Let's talk politics - General

So FacePunch, I would like to talk about politics. I would like [i]us[/i] to talk about politics. I know FP is largely left-leaning, but that does not mean this cannot work. This idea was born out of a discussion with a fellow student of Political Science, where we challenged each other to examine our own views. Originally it was just going to be the two of us, but I think it could work on a bigger scale, and hell, people might learn something. That’s always good. I am aware it’s a very sensitive subject, so I’m going to try to set some ground rules. Of course, there is nothing preventing you from disregarding the below and simply following forum rules, but our lovely moderators do a great job of keeping things civilized. Please don’t be a dick about it. Let’s break the system down. We’ll talk about major political issues from recent times and former times, and then scale and do short discussions. But first, we must stratify the issues into categories. Domestic policy: This covers individual rights, corporation control (national/multinat), and touchier subjects like systemized racism/segregation. Economic policy: This involves the regulation of markets, free market vs state planning (and hybrid models), protectionism vs free trade, taxation, central/federal banking and reserves, and monopolies. For issues such as the banning/regulation of alcohol or tobacco, although instituted in the US under congress’ power to control interstate trade, please refer to domestic policy. Foreign policy: This covers interventionism and isolationism, the United Nations, extradition treaties, special situations (i.e. American control of the Japanese armed forces proceeding WW2), military bases and occupation, nuclear proliferation/stance against it, the European Union, immigration, and any other cross-border issues that do not fall into the above categories. Now please allow me to give an example of how I wish you to proceed. Let us pretend, for a moment, that I have become clinically insane. By demonstrating the extreme we can show how NOT to post, and how to. Domestic policy: -Abortion I BELIEVE THAT EVERY SINGLE LITTLE SPERM IS SACRED AND YOU ARE A WALKING MONSTER AS YOUR BODY NATURALLY RECYCLES IT AND IF YOU GET AN ABORTION YOU ARE KILLING GOD’S CHILDREN EVEN IF YOUR LIFE DEPENDS ON IT AND I WANNA SIT THERE AND WATCH YOU SLOWLY DIE AS THAT FETUS KILLS BOTH OF YA Now, that would be the person posting their own views. As you peruse the thread, pick any postings that you find interesting and respond as such: 5 – Very Conservative Where 1 is ‘very liberal’, 2 is ‘liberal’, 3 is ‘centrist’ or ‘unknown’, 4 is ‘conservative’, and 5 is ‘very conservative’. Keep in mind the strict definitions for these. For example, the Republication party of the US is socially conservative but economically liberal. The Democrat party is flipped (social liberal, economic conservative). 5 – Very extreme This is a rating of how reasonable you believe such a position is. For example (all the following are in my opinion only): Advocating the extermination of races is a 5. Suggesting torture be used a routine interrogation method in serious crimes is a 4. Suggesting violent revolution to overthrow a (destructive/incompetent) democratic government is a 3. Favoring a little security over a little liberty is a 2. And finally, advocating for a budget increase in space exploration instead of military is a 1 which means I would find it perfectly acceptable. Then, ideally, you would leave a short sentence or two describing why you found it as you did. For example: “Your inclusion of religion was unwarranted and unneeded, and your desire to watch people die painfully and slowly in a situation that can be prevented is disgusting.” You should then post your own views on the topic. You may wish to directly address issues presented in their post, or feel free to take another direction entirely. Of course, you should try to refrain from insulting people, even if you disagree with them. For example: “Wow, you are a fucking hick, huh? I bet you came from the bible thumping south PRAISE JESUS FOR SUFFERING, am I right? Shithead.” That’s just not nice. Of course, it may be that the issues you think are important are not addressed at all. Feel free to expand. Now to get the ball rolling allow me to post some example issues and my view on them. Domestic Policy: -Abortion. I believe that this is a difficult question, where you have to weigh damages against potential life, or even pre-existing life, depending on where you draw the line. I am opposed to all third trimester abortions (sans life-saving ones), and generally support only abortions in the first trimester in the cases of rape/sexual assault, or if it is incestuous, after a genetic panel determines if there are any known serious conditions (i.e. not a cleft chin). Mental retardation is an interesting situation, although I am unsure as to where I stand on that, as it has wider social implications. -Death penalty I am opposed to the death penalty, even in cases of high treason, mass murder, and the like. I do not believe that the ending of a life, no matter how horrible, is right. -Homosexual/LGBT rights Unless scientific studies are presented demonstrating that such sexualities are a choice, I support full and equal rights for all such people, including civil unions. The concept of marriages is of no concern to the government, as it is a religious ritual. -Rehabilitation vs. punishment (prison) I believe in rehabilitation in all non-felonious crimes (which may require reclassifications of currently existing crimes), and punishment for serious ones, except in special conditions. An example of the latter is a violent rape where the victim voluntarily advocates for their release. I do not consider family members of a deceased to be a valid stand-in for a victim, although legal wills are. -Chemical castration (i.e. in the case of pedophilia or repeated sexual assault) I believe [i]temporary[/i] chemical castration is suitable in the majority of cases, provided it is followed by therapy, and that the perpetrator did not cross the threshold into felonious territory. Economic Policy: -Market regulation I believe the government has a place to play in the economic affairs of the nation. It should be responsible for preventing monopolies, price gouging, and financially unsustainable policies (i.e. implement stock market limitations). It should also strive to ensure product and service safety with guidelines, enforced testing, and legal prohibitions. -Governmental existence in the market (i.e. State-sponsored corporation or government monopoly on goods a la railroads/utilities/gambling) I believe a for-profit governmental venture can be a vital source of revenue for the state, which allows such money to be used for important issues such as healthcare and subsidies. However, such monopolies stifle competition and invention, and may negatively impact technology or progress in that industry. The type of management required for such a venture while not being destructive is rare indeed, and is generally impossible in the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century. Therefore I am opposed to their current establishment. Foreign Policy: -Interventionism I believe in the foreign deployment of troops in order to prevent genocide or marginalization of peoples is a necessary difficulty. Such missions are ideally internationally observed, but it may fall upon singular nation states to act as arbiters without popular support. Such missions should be careful to observe regional cultures and differences, and not simply install puppet states. -The United Nations I believe the United Nations has the potential to be the thread that brings the cloth of humanity together. However, it must first address the issue of the security council and I am sure there are many issues that I did not cover, or issues here that some may believe are not issues at all. However, was everyone to post their entire worldview, we might find that this thread becomes very long indeed. I am curious to hear what the rest of FP has to say, even though I know I will not agree with all of you. But hopefully I’ll learn something, and you’ll learn something, and we can all come away with this with new insight.

