Is this guy left wing or right wing?

[Starlight]

I agree that the Republican party is also guilty of this to some extent - hence the growth of the Libertarian Party.

Of course the US system is set up in such a way that 3rd parties are ineffective.

That is why I think the biggest bang for buck in terms of improving the US political system would be for individual states to change their voting systems away from plurality voting to ranked choice voting (ideally the multi-seat electorate version STV). When my country changed away from plurality voting, after the first election under the new system in 1996, we immediately had 6 political parties with elected representation after historically being a 2-party country like the US. Every state has control over choosing what voting system to use to elect both their federal and state representatives, so this is something each and every state can do individually.

[Terraceth]

The World's Smallest Political Quiz seems designed to trick people who know little about politics into thinking they're libertarians, even though they expressly deny this claim on their website. One of the questions asks about whether we should shrink government by 50%, and people who don't know better are going to think "oh, sure, that sounds good" without realizing what this would actually entail. Nobody should be able to make this proposal without actually outlining what they would cut.

Hrm, that 50% question wasn't there when I took it a while ago. It looks like they changed the questions a bit. I though the original version of it that I took was fairly reasonable, even if it was skewed in its description of the quadrants (it described "statism" for one of the quadrants but "statist" is a term I've only seen used derogatorily).

[simplicio]

White supremacists are pretty peaceful? I suggest you spend time reviewing this embedded reporter with the Charlotsville White Nationalists. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIrcB1sAN8I). These are the people you are defending.

And the completel list of Trumps EOs can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_Donald_Trump

Actually yes, most white supremacists are peaceful, have not used and will not use violence. They are a marginal group politically. And if they are to move into the center and impact politics, which is what they want, then you will see a larger number than the agitators at Charlottesville.

There is not a nonviolent analog to MLK within the alt right, but there is an analogue to the Fabian socialists. Some have accused Bannon of this, using normal political means (the democratic process) to achieve their goals. But their is a strong willingness to use violence to achieve their ends. If those at Charlottesville were the movement, then it would be inconsequential. After the Brown and Blackshirts of Germany and the white hoods in the US, the fascist styled racists cannot achieve power by wearing the swastika or hood. In Europe we see a kinder, gentler alt right, with milder populist rhetoric, but many of the same ideas at their core. Naziism without the swastika and the private armies is still a form of Naziism.

In Europe some of the alt right have moved into the mainstream of politics by repositioning themselves, and restyling their image. Not sure about the US.

Another way to look at it is the critique of the antifa movement. They are criticized for the use of violence, and rightly so. But the willingness to use violence does not describe the whole movement. So I would not describe the antifa movement with a video of antifa using violence.

[carpedm9587]

Actually yes, most white supremacists are peaceful, have not used and will not use violence. They are a marginal group politically. And if they are to move into the center and impact politics, which is what they want, then you will see a larger number than the agitators at Charlottesville.

There is not a nonviolent analog to MLK within the alt right, but there is an analogue to the Fabian socialists. Some have accused Bannon of this, using normal political means (the democratic process) to achieve their goals. But their is a strong willingness to use violence to achieve their ends. If those at Charlottesville were the movement, then it would be inconsequential. After the Brown and Blackshirts of Germany and the white hoods in the US, the fascist styled racists cannot achieve power by wearing the swastika or hood. In Europe we see a kinder, gentler alt right, with milder populist rhetoric, but many of the same ideas at their core. Naziism without the swastika and the private armies is still a form of Naziism.

In Europe some of the alt right have moved into the mainstream of politics by repositioning themselves, and restyling their image. Not sure about the US.

Another way to look at it is the critique of the antifa movement. They are criticized for the use of violence, and rightly so. But the willingness to use violence does not describe the whole movement. So I would not describe the antifa movement with a video of antifa using violence.

