Left vs Right and Beyond

[MigL]

And when they get re-elected, whose fault is it ?

[John Cuthber]

And when they get re-elected, whose fault is it ?

Well, since they are the ones who run propagandist media, theirs.

You can't blame a population who are always lied to for not knowing the truth.

[MigL]

Well,lets consider lies, propaganda and drawing the wrong conclusions then, John...

 

In your previous post ( #23 ) you gave us a link to the GDP data for the UK, and stated that generally GDP goes up. There are however a couple of clear troughs from 1980-85 and 2007-12. You then state that "Both of those happened under Right wing governments".

 

Now if in that link you provided us, you were to click on another European country, the ones I investigated were France and Italy ( not Germany as they had re-unification issues ), you find the two exact same clear troughs. The conclusion a reasonable person, who informs him/herself, draws from this is totally different from the conclusion you drew. That its a European phenomenon, not a Right or Left, UK only issue.

 

So what were you spreading, lies, propaganda, or were you just drawing the wrong conclusions because you, like most voters, don't inform yourself, and re-elect governments which should not be governing.

 

( Sorry if I sound very critical, John, I respect your opinion and views highly, I'm just trying to make a point. )

[John Cuthber]

Do you remember asking "Why don't we analyze what the 'left' and 'right' did to England since the war, instead of always picking on Americans ?"

Would you like to let us know where you want the goalposts next time?

 

On a related note the same glitch happens (about a year later) in Australia and Hong Kong who are not normally considered part of Europe; but you actually asked about the UK.

 

So, re "The conclusion a reasonable person, who informs him/herself, draws from this is totally different from the conclusion you drew. That its a European phenomenon,"

I'm not certain that's what a reasonable well informed person would say,

 

But, when I was talking of propaganda I was talking not of anything I write (I flatter myself that I might have an audience of dozens) but things like this

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/

where fox news leaves people more ignorant than not watching any news.

 

You might say that's a little out of date and you'd have a point.

How about today's news in the UK.

Compare and contrast

According to this

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/24/telegraph-tory-votes-jeremy-corbyn-cleared-ipso-labour

It's OK for a Right wing paper to try to get people to influence a vote for the leader of the opposition

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11741861/How-you-can-help-Jeremy-Corbyn-win-and-destroy-the-Labour-Party.html

 

But not if the Left wing do it

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1585822.ece

 

You will note they are both advocating support for the same candidate.

[MigL]

But I was not the one who made it a 'Right vs. Left' issue by stating

"Both of those happened under Right wing governments"

When clearly the cause lies elsewhere.

 

Rightly or wrongly ( me, I sit on the fence and dole out blame to everybody ) your bias is showing.

[Phi for All]

Rightly or wrongly ( me, I sit on the fence and dole out blame to everybody ) your bias is showing.

 

Which means your real culpability would be diluted if you were the one at fault. It's a position designed to be a win/win for you, but you shouldn't be allowed to have it that way when everyone else is involved as well.

 

It's just like someone eternally claiming to be a skeptic. They think it means never having to be wrong, or responsible for things that go wrong. Everybody is equally guilty.

 

I think fence-sitting these days is almost worse than strict conservative stances. At least with the authoritarian right, we get the occasional win on same-sex marriage, or removing a flag that symbolizes slavery, because of their idiocy. But fence-sitters get nothing done in a time when we need us some progress.

[John Cuthber]

But I was not the one who made it a 'Right vs. Left' issue...

 

What thread is this?

Do you remember asking ""Why don't we analyze what the 'left' and 'right' did to England ".

In what way is asking that question in this thread not making it "a 'Right vs. Left' issue..."?

 

OK, so I'm biassed. However the assertions I made were actually correct. GDP did generally rise except for two troughs where the Right wing were in charge.

 

But when you say "I sit on the fence and dole out blame to everybody" do you actually check that both sides are to blame before you do that?

In particular do you dole out equal blame even if one side is more blameworthy than the other?

