every election they can win is just another step on the way to power (be it EU, Church, or any other)".

And all this just shows how dumb both the election is, and the parties and candidates candidating for it are. I've heard that there are non-political parties you can vote for, and I'm probably going to do that. I could also not decide to vote, but I think it's better to vote for something non-political as I'm telling a message to the political parties to not use/abuse this election in order to gain power and influence.

[mikey]

I agree that sounds really weird to me as an American but it makes me wonder if other states control the religion like that

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

Trump has been a shit storm, but here's a few upsides (for both conservatives and libs):

- We will definitely reign in the powers of the prez

- Increased activism both by libs and libertarians/less extreme right wingers

- As unfortunate as the events are in Charlottesville are, actual KKK/Nazis are being outed

etc

But I think Noc brought up a really important point as well; extremism fighting extremism. While the protests against Trump are by and large peaceful, there's also a growing trend of Antifa/anarchists (especially in Portland OR, near where I live) combating Trump. Not equally awful as Nazis, but still not a good thing.

Anyways violence is bad y'all so let's just chill the **** out



also don't 'both sides' a white supremacist rally

[Tobbeh99]

I kind of like how he had a tougher stance against ISIS. Saying basically that he'll do anything in order to eliminate them, even if that means cooperating with Russia. And it's been "successful" in the sense that they liberated Mosul quite rapidly. At Obama's time they were basically standing at the gates, going slowly forward. Not that I think that it wouldn't have ended if Clinton was elected. And Trump/the US military has been sometimes so stupid in Syria/Iraq, sometimes bombing Syrian troops because "Syria-Russian-Iran alliance" and trying to show that they are not on the side of Russia and Iran; but then they forgot that ISIS is the real enemy, and not Russia or Iran. But in general I really like how he has a tougher stance against terrorism and has a sort of "there has to be an end to this" point of view on it. I don't think that he was that clear on what happened in Charlottesville, I think he should condemned "White supremacists, KKK, Neo-nazi etc." at his first speech on it. Then he wouldn't even need to do another speech, clarifying his message. And he shouldn't making the same mistake he said Obama did - not being clear and precise with the terms and words he uses.


I talked about that there was a new election for the leader in the Moderate party in Sweden. And following up on this, it's kind of funny to see what people think of this. Because a wast majority of the the Moderate voters want to see a guy called Carl Bildt as the new leader, and 2nd place on that list comes a guy name Anders Borg. ANd the funny thing is how both a veterans. Carl Bildt was prime minister around 80-90s, and Anders Borg was minister of finance at the government 2004-2012. And I really don't get why they think that way, because none of them really seem to have that "bringing back the party" factor. Carl Bildt is a very smart politician and very good on foreign policies, but I don't think that he would give the party such upswing. And Anders Borg is a pure stupid choice, because he recently had a scandal where he behaved badly did some "bad, dirty things" at a party, so that really wouldn't help either. And I get that the party is a bit lost and probably thinking "let's get back to the roots, when we succeeded". But looking at the current political landscape, that's clearly a "loosing pick". The clear winners in today's politics are the ones that just came from nowhere, had a good personality, and therefore won. Trump and Macron are 2 clear examples. So thinking that they can beat the Left-parties and take back some votes from Sweden-democrats by picking some veteran is not going to happen. Thankfully for them, Carl Bildt has even said that he's not candidating, and haven't heard a word from Anders Borg. There are 2 candidates that do look promising, Ulf Kristensson and Mikael Odenberg. Both look way more promising than the older veterans.

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

I kind of like how he had a tougher stance against ISIS. Saying basically that he'll do anything in order to eliminate them, even if that means cooperating with Russia. And it's been "successful" in the sense that they liberated Mosul quite rapidly. At Obama's time they were basically standing at the gates, going slowly forward. Not that I think that it wouldn't have ended if Clinton was elected. And Trump/the US military has been sometimes so stupid in Syria/Iraq, sometimes bombing Syrian troops because "Syria-Russian-Iran alliance" and trying to show that they are not on the side of Russia and Iran; but then they forgot that ISIS is the real enemy, and not Russia or Iran. But in general I really like how he has a tougher stance against terrorism and has a sort of "there has to be an end to this" point of view on it.

Mm.. Tobbeh, I think you forgot about the 7 countries (5 more than Bush jr) we were involved in under him. I WISH he would have a less hawkish stance on this, but he actually dropped ridiculous numbers of bombs (and also approved the drone program, which killed mostly civilians).

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-pol-obama-at-war/

Under Obama, we're involved in: Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria. Unfortunately, these tactics haven't worked. We can fight ISIS in more effective ways than we are now, especially not by spending huge sums of money (deficit hawks, where are you?) maintaining a psuedo-empire in the Middle East.

I don't think that he was that clear on what happened in Charlottesville, I think he should condemned "White supremacists, KKK, Neo-nazi etc." at his first speech on it. Then he wouldn't even need to do another speech, clarifying his message. And he shouldn't making the same mistake he said Obama did - not being clear and precise with the terms and words he uses.

Fair enough, I suppose. I'd add that there's a difference, though; Obama not calling a spade a spade when it comes to Islamic terrorism, while still not great, isn't the same thing as Trump refusing to outright condemn Nazis until pressured by the media.


(I'll leave the Swedish politics to you, since I know nothing about them)

[mikey]

Washington post reported trump as "grudgingly admitting" the conservative extremists were at fault.  I have a hard time believing that's the case.  The first thing I heard was the report that he 'condemned all sides' (I guess left extremists had a presence there as well) and someone decided that wasn't good enough.  I think most of the protesters suddenly feel terrible about themselves and that should be enough to change their perspective.  I sure ain't willing to condemn someone for making a choice they'll regret, so I feel no need to expect condemnation from just another man (by which I mean president trump if that isn't clear).  I also heard that the "rally" was determined to be not allowed by the Charlottesville local government, so that's a thing too I guess.

