What does the left want?

[HunterSdVa29]

I like the usage of "right leaners" here as opposed to "right wingers". Do you distinguish between them? Because if so, you're being pretty disingenuous here, and if not I'd say you're blatantly wrong. In either case, you come across as ferociously smug.

this is the most nonsensical post I've ever read on Sherdog

take a bow, my dude. You earned it

 

[brothir]

this is the most nonsensical post I've ever read on Sherdog

take a bow, my dude. You earned it

You certainly avoid questions like a right winger. Is that out of pragmaticism or idealism? Oh, and I guess it's actually right leaner. My bad.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

You certainly avoid questions like a right winger. Is that out of pragmaticism or idealism? Oh, and I guess it's actually right leaner. My bad.

I used the term right leaner to incorporate the moderate conservatives and libertarians, figured that much was assumed (my bad).

And my original post was not only accurate but blatant common sense. The party that wants higher taxes to give people more free things is clearly idealistic, the party that wants smaller government and people to earn their own keep is clearly realistic.

You can reply and post some whimsical nothing, but those basic points are the foundation of the modern form of the two parties.

 

[brothir]

I used the term right leaner to incorporate the moderate conservatives and libertarians, figured that much was assumed (my bad).

Never heard of that definition, but since you indeed seem to distinguish between right winger and right leaner, then that does make your original comment disingenuous. The reason that is so is because you apply the widest grouping possible for the left but not the same for the right, meaning you're comparing apples and oranges.

And my original post was not only accurate but blatant common sense. The party that wants higher taxes to give people more free things is clearly idealistic, the party that wants smaller government and people to earn their own keep is clearly realistic.

This wasn't about parties though. This was about the left, not the Democrats. The Democrats exist in the US, whereas leftism is global. So if your post had been about the Dems being idealists, but Reps being pragmaticists, then the argument would've been a different one. It wasn't, and so here we are.

Besides, how on earth do you reconcile raising taxes to afford welfare being idealistic with the success of the nordic model, one I know for a fact you've praised in the past? Is that another US centric thing where it's only idealistic because of the political situation?

 

[Jack V Savage]

I used the term right leaner to incorporate the moderate conservatives and libertarians, figured that much was assumed (my bad).

And my original post was not only accurate but blatant common sense. The party that wants higher taxes to give people more free things is clearly idealistic, the party that wants smaller government and people to earn their own keep is clearly realistic.

You can reply and post some whimsical nothing, but those basic points are the foundation of the modern form of the two parties.

Not really. The right is largely idealistic these days. You have two different wildly impractical utopian visions: laissez faire capitalism and ethnonationalism being pushed by the right today. The dominant faction on the left is motivated toward working within the system to get incremental improvements.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Never heard of that definition, but since you indeed seem to distinguish between right winger and right leaner, then that does make your original comment disingenuous. The reason that is so is because you apply the widest grouping possible for the left but not the same for the right, meaning you're comparing apples and oranges.



This wasn't about parties though. This was about the left, not the Democrats. The Democrats exist in the US, whereas leftism is global. So if your post had been about the Dems being idealists, but Reps being pragmaticists, then the argument would've been a different one. It wasn't, and so here we are.

Besides, how on earth do you reconcile raising taxes to afford welfare being idealistic with the success of the nordic model, one I know for a fact you've praised in the past? Is that another US centric thing where it's only idealistic because of the political situation?

so this wasn't about the US then, my fault

but what parties do leftists belong to that aren't DEMs? full out communists? that nobody takes seriously?

Nordic countries have like -2 diversity, no real military to speak of whatsoever, and the highest tax rates in the world......all three very different and in fact the antithesis of the US and why those policies will never work here. They do what they do b/c we subsidize their defense and apparently their populace is fine w/ giving up half their money (which is much easier to do when 90+% of the population looks the same)

 

[Jack V Savage]

Besides, how on earth do you reconcile raising taxes to afford welfare being idealistic with the success of the nordic model, one I know for a fact you've praised in the past? Is that another US centric thing where it's only idealistic because of the political situation?

I think the argument is that actually wanting to use policy to make people's lives better is "idealistic" in his view and he sees the GOP's naked cash grab for politicians and donors and identity politics for everyone else as "pragmatic and realistic." But there are a lot of true believers on the right among voters (and an underestimated number among politicians) who want to blow up the system because it can't possibly give them what they want (democracy is an insurmountable obstacle to the kind of upward redistribution being proposed and the existence of tens of millions of non-white Americans is an insurmountable obstacle to white nationalists).