 

Do you, for example dole out equal blame to me making an observation in such a way that people might think it's causation as you would to the GOP 's failure to condemn those who called Obama a communist Moslem?

[MigL]

But I don't dole out EQUAL blame to everybody.

I have previously said there is plenty of blame to go around for everybody, even voters who fail to inform themselves.

 

I was 'corrected' on this by John who said that voters are 'misled' by Rightwingers, to which I pointed out that John, being a respected and therefore influential member of our community, is doing a bit of 'misleading' himself by 'implying' that the troughs in GDP occurred during times of Right governance, and there was a correlation, when, in actuality it was a European ( if not global as John has pointed out even Australia was involved ) phenomenon.

[John Cuthber]

Ho Hum.

It really doesn't matter if I could give lessons to the former soviet union about propaganda.

It remains the case that the Right wing in the US is doing a lot more than its fair share of misleading the voters.

So, it's the propagandists' fault rather than the voters.

it's arguably the Left's fault that they are not also being as crassly dishonest as the Right- but that's not a great way to address things.

[overtone]

 

 

And when they get re-elected, whose fault is it ?

When people are abused and robbed by confidence men and bunko aritsts and embezzlers and blackmailers and organized scam operations, I do tend to reserve most of my blame for the perpetrators. Perhaps one should reserve some blame for the victims, who have a responsibility to their fellow citizens if not to themselves to be less gullible. And of course lack of information, ignorance of the facts, is only exonerating to the extent it wasn't willful or slothful or mean - the people, including the soldiers, who voted for W twice, to a significant degree deserve what happened to them, for example. Nobody put guns their heads and made them watch Fox News and CNN and believe utter bullshit because a rich guy on TV stroked them. But still I assign most of the blame to the perpetrators, and much less to their victims.

 

And none, no blame at all, to those who actively attempted to prevent these crimes and disasters, inform potential victims of the situation, warn everyone about what was happening and going to happen, identify the perps in advance, etc. They get no blame, even when victimized as members of a defrauded and abused population.

[MigL]

I don't disagree with you John, the US Right wing does attract its fair share of wing-nuts ( can you say Donald Trump ? ).

But that doesn't absolve others of their share of blame.

Maybe as overtone says, the ones who try to prevent bad governments from taking office should be absolved, but in any western election ( even on your side of the pond ) only about half of eligible voters turn out. Of the other half, roughly half vote Republican and the other half vote Democrat. So, in the case of a bad government, only about 1/4 of the eligible voters actually try to prevent a repeat, another quarter vote for 'their' party regardless, and about half are indifferent, don't know or give a damn, or are perfectly happy with the bad government.

 

So when you have a bad government, and it gets re-elected, why don't you explain to me why I shouldn't blame at least 3/4 of the voters ?

[John Cuthber]

I don't disagree with you John, the US Right wing does attract its fair share of wing-nuts ( can you say Donald Trump ? ).

But that doesn't absolve others of their share of blame.

Maybe as overtone says, the ones who try to prevent bad governments from taking office should be absolved, but in any western election ( even on your side of the pond ) only about half of eligible voters turn out. Of the other half, roughly half vote Republican and the other half vote Democrat. So, in the case of a bad government, only about 1/4 of the eligible voters actually try to prevent a repeat, another quarter vote for 'their' party regardless, and about half are indifferent, don't know or give a damn, or are perfectly happy with the bad government.

 

So when you have a bad government, and it gets re-elected, why don't you explain to me why I shouldn't blame at least 3/4 of the voters ?

Well, I think your first sentence there speaks volumes.

It is simply wrong.

Wrong in the sense of factually incorrect.

The Right has much more than its fair share of wingnuts.

There's already a very long thread about that elsewhere.

In spite of repeated asking, nobody was able to find anything like as many wingnuts on the Left. (Even by the US standards of Left).

