I don't identity as Left or Right though, as someone who believes in diversity as a positive and acknowledge that social institutions have always had complexities and that's okay. (Families have never all been mum, dad and two kids for example), I think it's fine to be gay and fine not to be gay so I get labelled as Left. (And also as thick, joyless and deluded). I expect some on the Right share these views though.
Humans seem to be obsessed with dualism (Man/woman, black/white, left/right) but all I see it doing it throwing up walls.
If it seems like the right is constantly mocked, a good deal is due to left-leaning news and entertainment media; the same media out of touch with reality which left their viewers scratching heads on election day.
Well, humans tend to be greedy. Republican politicians are no exception. They revel in the money that they get from their corporate sponsors. As long as the Republican politicians serve the interests of the corporations, they'll keep rolling in the dough.
Criticism of the right has it's roots in their platforms. For example, Trump said he would lower health care costs by eliminating ACA. If you say something stupid like that you will be criticized. If you call Mexican's "rapists" you open yourself wide open to the racist label. If you lock up children you are going to create ire in all the women folk. If you jump in your car and flatten a crowd of people at a protest you are empowering the opposition. If you give rich shareholders a big fat juicy tax gift, you will tick off the entire middle to lower class. If you protect pedophiles like Trump did, your whole party is going to get egged. If you disrespect womankind with a soliloquy in a trailer about what you can get away with random women, you pissed on a rattle snake. If you disrespect a revered war hero like McCain you just lost the entire military community. If you believe Russia didn't help the Trump campaign and hack the DNC, you are crapping on national security. And if you manage to nominate a rapist for judge, you trigger the entire #metoo generation. If you remove all the climate change regulations then try to convince people science ain't real you will get the moron label.
The right wing never screwed up like this before. The blue-wave is payback. Welcome to the side effects of bad politics.
>he would lower health care costs by eliminating ACA You do not know how the "affordable" healthcare act works. Have you taken an economics class? If so, please think about this for a second: what happens when you create unlimited demand for a product with no alternative, and the ones selling the product still have control over the price? I'll give you a hint, the answer is not "the price goes down". I would rather have healthcare nationalized than continue with the ACA, it's the worst of both worlds and anyone with a basic understanding of supply and demand knows that. Even Bernie Sanders admitted it is a pile of shit and needs to be done away with in favor of nationalization.
>If you call Mexican's "rapists" He called illegal immigrants rapists, and he's not wrong, 80% of illegal women get raped during the trip up through Mexico to the border. Most of them don't even come from Mexico, so that's a double lie.
>If you lock up children you are going to create ire in all the women folk Hey genius, what do you do with the child of a criminal when you send that criminal to jail? Are you proposing we put the children in there with the parents? Are you proposing we keep the children in the USA while their parents are sent back to their country? Here's what we actually do: hold the children temporarily while their parents are waiting to be deported and then send the child back with their parents. This was taking place under President Obama and there is no reason to stop, because the alternatives are stupid. Don't commit crimes in the first place and this won't happen.
>If you jump in your car and flatten a crowd of people at a protest you are empowering the opposition If a muslim runs over infidels in a truck it's #notallmuslims but I guess you give up on that when it's not politically convenient. Hypocritical and dishonest, like all leftists.
>If you give rich shareholders a big fat juicy tax gift, you will tick off the entire middle to lower class Except the middle class got a tax cut too, and the lower class basically doesn't even pay taxes anymore under the new tax plan. The economy is roaring right now, so I'm hearing a lot of whining and seeing no actual problems. Come back when you have something more than envy to put on the table. "They're making more money than I am" is not a legitimate complaint.