The White Supremacist/Nazi strategy, when they make their marches, is to do everything they can to foster anger and trigger a response. They are good at it, and often succeed. Then they can sit back and say, "see, they hit us!" I do not justify those who take thebait and actually strike - their violence is not justified. But the act of fomenting violence is also not justified or defensible. And the words of hatred, denigration, and ridicule are themselves a form of violence. Not all violence is physical. "Revamping" a hateful ideology to make it "palatable" so it can move into the mainstream is not something we should be applauding and defending - it remains a hateful ideology, and in the form of a "more palatable" presentation (though it would be hard for me to see how ANYONE could see the March in Charlottesville as "palatable"), it is even more dangerous to our society.

I also have to admit to some concern that here, on a purportedly Christian forum, I am hearing defenses for the people who espouse this racist, hateful ideology, and condemnation of those who oppose it. The methodology of ANTIFA I do not endorse or defend. Their willingness to stand up to this ideology, and their awareness that a small seed of this ideology can (and has) grown into a major political movement, I applaud. They are historically correct.

[One Bad Pig]

Yes, there are usually more EOs at the start of a presidency. Still, Trump is outpacing the last three presidents (http://www.businessinsider.com/how-m...on-bush-2017-8). Meanwhile, Obama signed fewer executive orders per year than any president in the last 120 years, yet he is constantly dinged for "ruling by pen." In fact, the complaint is not about the fact that he "ruled by pen" but rather that he issued EOs that Republicans didn't WANT him to issue. Trump is doing what Republicans want, so the EOs are OK.

It seems to me that the problem isn't so much with the quantity of EOs Obama issued but the scope. Another issue of Obama-era laws is how much power they invested in federal agencies (who were given vast scope to write regulations under Obamacare and Frank-Dodd).

I have no idea what you think I am deflecting from. The statement that ANTIFA uses fascist techniques is accurate - but incomplete. Extremists tend to use fascist techniques - at both ends of the political spectrum.

When I point out Antifa, and you respond by essentially saying "but look at X group!!!!!!" - that looks like a deflection. That other extremists tend to use fascist techniques in no way makes my statement about Antifa 'incomplete'. I wasn't singling out any particular extremist group in some sort of attempt to whitewash others, but merely to point out the irony involving them.

[One Bad Pig]

The methodology of ANTIFA I do not endorse or defend. Their willingness to stand up to this ideology, and their awareness that a small seed of this ideology can (and has) grown into a major political movement, I applaud. They are historically correct.

They are not standing up to this ideology. They are using its tactics to "stand up to" everything with which they disagree - which happens to include Neo-Nazis, but also includes things like capitalists in general. Do their ends justify their means?

[carpedm9587]

It seems to me that the problem isn't so much with the quantity of EOs Obama issued but the scope. Another issue of Obama-era laws is how much power they invested in federal agencies (who were given vast scope to write regulations under Obamacare and Frank-Dodd).

Yes - I am aware of the complaint. What I see, however, is that Obama signed EOs that the right disliked, so he "ruled by pen" to those on the right. Those on the left generally had no issue with it. Trump signs EOs that the left dislikes, so he "rules by the pen" to those on the left. Those on the right generally have no issue with him.

When I point out Antifa, and you respond by essentially saying "but look at X group!!!!!!" - that looks like a deflection. That other extremists tend to use fascist techniques in no way makes my statement about Antifa 'incomplete'. I wasn't singling out any particular extremist group in some sort of attempt to whitewash others, but merely to point out the irony involving them.

A deflection, to me, is what I call "what aboutism." So when someone says "Trump is promoting racial hatred," and someone says, "What about Obama?" that is deflection. It is also a ridiculous way to discuss or defend a position. It would be the equivalent of the thief saying to the judge, "Hey, what about my neighbor? They stole more than I did." I think the judge would raise an eyebrow, ignore them, and continue with the sentencing.

