Jump to content

Liberal Views Explained


iNow
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Pro capital punishment advocates want people executed. Those opposed want life in prison with parole. Middle Ground or a combination of those two positions would have to be greater than life in prison without parole but less than execution; no such solution exists. One side or the other simply must get it there way. 

Well, the US judicial system can sentence people to centuries of detention. The middle line is life without possibility of parole. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

As far as I know, conservatives weren't interested in bring the minimum wage to zero,

Is there truly a functional difference between eliminating the minimum wage and bringing it to zero? Last I checked, elimination of the minimum wage was one of the goals from multiple congress people on the right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

Pro capital punishment advocates want people executed. Those opposed want life in prison with parole. Middle Ground or a combination of those two positions would have to be greater than life in prison without parole but less than execution; no such solution exists. 

1

Which is it? Life with parole or without? It's important. 

 

The point is, whats the difference? Death or permanent incarceration keeps them away, the only difference to the populace is justice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Which is it? Life with parole or without? It's important. 

 

The point is, whats the difference? Death or permanent incarceration keeps them away, the only difference to the populace is justice

I am all for life with parole. I think it is immoral to execute inmates. My point is that one side want execution and the other side wants life without parole. Those are the two positions. As such one cannot call life without parole a compromise. It is not. No one is asking for anything less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

I am all for life with parole. I think it is immoral to execute inmates. My point is that one side want execution and the other side wants life without parole. Those are the two positions. As such one cannot call life without parole a compromise. It is not. No one is asking for anything less.

2

I am, life with the chance of redemption far exceeds death with none. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Well, the US judicial system can sentence people to centuries of detention. The middle line is life without possibility of parole. 

It is not middle ground. No one is asking for less. If the two sides were: execution vs a light prison sentence then life without would be the middle. However no one is asking for light prison sentences for murders and others who commit capital offenses. The liberal view is life without parole. The Conservative view is execution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I am, life with the chance of redemption far exceeds death with none. 

I think we would need someone who actually is pro execution to decide if they feel life without parole is a compromise. I am guessing they would not seeing as it has been rejected in favor of execution over and over again. 

iNow is correct. We are way off topic. My initial point was simply that a combination on liberal and Conservatives ideals isn't a default solution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems you guys have 'US blinders' on...

To the rest of the world liberals are not democrats and conservatives are not republicans.
I would venture to say that Canadian or British conservatives are probably to the left of most US democrats.

Its hard to have this discussion when the American 'standard' is applied to the rest of the world.
( Canada has no death penalty and even conservatives don't want it. But to answer Ten oz's question, maybe we can just maim them a little bit :P )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I hope that I am, or at  I least aspire to be, "Liberal" in the sense the Bertrand Russel defined it:

“The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment.”


Bertrand Russell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

Seems you guys have 'US blinders' on...

To the rest of the world liberals are not democrats and conservatives are not republicans.
I would venture to say that Canadian or British conservatives are probably to the left of most US democrats.

Its hard to have this discussion when the American 'standard' is applied to the rest of the world.
( Canada has no death penalty and even conservatives don't want it. But to answer Ten oz's question, maybe we can just maim them a little bit :P )

You are most likely correct, when viewing US politics and politicians, watching police atrocities, people marching up and down respecting politicians and people in uniforms, it looks to the outsider as a military dictatorship.

You could blame the situation in the USA on the founding fathers or freemasons and the war of independence. The declaration of rights to carry arms is the result of all the gun crime in the US, and is built into the constitution. The developed world does not have this problem, the rest of the world spends no where near as much on weapons and has a much better health service and pension schemes etc, the US is just lagging behind the times.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Is there truly a functional difference between eliminating the minimum wage and bringing it to zero? Last I checked, elimination of the minimum wage was one of the goals from multiple congress people on the right.

No, there's not really a difference.

 

But there is a difference between multiple people on the right and most of the people on the right.

2 hours ago, interested said:

You are most likely correct, when viewing US politics and politicians, watching police atrocities, people marching up and down respecting politicians and people in uniforms, it looks to the outsider as a military dictatorship.