[QUOTE]Let's talk politics[/QUOTE] Oh, please no

Mass Debate section?

[QUOTE=areolop;37526320]Mass Debate section?[/QUOTE] I considered it but after talking to some mods I put it here, as the primary purpose is discussion and self-discovery, as opposed to an argument. To put it simply, there are no wrong answers.

this thread will be a clusterfuck because it's so broad

[QUOTE=scout1;37525590] -Homosexual/LGBT rights The concept of marriages is of no concern to the government, as it is a religious ritual. [/QUOTE] That's why only the religious get married. Good point, sonny-boy.

[QUOTE=FreeOnions;37526809]That's why only the religious get married. Good point, sonny-boy.[/QUOTE] Perhaps you misunderstood me. I am absolutely fine with a pledge towards lifelong committment, living together, fostering children, as well as all the legal requirements and benefits that come with it (i.e. a civil union). However, I do not believe it is not the government's place to mandate religious practices. That means no bans on gay marriage, but no legal requirement for churches to conduct them, either. [editline]3rd September 2012[/editline] Let me go ahead and ask: Would you like to share your view?

Your argument is that civil unions should be equal, in respect to benefits, to marriage, is it not? And your reasoning to separate the two is that marriage is a religious ritual? Right? Marriage isn't a religious ritual. Marriages don't have to happen before a clergyman or go through the church. It originated as a matter of property, and it continues to be a matter of property today (as well as some other benefits such as hospital visitation). The argument for gay marriage isn't a matter of trying to force churches to marry gay couples, it is a matter of legal benefits. My views on gay marriage: I think any two consenting adults should be able to marry each other and receive those benefits regardless if they are bisexual, transgendered, gay, or what have you. I'm sorry but "separate but equal" doesn't have the best track record and I will not accept the existence of civil unions to be an argument against gay marriage.