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68375-has-the-republican-party-lost-its-collective-mind/?p=697392

 

If half the people don't bother to vote, maybe it's because they realise that they don't really understand the issues. For at least some of them that makes sense.

Given the electoral system in my country (and I think in yours too) in many places there's no point voting. Where I live the "donkey with a red rosette" would get elected anyway. You can vote blue if you want, but you have no chance of influencing the outcome. Not bothering to vote in that case makes perfect sense.

I agree with you on one thing; if you don't vote you have got to accept some responsibility for that and (at least) not complain about the outcome.

 

But there's a simple truth that's regularly ignored.

Most people rely on the state for at least some of the time. That might be as children, or when they are ill , or in their retirement. Many also rely on it while they are "between jobs"

 

So, most people actually benefit from state handouts.

Most of them would benefit more, if those payments were bigger.

Most people would benefit from a government that pays out more to those in need.

Most people should vote for a government that pays out more than tose in need.

The only real exception to that is those people who are so rich that they don't need state help.

That group of very rich people is a small minority of the population and they are the only ones who should vote in favour f tax cuts and reduced welfare spending.

The Right wing should never get elected (except perhaps sometimes as a "protest vote" if the government does something spectacularly dumb).

Yet the Rigth wing gets elected all teh time in the US and a lot elsewhere.

 

Is there an explanation of that which doesn't involve either implausibly stupid voters or dishonesty on the part of Right wing politicians?

(For example where they blame America's problems on Mexicans al la Trump.)

[overtone]

So when you have a bad government, and it gets re-elected, why don't you explain to me why I shouldn't blame at least 3/4 of the voters ?

I blame swindles mostly on perps, and much less on victims.

 

It's not an all or nothing disbursement, this blame. There are character flaws that lend themselves to getting scammed. But looking at the propaganda operations in the US, the corruption of the media, the insularity of the society involved, I just can't find it in me to blame the very people getting cheated and hurt. At least, not very much.

 

Many people not voting, feeling that "both sides" are to blame so one's vote makes no difference, finding ordinary political vocabulary deliberately ruined in advance (preventing efficient description and analysis, and cutting the public discourse off from the past), and similar aspects of modern US politics,

 

are all part of the overt agenda of the most sophisticated, lavishly funded, and diligently pursued propaganda campaign the world has ever seen. The ad pros of US marketing and promotion know their stuff - and they are for hire.

Edited July 27, 2015 by overtone

[MigL]

I want politicians who do what they say !

 

If a politician makes all sorts of promises during an election campaign, but then gets into office and says he can't do any of them, either because the 'books' are much worse than they thought, or the previous administration 'ruined' things too bad, that tells me one of two things.

He lied about his intentions just to get elected and should be promptly turfed in the next election.

Or he is incompetent, doesn't understand the realities of the situation, and should be promptly turfed in the next election.

 

Notice that this applies to Right as well as Left, its just a matter of degree ( I have never said they are equally nuts ).

Even B. Obama, who I like ( then again I'd have a beer with G.W. Bush also ), had very good intention but failed ( the reason shouldn't matter ) at implementation. At least G. W. Bush failed for unpredictable reasons. It was his response to those reasons that made him incompetent ( or controlled by others ). But back to the point I was trying to make...

B. Obama should have known the hurdles and 'push back' he would face, or he just didn't care as he had done what he needed to get elected

So what is he ? A liar or incompetent ?

And this point isn't about B. Obama, its about politicians in general , so don't start giving me reasons why he failed, we all know them. The point is he should have known the obstacles he would face. Or he didn't really care.

 

Now you may think I'm just another of those disillusioned voters who have lost faith in the system, and belong to the 50%s who don't vote. But you'd be wrong. Every election I am aware of what has happened, the politicians' platforms and intentions, and I get out and vote ( sometimes even for those 'evil' Conservatives, if the liberals have become too self-serving and arrogant, yes, it happens ). Otherwise I'd have no excuse for complaining and rambling on like I'm doing.

