The conservative religious right crazy stupid people

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › The conservative religious right crazy stupid people

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 15

18690 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7829

Lifetime subscriber

#2115860 29-Oct-2018 10:04

freitasm:

I voted yesterday, at the Embassy. One candidate is a right-wing guy who says he's all for conservatism, family-values, religious imposition. The other is a left-wing candidate who visits the ex-President in prison (for corruption) to get directions.

I voted blank. My preferred candidate came third in the first round.

What a shame.

How do you feel about the multiround electoral system for the presidential election?

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80662 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41086

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2115861 29-Oct-2018 10:06

gzt: How do you feel about the multiround electoral system for the presidential election?

At least it's a direct vote, unlike the USA. There's no "I lost the popular vote but still got the seat".

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2115911 29-Oct-2018 10:33

I don’t know much about Brazilian politics but there seems to be a world-wide trend away from liberal progressive ideas with the movements that should be upholding those floundering in disarray. In America the democrats can’t seem to get it together (though I hope the mid-terms will prove me wrong) and in Britain the anti-Brexit forces can’t seem to capitalise on the change in public sentiment. In Brazil the left seems to be hopelessly corrupt so rejected by the electorate. Only here do we have a bright spot.

I feel like the traditional forces of liberal democracy have let the side down. I don’t think the populist authoritarians are winning as much as the progressives are losing. There is plenty of grass-roots energy but the political establishment appears to have lost the plot. So maybe we are in a transition period while things realign. I just hope progressive politics can survive the transition. Authoritarians are not known for their willingness to relinquish power once they have it.

Worth a read.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2115913 29-Oct-2018 10:37

Rikkitic:

I don’t know much about Brazilian politics but there seems to be a world-wide trend away from liberal progressive ideas with the movements that should be upholding those floundering in disarray. In America the democrats can’t seem to get it together (though I hope the mid-terms will prove me wrong) and in Britain the anti-Brexit forces can’t seem to capitalise on the change in public sentiment. In Brazil the left seems to be hopelessly corrupt so rejected by the electorate. Only here do we have a bright spot.

I feel like the traditional forces of liberal democracy have let the side down. I don’t think the populist authoritarians are winning as much as the progressives are losing. There is plenty of grass-roots energy but the political establishment appears to have lost the plot. So maybe we are in a transition period while things realign. I just hope progressive politics can survive the transition. Authoritarians are not known for their willingness to relinquish power once they have it.

Worth a read.

Liberal democracy hasn't let the side down, convervative non democracy has more resources.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2115920 29-Oct-2018 10:49

Maybe too many people just can't be bothered.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2115932 29-Oct-2018 10:55

I'm not sure either, but there seems to be a certain danger in having a political system where a president has considerable executive power and is able to bypass "checks and balances".

(FWIW, those powers may be granted - and apparently justifiable at the time because of circumstance at the time - then never rescinded).

The rest is mainly marketing.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

MikeAqua

8032 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3822

#2116022 29-Oct-2018 12:04

Rikkitic:

but there seems to be a world-wide trend away from liberal progressive ideas with the movements that should be upholding those floundering in disarray. In America the democrats can’t seem to get it together (though I hope the mid-terms will prove me wrong) and in Britain the anti-Brexit forces can’t seem to capitalise on the change in public sentiment. In Brazil the left seems to be hopelessly corrupt so rejected by the electorate. Only here do we have a bright spot.

The problem IMO is that liberal political movements have forgotten that there strength comes from a large core of average people.

Your post seems on my reading to assume that core voters of liberal parties favour progressive social policy. I may have misinterpreted.

I think core voters of liberal parties primarily favour socialist economic policy and they accept progressive social policy. It's actually power structures within liberal parties that reward progressive social policy. Looking at the liberal parties in USA and NZ to a certain extent they have moved away from what matters most to core voters. NZ Labour has bounced back under Ardern.

Mike

MikeAqua

8032 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3822

#2116036 29-Oct-2018 12:30

MikeB4:

Liberal democracy hasn't let the side down, convervative non democracy has more resources.

A failure to secure resources is still a failure.

Mike

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2116086 29-Oct-2018 12:43

MikeAqua:

I think core voters of liberal parties primarily favour socialist economic policy and they accept progressive social policy. It's actually power structures within liberal parties that reward progressive social policy. Looking at the liberal parties in USA and NZ to a certain extent they have moved away from what matters most to core voters. NZ Labour has bounced back under Ardern.

That is an interesting point and you are right that I made an assumption here. In my experience these two things do seem to go together though I don't have any research to that effect. But 'socialist' (loaded term, progressive is better) economic policy is about redistribution of wealth to achieve a more equitable outcome, which is also what progressive social policy aspires to. I don't see any tension here.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeAqua

8032 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3822

#2116187 29-Oct-2018 13:22

Rikkitic:

That is an interesting point and you are right that I made an assumption here. In my experience these two things do seem to go together though I don't have any research to that effect. But 'socialist' (loaded term, progressive is better) economic policy is about redistribution of wealth to achieve a more equitable outcome, which is also what progressive social policy aspires to. I don't see any tension here.