What I did was to point out that the comment was one sided, painting one group with a description that is more universal than that. It was not a defense of the group; it was a desire to have the observation be more balanced. ANTIFA DOES use facists techniques, and I deplore them. But it is not because they are ANTIFA - or because they are left - it is because they are extremist. Extremism tends to facism, regardless of the political leaning.

There was no intention of deflecting or defending the actions. The intention was to broaden the scope of the observation.

[Darth Executor]

I also have to admit to some concern that here, on a purportedly Christian forum, I am hearing defenses for the people who espouse this racist, hateful ideology, and condemnation of those who oppose it. The methodology of ANTIFA I do not endorse or defend. Their willingness to stand up to this ideology, and their awareness that a small seed of this ideology can (and has) grown into a major political movement, I applaud. They are historically correct.

You are familiar with antifa's historical roots as the militant arm of communists, right? There's no reason to side with them over neonazis as far as ideology is concerned... unless you are sympathetic to left wing mass murderers, which like every leftist of course you are.

I side with the neonazis because they are lawfully expressing their views. neither nazi nor communist mass murder policies are justifiable so there's no reason to pick sides on any other reason... for me anyway. I guess when you are convinced that a balance needs to be fixed acceptance for mass murder comes a lot easier.

[carpedm9587]

They are not standing up to this ideology. They are using its tactics to "stand up to" everything with which they disagree - which happens to include Neo-Nazis, but also includes things like capitalists in general. Do their ends justify their means?

I cannot say I am intimately familiar with all that ANTIFA says/does. I have only seen them in the context of responses to Neo-Nazism and White Supremacy, so you have raised a new dimension I will have to familiarize myself with. Capitalism is not necessarily a problem, but unfettered capitalism is, IMO, a problem. However, I know nothing about the position they take on this. I will have to look into it.

Meanwehile, I think I have been clear that I do not justify or endorse their means; I deplore those that are violence-based. I do applaud standing up to evil. I wish they would do it differently. One can applaud the message and deplore the means.

[Darth Executor]

White supremacists are pretty peaceful? I suggest you spend time reviewing this embedded reporter with the Charlotsville White Nationalists. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIrcB1sAN8I). These are the people you are defending.

Argument by weblink is not allowed, vice is a far left outlet and I'm not watching a 20 minute video just to see what exactly your problem is. If there's anything of particular note there then post a summary with a timestamp and I'll look it up.

I am very familiar with the events at Charlotesville, how they got a lawful permit to protest (despite the governor trying to shut them down, he had to be forced by the supreme court to let them exercise their constitutional rights). The counter-protesters of course had no such permit but they were allowed to show up anyway. So your liberal friends in government were trying to violate their constitutional rights before the protest even started. Then antifa showed up armed and ready to fight and on the likely order of the governor the cops pushed them into each other to create a riot so they could have an excuse to shut it down (which is what they wanted to do to begin with). When they shut it down they didn't let the right wing protesters leave through the opposite side of the antifas, they forced them to separate and trickle in on the same side as the antifas so they could be assaulted. The idea that I should be worried about a sudden and miraculous resurgence of German ultranationalism as opposed to the actual state power wielded by violent lunatic liberals who will go to extraordinary lengths to violate basic civil rights is knee slapping funny.

[Darth Executor]

I cannot say I am intimately familiar with all that ANTIFA says/does. I have only seen them in the context of responses to Neo-Nazism and White Supremacy, so you have raised a new dimension I will have to familiarize myself with. Capitalism is not necessarily a problem, but unfettered capitalism is, IMO, a problem. However, I know nothing about the position they take on this. I will have to look into it.

Meanwehile, I think I have been clear that I do not justify or endorse their means; I deplore those that are violence-based. I do applaud standing up to evil. I wish they would do it differently. One can applaud the message and deplore the means.

They ARE evil, idiot. They're not standing up to evil through evil means, they are every bit as evil as the nazis. It's just that the left loves communists so they never picked up the bad rap nazis got.