Edited July 27, 2015 by MigL

[overtone]

At least G. W. Bush failed for unpredictable reasons.

They were predicted. Lots of people made quite accurate predictions about W's administration in general and every specific thing he botched and ruined as it came up.

 

 

 

 

Obama should have known the hurdles and 'push back' he would face,

You expect your Presidents to know the future behavior of their political enemies and the rest of the world, both? Edited July 28, 2015 by overtone

[MigL]

The 'causes' and which president did what, are not the POINT, overtone.

I know you have better reading comprehension than that.

( but maybe I can't write clearly enough )

 

The point is he made promises during the election. It was going to be a time of 'change'. Those promises helped him get elected.

He failed to keep some promises, and missed others by a wide margin.

So, what has changed for the ordinary people who voted for him ?

 

If he had said " I'm going to do my best to keep my promises, but Congress and some people who don't think as I do, may keep me from implementing a lot of those promises", or "universal health care may not include a lot of you", or " we're going to back out of the middle east, but it'll mean significantly more people dying in their revolutions, and a much higher threat of terrorism", how many people would have voted for him ?

 

If I was American, however, I would have been amazed at finally having an honest politician. And I would have voted for him !

[John Cuthber]

I want politicians who do what they say

 

 

Has that ever happened?

[MigL]

Some have come close, here in Canada.

[Ten oz]

The 'causes' and which president did what, are not the POINT, overtone.

I know you have better reading comprehension than that.

( but maybe I can't write clearly enough )

 

The point is he made promises during the election. It was going to be a time of 'change'. Those promises helped him get elected.

He failed to keep some promises, and missed others by a wide margin.

So, what has changed for the ordinary people who voted for him ?

 

If he had said " I'm going to do my best to keep my promises, but Congress and some people who don't think as I do, may keep me from implementing a lot of those promises", or "universal health care may not include a lot of you", or " we're going to back out of the middle east, but it'll mean significantly more people dying in their revolutions, and a much higher threat of terrorism", how many people would have voted for him ?

 

If I was American, however, I would have been amazed at finally having an honest politician. And I would have voted for him !

I often read claims that Obama failed to deliver a variety of promises but it is never made clear which ones. Obama did not run on a platform promising "universal healthcare". He ran on the market based system that ultimately passed and in now law. He also never promised that he'd bring peace to the middle east. He promised to end the 2 wars we were in and not knee jerk us into future ones. As for the terror threat level being "much higher" that simply isn't true. We have been high since 9/11. Fear mongering about terrorism has been an active part of every political campaign since 9/11. Obama did not start that and has not raise the bar on that. End of the day more American born young adults have killed people in mass shootings than Islamic terror has on American soil during Obama's presidency.

Major policy points where Obama kept campaign promises:

Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) - passed

Dreamers act - executive action after GOP blocked

Promised to work with Iran - a deal has been reached

A better economy - GDP is up, stock market is up, unemployment is down

[iNow]

I often read claims that Obama failed to deliver a variety of promises but it is never made clear which ones.

Indeed. It's very Orwellian in a lot of ways, black is white, up is down, stupid is smart... He's clearly one of the most consequential presidents we've had.

 

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/26/8849925/obama-obamacare-history-presidents

 

I recall making a very comment almost exactly one year ago today here (and the accomplishments have only continued to accumulate since): http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82857-2016-us-presidential-race-landslide-or-laughing-stock/page-5#entry819913

[MigL]

Again, you guys are missing the POINT also.

This is not about B. Obama or any one president.

He just happens to be the current president and is a convenient example ( now you got me picking on Americans too )

This is about 'telling it like it is', while campaigning for office, not painting a rosy picture of a utopian future, all brought about by unspecified 'change'.

This is the reason almost half of voters don't bother to vote.

they've been lied to and disappointed so often, that no-one sees the point in casting a ballot.

This is the reason politicians are at the same level as lawyers and car salesmen in terms of trust-worthiness.

