Very Political

[DarkMedic]

I think a healthy thing for this thread would be a breakdown of left and right. It's easy to slander others with different opinions and both sides often illogically demonize the other. This is why I don't typically use the terms Conservative or Liberal unless it is pertinent to specify. Most people on the left are not Liberals, and most people on the right are not Conservatives. Most of the people the right call Liberal are not Liberals, however they may lean to the left. Most of the people the left call Conservative are not Conservatives, however they may lean to the right.

I'm not going to provide a thorough breakdown of the divide, but I will give a little bit of shorthand.

The functional divide of left and right is in their fundamental views on role of government. This is what is important in politics when deciding what laws the legislature should pass, and how the judicial system should review it's laws. What role should the government have in the lives of our citizens? This is where the divide happens.

In extreme shorthand, the left believes in equality of outcome and the right believes in equality of opportunity. The politics branch out from there.

---

The Left

The left's view on outcome functionally requires organizing the lives of citizens into groups. Thus the large focus on social policy. It is impossible to survey the lives of every citizen to determine how to achieve equality for each one of them. The left's politics also require use of government as the tool necessary to achieve their directives, and it is believed to be just on the grounds of positively influencing the outcomes of disadvantaged segments of the population. Thus the belief in regulated economy, social justice, and barring discrimination. Equality comes first and for the benefit of citizens as a collective, is allowed to overstep on individual liberties to an extent. The magnitude of equality's priority varies greatly as seen within the spectrum of left wing politics.

The whole of the left believes that government action in regards to the beliefs of individuals and their decisions is warranted and justified, when their behavior negatively influences disadvantaged populations and minorities. Specific to Social Liberals in response to this belief, is the focus on government's role in assuring tolerance and collectivism. This is actually where Social Liberals differ from Classical Liberals, whose belief in liberty, natural law, and individual freedom do not allow such government involvement in social and economic matters.

The Right

The right's view on opportunity leaves virtually no legislative involvement into the natural consequences of our actions. Thus the large focus on individual rights. It is impossible to ensure equality of outcomes for individuals, and canting the laws to benefit one segment of the population over the other is believed to be unjust. Even legislative action for positively correcting outcomes or any other good cause is off the table if it interferes with the rights of individuals. Thus the belief in free market capitalism, individual justice, and barring involuntary servitude etc. Even if it's for a good cause, involuntary servitude is still involuntary servitude and it is unjust to force someone to do business even if they refuse for intolerant, hateful, bigoted reasons. Freedom comes first and for the preservation of individual liberty, is allowed to overstep on equality of outcomes. The magnitude of freedom's priority varies greatly as seen within the spectrum of right wing politics.

The whole of the right believes that government action in regards to the beliefs of individuals and their decisions is unwarranted and unjustified, so long as their behavior does not tread on the individual liberties of another. Specific to Traditional Conservatives in response to this belief, is the focus on social fabric and common values as the glue that holds everything together. This is actually where Conservatives differ largely from Libertarians. In true form, they are very similar in government policy.

---

Determination of natural rights in this country was established a long time ago, and although our legal system is secular, the entire western world's development of values did in fact evolve from religion. The adoption of natural law into our legal system is a primary source of disparity between conservative and progressive politics, and the reason one wishes to remain as close as possible to founding principles and the other wishes to proceed elsewhere.

Note that all of this applies specifically to American politics. European style right wing politics is very authoritarian and utilizes the power of government in order to achieve it's directives. It is essentially the polar opposite of Classical Liberalism and Traditional Conservatism in regards to government. This is not kosher to American Conservatives, whom believe that government should have extremely limited authority that does not reach into our personal lives. The European left is far more socialist in regards to economy and utilizes the power of government in a greater capacity than the American left currently wishes to do.

I never call anyone Liberal or Conservative if they are not. Understanding the breakdown of Left and Right is important, and rushing to slander people with different views is divisive and damaging. We can all agree on much more when we realize together that our differences are mostly in regard to governmental policy and use of law. However the two sides are in fact incompatible in policy, although the major political parties can actually agree more than they show by never publicly agreeing on policy! This is because a lot of people within the government are pursuing common interests while simultaneously playing Conservative or Liberal For Suckers. Republicans can sit back and let Democrats make decisions THEY in fact benefit from, while screaming tyranny to the public. Democrats can sit back and let Republicans make decisions THEY in fact benefit from, while screaming intolerance to the public. Don't let our two party system blind you from principle.