[simplicio]

The White Supremacist/Nazi strategy, when they make their marches, is to do everything they can to foster anger and trigger a response. They are good at it, and often succeed. Then they can sit back and say, "see, they hit us!" I do not justify those who take thebait and actually strike - their violence is not justified. But the act of fomenting violence is also not justified or defensible. And the words of hatred, denigration, and ridicule are themselves a form of violence. Not all violence is physical. "Revamping" a hateful ideology to make it "palatable" so it can move into the mainstream is not something we should be applauding and defending - it remains a hateful ideology, and in the form of a "more palatable" presentation (though it would be hard for me to see how ANYONE could see the March in Charlottesville as "palatable"), it is even more dangerous to our society.

I also have to admit to some concern that here, on a purportedly Christian forum, I am hearing defenses for the people who espouse this racist, hateful ideology, and condemnation of those who oppose it. The methodology of ANTIFA I do not endorse or defend. Their willingness to stand up to this ideology, and their awareness that a small seed of this ideology can (and has) grown into a major political movement, I applaud. They are historically correct.

MLK noted the very purpose of action was to create confrontation and tension in society, he chose a deliberate strategy of nonviolence. Americans were appalled at the tactics of the Bull Connor types, with the images of nonviolent protesters having dogs set on them and fire hoses turned. And one measure of its effectiveness was those were the images of force used by Birmingham police, even though the majority of the images were not as stark. Bull Connor could have effectively confronted violent protestors and I would argue he would have been applauded. In the eighties in Poland, the Soviet and Polish garrisons could have effectively handled violent protesters, but the candle light marches, processions for Our Lady of Nations, and children's marches were not something the state could counteract. That is why MLK and Fr Popieluszko* were successful.

In Europe, the alt right fascist parties have successfully changed strategies, and they have moved into the mainstream of politics with a seat at the table. I think this is a fact which can be defended as true and factual. I am not defending it as a good.

I answered your earlier comment because I strongly disagreed. The hard right is not necessarily violent, and it is when they take on the appearances of a mainstream party (as some of the European fascist parties have) is when they will take a seat at the table in political life of the country. And the result will be their ideas and policies will influence society. The fact is that some European fascists have successfully shed their violence as a political means to an end. And the same thing can happen on this side of the Atlantic. It is not expressing approval, as you seem to indicate. A political viewpoint can only gain traction when it is seen as palatable.

I also believe that to paint the fascist alt right as jack booted monsters devoted to thuggery is to seriously underestimate their potential. As long as they look like the KKK and Nazis wearing hoods and swastikas Americans will not accept them (for the most part). The ideas will still just as objectionable if they shed the trappings of the 20th century fascism.

In the twenties the Klan was a political force to be reckoned with, it was nationwide. Candidates from both parties sought their endorsement. And in most of the country they did not commit violence (had trouble wording that, "nonviolent" did not seem to fit after using "nonviolence" above in regard to MLK). White supremacy found a voice in American politics, but it was the violence which helped turn Americans off and the Klan fell from favor

*Fr Jerzy Popieluszko was murdered and tossed into the Vistula in 1984, and public sentiment in Poland was outraged. He advocated a model based on MLK and Gandhi of nonviolent confrontation to instigate tension as a vehicle for change.

[carpedm9587]

MLK noted the very purpose of action was to create confrontation and tension in society, he chose a deliberate strategy of nonviolence. Americans were appalled at the tactics of the Bull Connor types, with the images of nonviolent protesters having dogs set on them and fire hoses turned. And one measure of its effectiveness was those were the images of force used by Birmingham police, even though the majority of the images were not as stark. Bull Connor could have effectively confronted violent protestors and I would argue he would have been applauded. In the eighties in Poland, the Soviet and Polish garrisons could have effectively handled violent protesters, but the candle light marches, processions for Our Lady of Nations, and children's marches were not something the state could counteract. That is why MLK and Fr Popieluszko* were successful.