There is no evidence of Russian voter fraud, there is no evidence that Kavanaugh has ever done anything wrong, US emissions have fallen faster than any other developed nation under Trump, etc etc etc. You know literally nothing about politics. Stop embarrassing yourself. Also, I think it's funny that you praise McCain, he's a piece of shit and liberals hated him before he complained about Trump. Just goes to show you have no values and are probably not old enough to remember the 2012 election. You're going to be very shocke
1) ACA did reduce health care costs. Estimated up to 10 trillion dollars. That is until congress and Trump go in there and mess it up. Then they tried to put it back. But the damage was done. Twice as much as it should be. Drugs up to 10 times more than the same thing in other countries. How is that working out for you?
2) Your stats are wrong on Mexican's being rapists. You can't just make up numbers.
3) Apparently you missed my reference to the Trump supporter who ran over protesters in Charlottesville. Nothing to do with Muslims.
4) Rich people got virtually every penny of the tax gift from Trump. Currently they are using it to back back stock to enrich the wealthy shareholders. Big payday for rich people. Even the rich people say that. Nobody understands it. Trump really screwed everyone and dummies like you are still scratching your head over it.
Russian's aided Trump by hacking the DNC. He used it during the campaign. Remember Wikileaks? You missed the victim statements apparently with Kavanaugh.
1) Full privatization or full nationalization will lower health care costs. This weird middle-ground Obama has going on has increased costs. You're technically wrong here. 2) Those are the correct stats. 80% of women crossing the American-Mexican border get raped. Trump was right, and you are wrong. 3) Yeah, that's the whole point, dumbass! Muslim terrorists flatten TONS of people with trucks in Europe and the "left" is all about #notallmuslims. One man hits an obese childless antifa cunt (with no proof of intent) and suddenly the entire right-wing are terrorists. 4) This is the ONE point you're actually correct on. GOP economics are cancer.
1) ACA was proven to lower health care costs. multiple studies proved it. i'll summarize it in a nutshell for you because i know you won't look it up. if more people have insurance, it will drive the cost down. if more people get medical care, the cost will decrease and people will become healthier. you ignore the obvious here. for example, the mandate to purchase health care insurance lowers the cost of health care insurance. and it was proven to be working. as soon as McConnell and Trump repealed the mandate, health insurance jumped up in cost and is still jumping up.
2) woman getting raped in these ridiculous caravans is totally fabricated by Trumpsters because they don't want the immigrants coming here. plain and simple.
3) none of this explains the left-wing whatsoever. if you really want to know what they think, you should try listening first.
4) everything I say is correct. name one thing that isn't.
While the left may not have the brightest light-bulbs in history, right-wing agendas and politics seem to have this unfortunate proclivity towards killing mass groups of people they deem as "problematic"
I'm probably going to regret being in this thread, but here's my thoughts on the subject.
Both sides of the aisle are dominated by the rhetoric of crazy people, even though the majority of the people on both sides are a lot more moderate. However, the majorities of both sides are silent and are often more than willing to either ignore the crazy people on their sides or side with them because they hate other side more. From what I can tell, the biggest reason why right-wingers get shit on more is that the rhetoric those crazies spout tends to be a lot worse, a lot more broadly malicious and less logical than the rhetoric the crazy leftists say. And when silent majorities stay silent, the only voices others hear are the crazy ones.
There are quite a few SJW voices spouting pretty awful stuff, but mindless xenophobia and misogyny makes a lot more enemies. Also Donald Trump is very buffoonish, even by normal standards, and since he's the effective figurehead of modern American conservatism, he just makes everyone on his side look even worse.
Why not? Right means conservative, old-fashioned, selfish, greedy, contrary to progress, solidarity, social care. They don't care about the environment, favor multinational industries that ruin the planet, exploit their workers, cause us to all become unhealthy, let the poor starve without helping (all the while claiming to be Christians!), and alltogether make the world a harsh, cruel and unbearable place. Why would anybody NOT disagree with that sort of mentality?
If you claim to belong to that group, I invite you to tell me why I would NOT be critical of your mentality. Because I sure don't know.
This is a fucking braindead idea of what constitutes the right-wing.