You could blame the situation in the USA on the founding fathers or freemasons and the war of independence. The declaration of rights to carry arms is the result of all the gun crime in the US, and is built into the constitution. The developed world does not have this problem, the rest of the world spends no where near as much on weapons and has a much better health service and pension schemes etc, the US is just lagging behind the times.  

4

Trust me, the United States is not like a military dictatorship. REGARDLESS of what people tell you, even some people on this forum, this is not a dictatorship.

 

The Freemasons? Really? And they're to blame for America? 

And the Revolutionary war contributed to the situation in America? Do you realize America is the oldest democracy on earth still existing? If you prefer to live under a monarch then a democracy, then, by all means, criticize the purpose of the revolutionary war. Maybe it wasn't perfect, but it kick-started a global shift.

Gun Crime in the US resulted in the Declaration of Independence. Got it.

 

I'm tired of this whole point about how much the U.S. spends on it's military, how it spends more than everyone else, blah blah blah. It's true. Only if you look at absolute numbers.

The United States is 4th in the world in terms of military spending by percentage of GDP. We spend 1.7% more than the United Kingdom and France. But considering we're also in a military alliance with many countries, we do supply a massive amount of military support. 

Now, I understand a lot of it gets wasted but still. Look at percentage points rather than absolute numbers and you'll get a more accurate representation.

 

Also, in reference to crime, we're still one of the safest countries in the world. We just are never compared to anyone outside the "developed" world. Because you know. People in developing nations don't matter if they're being abused and murdered or anything. Why do we have to compare the U.S. to only developed countries, point to the U.S. and tell them they need to get themselves together, when there are countries literally everywhere else that could really use some help when it comes to crime. I'm not saying it's okay to have a high crime rate, but you still have to realize we're a lot safer than a lot of countries. We're not dead last or something.

 

 

Also, this isn't even on topic.

 

Edited by Raider5678
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

there is a difference between multiple people on the right and most of the people on the right.

Then you should have specified which you meant in your post, the one to which I replied

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Trust me, the United States is not like a military dictatorship. REGARDLESS of what people tell you, even some people on this forum, this is not a dictatorship.

interested stated their observation from outside the U.S.. They were not stating what others had told them.

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

I'm tired of this whole point about how much the U.S. spends on it's military, how it spends more than everyone else, blah blah blah. It's true. Only if you look at absolute numbers.

"Absolute numbers" matter absolutely. It is the reason the U.S. absolutely has the most powerful military in the world. One we use offensively, not purely defensively, to get things those in power want.

 

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

The United States is 4th in the world in terms of military spending by percentage of GDP. We spend 1.7% more than the United Kingdom and France. But considering we're also in a military alliance with many countries, we do supply a massive amount of military support

The U.S. has 5 times the Nuclear warheads than France and the U.K. put together. It isn't merely about what is spent as a percentage of GDP. It is about what is and isn't excessive. No nation in the world can make the U.S. militarily. Several in the world surpass France and the U.K.. In the U.S. we already have all the fire power needed to not only defend ourselves from attack by any other nation but the ability to either counter attack and crush any would be attackers or assure the mutual destruction of the planet. France and the U.K. rely on coalitions for such protection and influence. The U.S. spend money on the military at redundant leaves. Another thousand nuclear bombs stockpiled alongside the 7,000 we already have doesn't make us safer or appreciably  deter anything.

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

But there is a difference between multiple people on the right and most of the people on the right.

"Congress people on the right" means Republican. We has a 2 party system and Republicans are universally recognized as the "the right" when discussing elected officials; iNow's comment wasn't referencing all U.S. citizens. As a matter of party platform Republicans do not believe their should be a federal minimum wage, period. That is a statement of fact. If one is a Republican (elected or registered) their actions/affirmation  support the party's platform. So it is accurate to say Congress people on the right (Republicans)  are against their being a federal minimum wage.