( none of our members are lawyers or car salesmen, are they ? )

[Ten oz]

Again, you guys are missing the POINT also.

This is not about B. Obama or any one president.

He just happens to be the current president and is a convenient example ( now you got me picking on Americans too )

This is about 'telling it like it is', while campaigning for office, not painting a rosy picture of a utopian future, all brought about by unspecified 'change'.

This is the reason almost half of voters don't bother to vote.

they've been lied to and disappointed so often, that no-one sees the point in casting a ballot.

This is the reason politicians are at the same level as lawyers and car salesmen in terms of trust-worthiness.

( none of our members are lawyers or car salesmen, are they ? )

"This is the reason almost half of voters don't bother to vote. they've been lied to and disappointed so often", half of all eligible voters never voted to begin with. They have never been let as they have never supported any candidate or party. In my opinion there are many in political circles that look to keep it this way and promote the idea that politicians can not be trusted. Apathy can be a useful tool. The less eyes watching allows for more freedom. In truth we don't need to trust politicians. That is the beauty of our system. Everything our politicians do is a matter of public record. If we truly care to know we can look and see who did or did not do what.Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Bernie Sanders, and everyone else running for president has an enormous public record we are all able to review if we are interested in how they might govern. Also I think most politicians do tell it like it is with regards to how they would go out doing the people's business. When certian politicians talk tough on foriegn policy I don't think it is just fluff. I think if elected they would be tough and lead us into more wars. Of course when describing the policies of others, their competitors, they're prone to exaggeration and distortion but under those circumstances who isn't? That is the nature of competition across the board in business, sports, dating, and etc. I personally believe that the apathy of eligible voters who choose to tune out and just enjoy the spoils of living in such a wealthy nation without bothering to understand its operations is a bigger problem than the trustworthiness politicians.

[overtone]

This is not about B. Obama or any one president.

He just happens to be the current president and is a convenient example

Yes, it is.

It's part of the current media effort originating in rightwing think tanks and Republican Party strategy sessions, to avoid taking the blame for what they have done over the past forty years - including creating the current degraded state of affairs in American political discourse.

It's the "both sides" ploy, which depends on tarring the "other side" - all the folks who didn't do the bad stuff - with the bad stuff they didn't do. So the examples, the "convenient" illustrations, are chosen from that "side" - from the folks who didn't do it.

Edited August 3, 2015 by overtone

[iNow]

Indeed. It's very Orwellian in a lot of ways, black is white, up is down, stupid is smart... He's clearly one of the most consequential presidents we've had.

 

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/26/8849925/obama-obamacare-history-presidents

 

I recall making a very comment almost exactly one year ago today here (and the accomplishments have only continued to accumulate since): http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82857-2016-us-presidential-race-landslide-or-laughing-stock/page-5#entry819913

I recognize this is off-topic and want to be sensitive about unintended thread derailments, but an announcement came out today regarding a new Obama climate/environmental policy (32% cut in CO2 from 2005 levels by 2030) that only adds to the magnitude of the above sentiments regarding how consequential has been his administration: http://grist.org/climate-energy/obamas-big-climate-plan-is-now-final-and-its-even-stronger-than-expected/

 

Let's take it to another thread if further discussion on the policy or climate mitigation strategies is warranted.

[MigL]

Oh come on.

I expect it from Overtone as he sees everything as a Republican ( conservative ) scheme.

But I expect different from you iNow.

 

If B. Obama intended to do anything about climate change, why didn't he announce this lofty goal at the beginning of his presidency, and implement it DURING his presidency ?

What he's done is set a goal he'll never have to keep because he'll be out of office. His successor will be saddled with the problems and push-back of implementation.

 

So, although a matter of degree, how is that different from Overtone's evil and deceitful Conservatives of the last 40 yrs ?

Lying to people to get elected, or to leave a 'legacy', is still lying. And people who don't educate themselves on the issues, or can't be 'bothered' to vote are just as guilty as the lying politicians.