Right means conservative, old-fashioned, selfish, greedy
I assume you're talking capitalism which the right has historically been against. The free market is a dynamic system that's constantly in flux, and the right has historically been about order and stability. Free market capitalism is technically left of center.
They don't care about the environment
Pre-industrial societies had no fucking reason to care about the environment because humans didn't have the technology to make an impact on it. Environmentalism is a relatively recent phenomenon, which fascism and national socialism ideologically prioritized.
contrary to progress
Insofar as "progress" means "revolution", yes, the right has been against "progress" on the grounds that it is chaotic, anarchistic, and contrary to social order.
favor multinational industries that ruin the planet
The right is against multinationalism of any kind, including multinational corporations. This is another reason the right has historically been against unmitigated capitalism, for its inherent globalism. Who benefits from open borders? Multinational corporations? Who's against open borders? The right.
I indeed talk about capitalism, and this was always RIGHT WING stuff, even before the trend of calling Conservative versus Progressive got to be called right versus left. The Conservatives have never ever been against capitalism, they were actually their champions!
And I know very well ecologic thinking is a recent thing, but it still is a fact that multinationalist capitalism is the Planet's worst enemy, and the right-wing corporative lobbies will try very hard to keep it that way, until every ocean is polluted, every rainforest is changed into a stripmining quarry, or a palm oil plantation, or a prairie for cattle. And we'll all die of the consequences, rich AND poor, but they'll still go on fighting every small measure to protect the environment, claiming ecologists are stupid treehuggers or communists, or whatever.
Oh, and fascism and national socialism are very RIGHT WING things, in fact they're the most extreme far-right thing there is. And extreme ritht wing doesn't give a damn about the environment; just watch what this extreme right future president of Brazil Bolsonaro is going to do to the Amazon forest... I bet you there's not going to be a morsel of it left after a few years of his reign!
Progress means progress, period. Conservatives have been against ALL forms of progress: cultural, sociological, philosophical, social and scientific. Revolution is caused by social injustice and opression: every country where there have been revolts in the past were countries where the people suffered from cruel dictatorships. Those revolutions were not always chaotic; many of them have been quite effective and were mainly aiming to give the people a better life. But the Conservatives, of course, who always take sides with the rich (who obviously want to stay rich at the expense of the starving masses!), quite naturally didn't appreciate it and called it chaotic and anarchistic, yeah. But that doesn't mean it wasn't justified to overthrow their dictatorial reign... Chaos and Anarchy have always been terms to be used by dictators and exploiters of the poor, as excuses in order to justify their crushing every opposition.
The right is not against open borders in order to stop or hinder multinational corporations -against which the Right has no objection whatsoever, by the way- , but in order to stop poor people from other countries to immigrate in search of a humane lifestyle, because their own country is either too miserable or war-ridden to live! That's the ONLY reason why the Conservatives are against open borders...
Really, the've fed you some crap like you won't believe!
Conservatives were monarchists agains the free market.
Fascism and national socialism cared about the environment. Modern American conservatives are hardly "right-wing" in the traditional sense. Actual right-wing politics is against multinational corporations.
"Progress means progress, period"
So what? Progress isn't always good. Cancer progresses. Is that a good thing?
Open borders benefits multinational corporations who want cheap third-world labor. If conservatives were actually right-wing and racist again, we wouldn't be having higher crime rates in our own countries. We shouldn't be taking in stupid, weak cowards who want to flee their own countries and bring their problems here, rather than solving them in their own homelands.