From the Republican Party's published national platform:

"We recognize the challenges facing all the U.S. territories in an era of dramatic global economic change. They need venture capital to retain existing industries and develop new ones. A stronger private sector can reduce dependence on public employment and lead toward self-sufficiency. Their development of local energy options will be crucial to reduce dependence on costly imported fuel. The territories’ economic stability and potential for growth must be considered in any trade agreements between the United States and other Pacific nations. They should be given flexibility or exemption from laws that increase costs for their populations, such as the minimum wage and the Jones Act concerning shipping. All unreasonable impediments to their prosperity should be removed, including unreasonable U.S. customs practices. Territories such as American Samoa should be able to properly develop their resources, including fishing, when jobs and the economy depend on it."

"Minimum wage is an issue that should be handled at the state and local level"

https://www.gop.com/the-2016-republican-party-platform/

Edited by Ten oz
Corrected 7,000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ten oz said:

From the Republican Party's published national platform:

"We recognize the challenges facing all the U.S. territories in an era of dramatic global economic change. They need venture capital to retain existing industries and develop new ones. A stronger private sector can reduce dependence on public employment and lead toward self-sufficiency. Their development of local energy options will be crucial to reduce dependence on costly imported fuel. The territories’ economic stability and potential for growth must be considered in any trade agreements between the United States and other Pacific nations. They should be given flexibility or exemption from laws that increase costs for their populations, such as the minimum wage and the Jones Act concerning shipping. All unreasonable impediments to their prosperity should be removed, including unreasonable U.S. customs practices. Territories such as American Samoa should be able to properly develop their resources, including fishing, when jobs and the economy depend on it."

"Minimum wage is an issue that should be handled at the state and local level"

https://www.gop.com/the-2016-republican-party-platform/

 

And, it also says territories. Not the entire United States of America should be exempt.

And the minimum wage as of now is handled on a state level to an extent. The State can set the minimum wage, it just can't be lower than the federal level.

4 hours ago, Ten oz said:

"Absolute numbers" matter absolutely. It is the reason the U.S. absolutely has the most powerful military in the world. One we use offensively, not purely defensively, to get things those in power want.

 

Absurd. "Absolute numbers" do not matter absolutely.

You can't look at a nation with 12 million people in it, compare it to a nation with 330,000,000 people in it, and then go insane when the large nation has more crime in "absolute numbers"

When comparing nations of vastly different economic sizes, populations, land, etc, you cannot reasonably believe you can look at absolute numbers alone and expect to get a clear picture.

What you ARE going to get is a picture that is skewered because of the massive differences between countries.

 

 

"to get things those in power want."

Like what exactly? 

 

 

4 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Great!
Now, if you can just let me know what Republicanism fixes...

Clearly, you haven't actually thought about what I've said.

 

Edited by Raider5678
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Then I'll switch out flathead screw with a wrench to prevent confusion.

I believe what the world needs is a wrench. Like what you said, a Philips only works on some screws, and a flat head only works on some more screws, but having a tool that can work on all screws. So far, I don't know of anything we creative humans have thought of to create this theoretical wrench. That's what we as a species need to focus on: developing this tool.

Edited by Willshikabob
clarification
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, waitforufo said:

 

23 hours ago, iNow said:

11) (...) but because things are actually mirroring authoritarian and fascist regimes of the past.

and 11 is simply delusional.  

Oh, really?

Then how do you call mass invigilation?

How do you call exchange of data with other secret agencies.. ?

CIA can't work (officially) on e.g. US citizen, but e.g. MI5/MI6 can work on him/her, and then they just exchange data, e.g. CIA is giving what they have about e.g. UK citizen, and e.g. MI5/MI6 giving what they have about e.g. US citizen..

 

Some of them found secrets exceeding their imaginations...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OP says liberal views.

To me that means liberal and conservative views.
Certainly NOT Democrat and Republican views.

There are plenty of threads about the sad state of American politics.
Can we stick to the topic please ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

The OP says liberal views.

To me that means liberal and conservative views.
Certainly NOT Democrat and Republican views.

There are plenty of threads about the sad state of American politics.
Can we stick to the topic please ?

Agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Absurd. "Absolute numbers" do not matter absolutely.

Does the U.S. how the most powerful military in the world; yes or no? That is the bottom line. Our military is absolutely greater than others and the excessive spending we do is redundant. 

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.