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

The presence of left wing extremists (and by that I think we're talking about Antifa) was negligible. As much as I can't stand Antifa, pulling a "both sides" on a literal Nazi/KKK rally (the day after the Confederate statue rally) is also not acceptable.

Also, I have to doubt that people who were shouting "Jews will not replace us" are now suddenly ashamed. Sites like Breitbart and Daily Stormer (before they got canceled) were perfectly happy with Trump's response, and many leaders (such as David Duke) have come out basically saying that it's the exact response they wanted.

Charlottesville as a state shouldn't (and I don't think they legally can) prevent legal, peaceful protests. The Skoki case is relevant here. But I don't think that's any justification for letting these guys off the hook; they can't be legally prosecuted by the state, but they're certainly liable to social repercussion for their hideous beliefs.

[Tobbeh99]

Mm.. Tobbeh, I think you forgot about the 7 countries (5 more than Bush jr) we were involved in under him. I WISH he would have a less hawkish stance on this, but he actually dropped ridiculous numbers of bombs (and also approved the drone program, which killed mostly civilians).

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-pol-obama-at-war/

I do agree that bombing a bunch won't solve all issues. But what alternatives are they? Are you just going to let the terrorists go loose!? That's what happened with ISIS, they just conquered more and more territory. And you could argue that "you should let those countries take care of their own problem". But it obviously didn't work if half of Syria and Iraq was conquered by ISIS, their military wasn't strong enough. And same goes for Afghanistan, where terrorists control areas here and there. I don't think US or The West (and sometimes Russia) should be some "world police", but it seems like they sadly have to take that role when crazy terrorist groups just take over countries. I mean you don't want the fire to spread.

Under Obama, we're involved in: Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria. Unfortunately, these tactics haven't worked. We can fight ISIS in more effective ways than we are now, especially not by spending huge sums of money (deficit hawks, where are you?) maintaining a psuedo-empire in the Middle East.

About the "pseudo empire". If the countries in the middle east didn't approve of that, maybe they should stop it. And maybe voice their opinion and and try to increase their superiority? And what is even that "pseudo empire"? Their allies with Saudi and the Gulf states, and the other North African countries?

Fair enough, I suppose. I'd add that there's a difference, though; Obama not calling a spade a spade when it comes to Islamic terrorism, while still not great, isn't the same thing as Trump refusing to outright condemn Nazis until pressured by the media.

Trump said "violence on both sides (nazis and antifa)" condemning both nazis and antifa, I do think that Trumps statement wasn't good as the nazis were behind the terror-attack. I don't know how violent the antifa were, but it's clear that the nazis were more violent. But I think it's comparable to Obama having the mindset that ISIS aren't "real muslims", having the mindset that muslims are nice and ISIS aren't so there fore ISIS can't be "islamic extremists" they got to be something else like "violent extremists". It's the same shadyness and political correctness. That they try so hard to make everything right that they end up doing something really wrong. 

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

I do agree that bombing a bunch won't solve all issues. But what alternatives are they? Are you just going to let the terrorists go loose!? That's what happened with ISIS, they just conquered more and more territory. And you could argue that "you should let those countries take care of their own problem". But it obviously didn't work if half of Syria and Iraq was conquered by ISIS, their military wasn't strong enough. And same goes for Afghanistan, where terrorists control areas here and there. I don't think US or The West (and sometimes Russia) should be some "world police", but it seems like they sadly have to take that role when crazy terrorist groups just take over countries. I mean you don't want the fire to spread.

ISIS rose because of our invasion of Iraq. There is a legitimate problem of Islamic extremism in the Middle East, but the way to be involved is not by directly fighting. We've proven that we're too interested in oil to do that; if we cared about extremism, we wouldn't fund Saudi. We can definitely give aid to forces like the Kurds, maybe even some special ops operations if it gets extremely dire. But liberating entire cities? We get into the perpetual war trap by doing that.

About the "pseudo empire". If the countries in the middle east didn't approve of that, maybe they should stop it. And maybe voice their opinion and and try to increase their superiority? And what is even that "pseudo empire"? Their allies with Saudi and the Gulf states, and the other North African countries?

That's what a decent chunk of terrorism probably is; people who get their families killed by a drone strike and take up arms against the West. I'm not sure what you're advocating for.
The pseudo empire is the group of states that we constantly have troops in; Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria.
If the Mid East countries tried to "increase their superiority" (whatever that means), I guarantee that the US would not be a fan.

Trump said "violence on both sides (nazis and antifa)" condemning both nazis and antifa, I do think that Trumps statement wasn't good as the nazis were behind the terror-attack. I don't know how violent the antifa were, but it's clear that the nazis were more violent.

I agree.
 

But I think it's comparable to Obama having the mindset that ISIS aren't "real muslims", having the mindset that muslims are nice and ISIS aren't so there fore ISIS can't be "islamic extremists" they got to be something else like "violent extremists". It's the same shadyness and political correctness. That they try so hard to make everything right that they end up doing something really wrong. 

I think he should call them Islamic, just as the KKK and Westboro Baptist Church are Christian. But how much does it really mean, in the end? Yes, the members of ISIS/similar groups are Islamic extremists, and the same with the Klan. But do they represent all members within the faith?

[mikey]

Now might be a good time to point out the stunning lack of Islamic terror attacks in recent news