In Europe, the alt right fascist parties have successfully changed strategies, and they have moved into the mainstream of politics with a seat at the table. I think this is a fact which can be defended as true and factual. I am not defending it as a good.

I answered your earlier comment because I strongly disagreed. The hard right is not necessarily violent, and it is when they take on the appearances of a mainstream party (as some of the European fascist parties have) is when they will take a seat at the table in political life of the country. And the result will be their ideas and policies will influence society. The fact is that some European fascists have successfully shed their violence as a political means to an end. And the same thing can happen on this side of the Atlantic. It is not expressing approval, as you seem to indicate. A political viewpoint can only gain traction when it is seen as palatable.

I also believe that to paint the fascist alt right as jack booted monsters devoted to thuggery is to seriously underestimate their potential. As long as they look like the KKK and Nazis wearing hoods and swastikas Americans will not accept them (for the most part). The ideas will still just as objectionable if they shed the trappings of the 20th century fascism.

In the twenties the Klan was a political force to be reckoned with, it was nationwide. Candidates from both parties sought their endorsement. And in most of the country they did not commit violence (had trouble wording that, "nonviolent" did not seem to fit after using "nonviolence" above in regard to MLK). White supremacy found a voice in American politics, but it was the violence which helped turn Americans off and the Klan fell from favor

*Fr Jerzy Popieluszko was murdered and tossed into the Vistula in 1984, and public sentiment in Poland was outraged. He advocated a model based on MLK and Gandhi of nonviolent confrontation to instigate tension as a vehicle for change.

Your response is reasoned, incredibly articulate, and compelling. I am aware of, and disturbed by, the movement of this hard right faction into mainstream politics. I deplore the violence it often engenders. Indeed, I would love to make a career of how to peacefully counter such things. I am only a few years (maybe months?) from retirement. Perhaps that will be part of what I do.

Thanks for widening my horizons a bit.

[Darth Executor]

Your response is reasoned, incredibly articulate, and compelling. I am aware of, and disturbed by, the movement of this hard right faction into mainstream politics. I deplore the violence it often engenders. Indeed, I would love to make a career of how to peacefully counter such things. I am only a few years (maybe months?) from retirement. Perhaps that will be part of what I do.

Thanks for widening my horizons a bit.

the "hard right" factions only exists because the left is bringing third world savages into europe and p much letting them rape and loot as they please. There's zero efforts to vet, and active efforts to defend and minimize odious crimes like child rape (IE: Rotherham). the fact that refusing to destroy your country is all it takes to get called "far right" these days amuses me to no end.

[Adrift]

I also have to admit to some concern that here, on a purportedly Christian forum, I am hearing defenses for the people who espouse this racist, hateful ideology, and condemnation of those who oppose it.

You're right to be concerned. There are at least 2 active racists on this forum who claim to be Christians, who spend a lot of time derogatively talking about non-white races, and who have proposed racial segregation as a method for answering social problems. For some reason it seems most of the other forum members think they're just joking around, or trolling or something, and don't seem to take them very seriously. I've rarely if ever heard them speak out against the obvious racist ideology spouted by these guys (with the exception of maybe KingsGambit). It's really sad, and I wish more people would speak out against it, because I know that they're good people who know that that sort of talk is off, but maybe they don't want to ruffle feathers or something. I don't know.

That said, the issue with the Charlottesville march is a bit more complicated, and I think for a lot of ordinary people, they didn't view the march as a pro-Nazi, or pro-white supremacist rally. Rather, they saw it as a pro-right march, that was opposed to the removal of statues of historical figures, that unfortunately attracted right-wing extremists. And I think there's a further debate within the right about the statues themselves. For some people the statues represent some sort of racial pride, but probably for the overwhelming majority of people, the statues represent things like Southern pride, or a historical lesson that shouldn't be forgotten, and nothing particularly to do with race.