 

[brothir]

I think the argument is that actually wanting to use policy to make people's lives better is "idealistic" in his view and he sees the GOP's naked cash grab for politicians and donors and identity politics for everyone else as "pragmatic and realistic."

I figure that's more or less what he thinks, but it's a repulsive way of thinking. I can imagine this conversation being translated into, say, between two nazi soldiers stationed at Auschwitz arguing what their moral culpability is for the genocide they're helping enact. "Sure, you could refuse to shove Jews into the gas chambers", Hunter would say to the other, "but we both know the only pragmatic option is to keep playing the game. You can't seriously be considering doing something to maybe make the world a less murderous place, I mean, what are you, an idealistic leftist?"

 

[brothir]

so this wasn't about the US then, my fault

It wasn't only about the US.

but what parties do leftists belong to that aren't DEMs? full out communists? that nobody takes seriously?

In the US? The same could be said for the right. Wasn't my point in any case.

Nordic countries have like -2 diversity, no real military to speak of whatsoever, and the highest tax rates in the world......all three very different and in fact the antithesis of the US and why those policies will never work here. They do what they do b/c we subsidize their defense and apparently their populace is fine w/ giving up half their money (which is much easier to do when 90+% of the population looks the same)

The military spending isn't an issue, given that one or two percentages of GDP into the military won't make or break the possiblity for even having welfare, the tax rate is something that could easily be done something about if people voted for it: it's not idealistic to say that a very concrete thing can be implemented with enough votes, that's an entirely pragmatic argument. The diversity thing... you're basically saying the US is too racist to have a modern welfare state? How would you even calculate that? And given the republicans historical usage of the term "welfare queen" and similar which were intended to inflame racial tensions, then there's some hefty context you seem to be dismissing in your assessment of who's being idealistic and who's being pragmatic.

Unless, of course, you'll characterize that as being idealistic too, but then you're basically contradicting yourself.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

It wasn't only about the US.



In the US? The same could be said for the right. Wasn't my point in any case.



The military spending isn't an issue, given that one or two percentages of GDP into the military won't make or break the possiblity for even having welfare, the tax rate is something that could easily be done something about if people voted for it: it's not idealistic to say that a very concrete thing can be implemented with enough votes, that's an entirely pragmatic argument. The diversity thing... you're basically saying the US is too racist to have a modern welfare state? How would you even calculate that? And given the republicans historical usage of the term "welfare queen" and similar which were intended to inflame racial tensions, then there's some hefty context you seem to be dismissing in your assessment of who's being idealistic and who's being pragmatic.

Unless, of course, you'll characterize that as being idealistic too, but then you're basically contradicting yourself.

you can't have both parties in the US play identity politics for decades, and expect everyone to come together to agree on something like UHC or a major welfare system which involves higher taxes

As to the military pt, people always bring that up (the NATO GDP requirement), but it's not a coincidence that the countries w/ the best safety nets have: highest tax rates in the world, low diversity, and much lower military spending.......IRL, it's the higher tax rates that will never work in the US. Those countries switched over after WWII when much of the land was devastated and the people were reeling and recovering, making it an easier transition. We can't just go from our normal tax rates to 40-45% for everyone and expect people to be cool with that, especially if they aren't really getting much in return

 

[brothir]

you can't have both parties in the US play identity politics for decades, and expect everyone to come together to agree on something like UHC or a major welfare system which involves higher taxes

As to the military pt, people always bring that up (the NATO GDP requirement), but it's not a coincidence that the countries w/ the best safety nets have: highest tax rates in the world, low diversity, and much lower military spending.......IRL, it's the higher tax rates that will never work in the US. Those countries switched over after WWII when much of the land was devastated and the people were reeling and recovering, making it an easier transition. We can't just go from our normal tax rates to 40-45% for everyone and expect people to be cool with that, especially if they aren't really getting much in return

Regarding the identity politics, hasn't one side of the aisle been a lot more egregious with that than the other? And your objection about what people somehow wouldn't get out of an attempt to broaden welfare is truly bizarre: if a simultaneous attempt at raising taxes and increase the safety net is made, how will people not benefit from that? Unless someone is trying to undermine it, but then they are clearly the idealistic ones, trying to thwart a natural change because they have ulterior motives.

Besides, wanting such a change is hardly idealistic. You've basically conceded that it's entirely possible. In which case it's entirely pragmatic to be in favor of it.