[QUOTE=FreeOnions;37527629]Your argument is that civil unions should be equal, in respect to benefits, to marriage, is it not? And your reasoning to separate the two is that marriage is a religious ritual? Right? Marriage isn't a religious ritual. Marriages don't have to happen before a clergyman or go through the church. It originated as a matter of property, and it continues to be a matter of property today (as well as some other benefits such as hospital visitation). The argument for gay marriage isn't a matter of trying to force churches to marry gay couples, it is a matter of legal benefits.[/QUOTE] Ah, I had to recheck my notes on the subject, but I understand what you mean. As in other places, like this example, culture and religion have melded so please excuse my ignorance. I mean an equal state. All the legal benefits, requirements, etc. The state should not ban gay marriage. The state should not force churches to hold such ceremonies. It should be initiated in whatever form the couple pleases, at a location that allows it, whether it be a church or a requisitioned public building, or their home. I hope that clarifies my views. [editline]3rd September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=FreeOnions;37527629]My views on gay marriage: I think any two consenting adults should be able to marry each other and receive those benefits regardless if they are bisexual, transgendered, gay, or what have you. I'm sorry but "separate but equal" doesn't have the best track record and I will not accept the existence of civil unions to be an argument against gay marriage.[/QUOTE] Ah, well then allow me to review this as I outlined in the OP. 2-liberal 1-acceptable Truly the ideal of a democratic state is freedom, and two consenting adults, well... The government has no business in something they do that only affects themselves. I rated it as above because it's a liberal position (A view towards personal rights), and I would agree with your points.

[QUOTE=scout1;37525590]Foreign Policy: -Interventionism I believe in the foreign deployment of troops in order to prevent genocide or marginalization of peoples is a necessary difficulty. Such missions are ideally internationally observed, but it may fall upon singular nation states to act as arbiters without popular support. Such missions should be careful to observe regional cultures and differences, and not simply install puppet states.[/quote] Why sacrifice the lives of your own nation to out a despot in a foreign land on the other side of the globe? Interventionism sounds great at best but it eventually degrades into just war for your own benefit like the Second Gulf War.

Rather than get everyone to break down each and every political topic why not just get them to describe, in their own words, what they consider themselves to be? [editline]4th September 2012[/editline] or at least, chose one topic for one day and let it run its course

Is this US politics or wat?

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/DsQIn.gif[/IMG] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("(irrelevant) gif post" - Starpluck))[/highlight]

Osama 2012

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;37531370]Rather than get everyone to break down each and every political topic why not just get them to describe, in their own words, what they consider themselves to be? [editline]4th September 2012[/editline] or at least, chose one topic for one day and let it run its course[/QUOTE] If you choose one topic, it'll end up being the whole thread the rest of the way. Better for anarchy to decide.

Make a new one every week or so?

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;37532312]Make a new one every week or so?[/QUOTE] Political threads don't die quite so easily. Just go to Sensationalist Headlines for examples. In the GD, threads could last a month and half the front of the GD would be political threads.

Problem with taking this out of Mass Debate is that anyone right leaning will get a boxfort and then any views, regardless of their validity will automatically be seen as dumb by most.

[QUOTE=Mlisen14;37532746]Problem with taking this out of Mass Debate is that anyone right leaning will get a boxfort and then any views, regardless of their validity will automatically be seen as dumb by most.[/QUOTE] The [I]only[/I] reason why that doesn't happen in Mass Debate is because there's no ratings there.

Hear me out on this: Plato was against Democracy for good reasons, and in a way, so am I. The average person does not have the necessary empathetic and technical knowledge to make decisions which affect the welfare of others. Public opinion is manipulable, vague, superstitious, and just as often cruel. When democracy is transmitted over large polities, people vote for their own interests above others-- indeed, that's the debased definition of modern democracy. Might does not make right, and nor does majority. And that's why I seldom indulge other people's comments on the internet by commenting back or starting a discussion. I don't avoid political discussion: I love seminar, and I'm generally the first to doubt myself and admit that I'm wrong in a face to face discussion. But anonymity gives people, especially spergs on forums like facepunch, the gall to call women bitches with little or no excuse, or publicly take the piss out of black people on a casual basis, and single source all of their political biases with no intention of ever opening up to a different point of view. Not everyone is this way, but I don't have the energy or resilience to sift through pages of shitposting and sea of caustic defensive backpedaling to find a voice of intelligence (not one that resounds with my opinion). And that's why threads like this don't work.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;37532828]The [I]only[/I] reason why that doesn't happen in Mass Debate is because there's no ratings there.[/QUOTE] As it should be.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;37532828]The [I]only[/I] reason why that doesn't happen in Mass Debate is because there's no ratings there.[/QUOTE] Which (ideally) makes people think up a rational post to show why the other user is dumb, rather than clicking the pretty box.