Your idea about (right wing)conservatives being against multinationals is totally contrary to reality. All over the world, conservative, ritht-wing governments favor multinationals at the expense of their own industry, economy, people and environment. Just ask how Republican governmentals think about Monsanto, Nestlé, Corporate Oil and the others! They're all in their pockets! How do you think we live in a world that's been ruined by glyphosate and dioxide? Because most conservative governments are in favor of letting the big corporations do as they please, without trying to stop them in any way. In times when fascism and nazism ("national socialism" was an incorrect term Hitler used to call his philosophy to lure people in, although it had absolutely nothing in common with socialism in any way, quite the opposite. In fact he himself didn't understand what socialism was all about. His reign and that of his fascist colleagues were as right-wing as one can possibly be) were in power, ecologism didn't exist yet, you said so yourself in your former post. Nazi texts about protecting Nature were part of their romantisized discours, nothing to do with today ecologism. Nobody knew about pollution of oceans, air and water, climate change and destruction of Nature in the beginning of the 20th century! It was no issue at all. And besides... even if Hitler had romantic ideas about how beautiful Nature was... fact is that he destroyed half Europe, including his own country. So that's not being anything of a good ecologist, is it? And even if he had been, while being a monster at the same time, that doesn't mean protecting Nature is wrong, in fact anyone with half a brain ought to understand that it has to be done immediately and drastically because the situation is very urgent. Claiming it shouldn't be done because Hitler liked it, is stupid. Comparing social and economic and political, religious or scientific progress with the progress of cancer is equally stupid, you should understand that yourself. You know very well what I mean with "progress is progress": there are no conditions on progress. Progress means going ehead, not backwards. Don't spoil the discussion with irrelevant arguments. Cancer cells indeed! If you were a woman or a man living in a country were you or your children were at risk of starving to death or be murdered or bombed flat, you would try to go somewhere else too. And if people were calling you a "stupid, weak coward who flees his country rather than solving them there": you would know it's not that easy to solve problems like a dictatorship, a ten-year-drought or a war like the ones in Syria or Afghanistan, when you're just one person or one family! But then, the way you talk about those people tells me enough about how you think about them, and about who has been feeding you their crap...
That's true. But being left doesn't necessarily mean being against all businesses; in fact, in places where there is a left-wing or left-to-center government, small businesses have a much easier life than in right-wing ruled countries. There are labourer's laws and social security in case people get sick and can't work, both for the workers as well as for the independent small shopkeepers. That helps them to stand their ground against the big multinationals. While right parties always favor the biggest one, the richest one, the most ruthless one, and leaves the smalllest and weakest to die. That's why people with half a brain don't like them. As far as I think, at least. And that's what he asked, wasn't it?
Maybe your country has a different arrangement, but here the small businesses have a hard time taking on the extra health care costs and regulations as a part of their overhead. Also there are a number of people here who are working under the table for a flat wage, they need the raw cash for their bills today and not a promissory note that insurance "might" pay for a crisis that they have tomorrow.
I can imagine. Social security is a very important thing that can't just be inflicted on people to take care of themselves, it's too big, too hard to regulate, and the greed of the big insurance companies is likely to get the better of them, which is bound to make them leave their customers in the lurch, in favor of their big invester. If there is a national administration to take care of the whole system for everybody, there needs to be only a moderate contribution from everyone to take care of the costs. It has to be part of the... I don't know how you would call it in your country, but I would say the department of the Ministry of Wellfare, run by officials who don't depend on any gain from it for their wages, so they won't be tempted to take the cream off it for themselves; and every allowance should be strictly regulated and nomenclatured. That will make it a just system, and everyone would benefit from it, even the poorest citizens. Nobody would be able to abuse it, for there has to be stern control. It's far too hard for a small business to take care of that sort of thing for their people on their own; it would cost too much, I understand. How is a small business going to grow like that? Alas, most conservatives would see what I've just described as fare too "socialist" to ever accept it. I don't know where youre "here" is, but in my country the system is the same for everybody, everybody contributes (the contributions are comprised in annual taxes) and it's the State who organizes it. I am very happy that we have that system, I wouldn't want to depend on a private insurance company for my health or for my life!
The problem with a system like that is that it would require a culture where enough people are raised to be ethically good. I don't see that ever happening so I'd rather take my chances in a world without insurance. Death and misfortune are a sure thing, but at least in a world like that you can live well when times are good, without the heavy yoke on your back.