I agree they go together in political organisations but do they go together in voters?

As a personal example, I favour some progressive social policies, but I have little time for de-distributive economic policy in NZ.

As another example, some voters favoured the Clark government's economic policies (WFF etc) but objected to some of its social reforms.

In NZ you simply can't pin social inclusion policy to either half of the political spectrum. Govt's of both sides in NZ have passed legislation which improves social inclusion/equity/whatever.

Mike

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2116226 29-Oct-2018 14:10

I do have a problem with discussion along these lines. The title of the thread concerns me. In todays to attack say jewish beliefs etc it would be instantly labelled anti-semitic and rightly closed down, yet, attacks on christians and christian beliefs do not get the same treatment and in fact are supported and encouraged. Respect for freedom of religious belief is a human right and that includes christian, Islam, Judaism, Bhuddhism etc. It is not conservative religious right wing nutters, it is not the religion, it is the individual and they are included in every belief be it religious or political, be it left or right, conservative or liberal.

Normalising attacks of groups is dangerous as is normalising attacks of individuals. Here is an example of how attacks or insults can become part of everyday adjectives or nouns. Take the term retard or retarded a term that is/was a term describing a learning or mental disability but I hear and read it daily as a term of insult or attack. Allowing attacks and normalising attacks against groups or allowing the name of a group to be associated with attacks can lead to discrimination and perscecution.

Note I am not directing this post at any one person.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

MikeAqua

8032 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3822

#2116236 29-Oct-2018 14:21

MikeB4:

I do have a problem with discussion along these lines. The title of the thread concerns me. In todays to attack say jewish beliefs etc it would be instantly labelled anti-semitic and rightly closed down, yet, attacks on christians and christian beliefs do not get the same treatment and in fact are supported and encouraged. Respect for freedom of religious belief is a human right and that includes christian, Islam, Judaism, Bhuddhism etc. It is not conservative religious right wing nutters, it is not the religion, it is the individual and they are included in every belief be it religious or political, be it left or right, conservative or liberal.

Normalising attacks of groups is dangerous as is normalising attacks of individuals. Here is an example of how attacks or insults can become part of everyday adjectives or nouns. Take the term retard or retarded a term that is/was a term describing a learning or mental disability but I hear and read it daily as a term of insult or attack. Allowing attacks and normalising attacks against groups or allowing the name of a group to be associated with attacks can lead to discrimination and perscecution.

Note I am not directing this post at any one person.

I kind of agree with you. But I think there is subtlety you are missing which is the difference between attacking religion and attacking religious extremism - i.e. using religion as a platform to spread hate and violence.

IMO attacks on religious extremism are understandable. They are probably ineffective though.

Mike

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2116255 29-Oct-2018 14:36

I make fun of religion when it is used to justify injustice or support silly ideas. I also make a clear distinction between religious faith and institutional religion. I have no problem at all with people who believe in something greater than themselves. I have a big problem with priests who use the church as a meat market, or supposed Buddhists who somehow think it is okay to slaughter their Islamic neighbours, or Muslim fanatics who want to pillage and murder in the name of Allah, or Israeli Jews who systematically oppress and abuse the neighbours they have dispossessed, or American born-agains who think they have a personal hot line to god. These are all fair game.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

SJB

2945 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2116261 29-Oct-2018 14:38

Rikkitic:

in Britain the anti-Brexit forces can’t seem to capitalise on the change in public sentiment.

There isn't much of a change of public sentiment. Apparently polling shows it's still around 50-50 so whichever way it goes an awful lot of people will be upset.

Incidentally I don't think this particular issue has anything to do with extremism and shouldn't be lumped in with issues like Trump and the Brazilian guy.

Immigration dominated the news at the time of the referendum with loud mouths like Johnson and Farage in the forefront but everyone I know who voted to leave did it because they didn't want faceless and unelected Eurocrats running the country.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2116279 29-Oct-2018 14:55

I included Brexit because it was very much a populist issue. I have the impression (could be wrong of course) that public sentiment has in fact shifted, and if the vote were held again today, it would go the other way. This is why there is public pressure to do exactly that. The argument about unelected Eurocrats running the country was part of the emotive populist appeal that won the vote, and is now being regretted. Like all emotive populist arguments, it is also fake. It has been repeatedly shown that Britain has gained much more than it has given up as a member of Europe and that it will fade into obscurity once the relationship is broken. The days of empire are well and truly over. I come from Holland and I can assure you our country is not run by unelected Eurocrats. It is run by elected Dutch politicians.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 15