[QUOTE=Mlisen14;37532746]Problem with taking this out of Mass Debate is that anyone right leaning will get a boxfort and then any views, regardless of their validity will automatically be seen as dumb by most.[/QUOTE] maybe right leaning views get rated dumb because they're dumb

[QUOTE=Bobie;37538590]maybe right leaning views get rated dumb because they're dumb[/QUOTE] How open-minded of you.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;37538788]How open-minded of you.[/QUOTE] i'm open minded to facts.

[QUOTE=Bobie;37538907]i'm open minded to facts.[/QUOTE] Of course you are! That's how you can make such a generalization. There has never been one good right-leaning view ever!

At the risk of a shit storm, I'll participate. [QUOTE=scout1;37525590] Domestic Policy: -Abortion. I believe that this is a difficult question, where you have to weigh damages against potential life, or even pre-existing life, depending on where you draw the line. I am opposed to all third trimester abortions (sans life-saving ones), and generally support only abortions in the first trimester in the cases of rape/sexual assault, or if it is incestuous, after a genetic panel determines if there are any known serious conditions (i.e. not a cleft chin). Mental retardation is an interesting situation, although I am unsure as to where I stand on that, as it has wider social implications. [/QUOTE] 3 2 My own beliefs are that as soon as the heart starts beating, the fetus is living, so therefore it would be murder to perform abortion at that time, regardless of the situation. If a child is unwanted, they can be put up for adoption. [QUOTE=scout1;37525590]-Death penalty I am opposed to the death penalty, even in cases of high treason, mass murder, and the like. I do not believe that the ending of a life, no matter how horrible, is right. [/QUOTE] 3 (not sure) 1 I agree here, and I wish to supplement it with the idea that a life sentence can be more punishment than death, especially with freedoms stripped away. It just has to be conducted as such. [QUOTE=scout1;37525590]-Homosexual/LGBT rights Unless scientific studies are presented demonstrating that such sexualities are a choice, I support full and equal rights for all such people, including civil unions. The concept of marriages is of no concern to the government, as it is a religious ritual. [/QUOTE] 3 1 I concur with this, Marriage began as a union between two people, and had nothing to do with the government ever. However, what I think should be done is have "civil unions," which are essentially the same as legal marriages, so that the religious or personal context of marriage is not confused with the legal matters involved in a legal marriage. Any two people should be able to enjoy the benefits of a legal marriage, it doesn't matter what their sexual orientation is. [QUOTE=scout1;37525590]Economic Policy: -Market regulation I believe the government has a place to play in the economic affairs of the nation. It should be responsible for preventing monopolies, price gouging, and financially unsustainable policies (i.e. implement stock market limitations). It should also strive to ensure product and service safety with guidelines, enforced testing, and legal prohibitions. [/QUOTE] 4 1 I agree, the government is there to establish the rules and protect the players, much like a referee. And that should be it. No supplements to some of the players, and no singling out others. [QUOTE=scout1;37525590]Foreign Policy: -Interventionism I believe in the foreign deployment of troops in order to prevent genocide or marginalization of peoples is a necessary difficulty. Such missions are ideally internationally observed, but it may fall upon singular nation states to act as arbiters without popular support. Such missions should be careful to observe regional cultures and differences, and not simply install puppet states.[/QUOTE] 4 1 As a member of the US Army, I support this completely. We are employed to protect our nation, but sometimes we are called upon to help those that can't help themselves. And I definitely agree that we shouldn't be the only ones helping, that other countries should also contribute. I think I did this right.

What about a Political subforum?

[QUOTE=slayer20;37544616]What about a Political subforum?[/QUOTE] You mean Mass Debates and Sensationalist Headlines?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;37545711]You mean Mass Debates and Sensationalist Headlines?[/QUOTE] That's not quite right though, a political subforum would allow you to post your ideals and discuss them with others, Mass Debate is for debating issues and Sensationalist Headlines is for news.