Here's a question, for the system you are in, what sort of benefits do you get? Are there any limits on hospital stays for example
Well, I'm not pretending my country is populated with nothing but ethically perfect people, we're human like any other, but still it works great and I wouldn't want to change it into anything else ever. There are plenty other countries where a similar system exists, and none of those countries are populated with nothing but ethically perfect people. So it's not like it's an utopic thing, it's a perfectly possible system. About the benefits: no, there is no limit in hospital stay. Of course not! The doctor says how long you're supposed to stay in the hospital, no insurance company to tell him what to prescribe! do you mean it is like that in America? You're getting thrown out of hospital half-cured, because the insurance company stops paying? Most of the medical cost is paid for by Social Security, all we pay is a small addition. Every medical potential intervention is nomenclatured and those that aren't are rare. Each new one that is invented by medical science is checked on it's efficiency by a controlling organization and approved of depending on it, and when that has happened anyone can benefit from it with no major cost. That makes it possible for anyone to get any type of medical treatment there is, not just the rich... I can't understand for the life of me how any people would voluntarily scout with the excuse that it would be to "socialist". If it's good for you, whatever it is called, it's good so let's keep it! The only reason why we would take a hospitalization insurance policy it to cover the expenses on top of the basic care, such as plastic (cosmetic) surgery, luxury hospital rooms etcetera. But even without that you can be treated in a perfect way. You really don't need it. I read in a comment a bit higher up here, that in the US medicine is up to 10 times as expensive as in most other countries. If that is how it works in countries with no social security system, I really don't want to change ours, however "socialist" it may be, trust me, I don't!
From what I see here in the USA, Medicare hospital stays are allowed for about a month before the patient is sent home and the insurance is allowed to reset-- it's not exactly a denial of coverage but it can become a cyclical process for the elderly who are still mobile.
Well, wait-- if the organization checks for efficiency then that means there would be no long-shot treatments. One positive thing about a free market is that any treatment could be picked (as long as you have enough cash)-- it doesn't depend on group approval or what is perceived as "good sense."
It's interesting to consider some other factors as well-- your country is small, the equivalent of a single state network over here. You're also one of the top 20 export countries of the planet, which may pay for a higher standard of living regardless of whether or not you're socialist. Here in the US, the focus is to have medical care itself as a huge money-making industry, feeding on the homes of the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions. Of course we also have over half of the best hospitals in the world www.topmastersinhealthcare.com… In a sense it's both "You get what you pay for" and "Buyer beware" at work.
I'll give you an example of what I do-- when I visit the dentist I always pay out of pocket. This builds a better relationship with the dentist since he doesn't have to haggle with any insurance companies, he doesn't have to look for "additional procedures" to make up the difference. There's no governmental approval required on what treatments can be done, no penny-pinching; it's simply a transaction between two people.
As a final result, I pay more for visits up front, but I have less problems in the long-run, and less stress. Furthermore, I only have to go visit about 1/4th the number of times that the good health experts would recommend. Having any sort of forced insurance would actually penalize a patient like myself, I would be paying for others who did not take care of themselves and would be racking up health issues from working longer hours to support them. It's not such a black and white issue
Because they do dumb things, like discriminate people with different ethnics, sexual orientation, and gender identity and believe in a magical sky wizard they call God, and throw religious dogma about like swaying their dick out in public.
And this is exactly why the left is constantly ridiculed. For having no brain and assuming stupid shit, like how people on the right so openly discriminate against people for having a different color or sexual orientation. Something that they themselves (The npc's/ sjw's/leftists)most likely do, and shamelessly on a daily basis. And another thing is that the majority of them hate Christianity while praising Islam and then have the nerve to claim to be Atheist.
"magical sky wizard they call God"
This is just pure ignorance, as is assuming that everyone in the right belives in god.