By large, the Republican Party does not represent true conservative principles and the Democratic Party does not represent true liberal principles. They both make me laugh, and worry about our foreseeable future.

[jockinthebox]

+7 GREENIES (REPS) FOR U,Medic! (I got a POWERFUL "GUN")LOL! For an excellent well-thought out post! CONGRATZ & THANK YOU!

[Clockwork0]

Transparency from the legislature is good and keeps pressure on government to perform in a manner they will held accountable for. Intelligence requires handling of sensitive information that can be readily used to manipulate the public's opinion on political issues. If the government colludes with media to sweep an issue under the rug using the intelligence they have received, this is an issue of corrupt government, or an intelligence organization that has overstepped it's role and is attempting to influence politics. Intelligence groups are not governing bodies and should have no direct role in politics. If information is being suppressed for political reasons, it is the responsibility of those tasked with it's oversight to step in and make sure they are performing their limited roles in the appropriate capacity. You know what else corrupt governments thrive on? Partial transparency and obtaining the ability to pick and choose what information is brought public whether openly or by leaks.
The idea of intelligence agencies reporting openly to the media is destructive to security and the rights of individuals stuck in the crossfire.

What example do you cite of intelligence group playing politics? What information are you exactly talking about?

Because right now we are talking in hypotheticals, corruption can come many ways. So i can't disagree with anything you said, although those routes are rarely used in the world.

[akaTrex]

What example do you cite of intelligence group playing politics? What information are you exactly talking about?

Because right now we are talking in hypotheticals, corruption can come many ways. So i can't disagree with anything you said, although those routes are rarely used in the world.

Loretta_Lynch_and_Bill_Clinton_meet_in_P_0_41315067_ver1.0_640_480.jpg

Humm . . . .

[WIItard]

Well I would certainly dismiss that law if someone broke into my house and I feared for our life. Does that make me a vigilant to want to protect my family? I wouldn't risk potential harm to my family because the law said I don't have a right to do it. Vigilantism is entirely different than trying to protect yourself.

My state has stand your ground laws so I can shoot intruders dead if I choose or beat them with a bat or however I want to defend my home. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

[DarkMedic]

What example do you cite of intelligence group playing politics? What information are you exactly talking about?

Because right now we are talking in hypotheticals, corruption can come many ways. So i can't disagree with anything you said, although those routes are rarely used in the world.

Well there are actually a few recent examples. One involves the FBI director's role in acutely amplifying distrust of Clinton beyond her own chronic destruction of trust during the pivotal conclusion of the presidential election and amidst an active investigation that they had not officially resolved. The other involves intelligence agencies, media, and the current president, again amidst an active investigation with no conclusive resolution.

I don't see where I needed to cite specific cases of corruption to be credible in claiming that transparency within active investigations by intelligence agencies is dangerous, as I was describing a general mechanism not a particular case. I stated that the intelligence community in general needs to stop talking with press about active investigations, to which your response was that public awareness and transparency is good. I completely agree with that general notion, but I was making the distinction between the utility of government transparency and the danger of open dialogue between the press and intelligence during active investigations. The only reason I even made that distinction was because your response to my assertion that intelligence transparency is bad was that government transparency was good, which I agree with you fully.

By the way, those routes are being used currently and with high frequency in the United States, by both sides.

[Clockwork0]

Well there are actually a few recent examples. One involves the FBI director's role in acutely amplifying distrust of Clinton beyond her own chronic destruction of trust during the pivotal conclusion of the presidential election and amidst an active investigation that they had not officially resolved. The other involves intelligence agencies, media, and the current president, again amidst an active investigation with no conclusive resolution.

I don't see where I needed to cite specific cases of corruption to be credible in claiming that transparency within active investigations by intelligence agencies is dangerous, as I was describing a general mechanism not a particular case. I stated that the intelligence community in general needs to stop talking with press about active investigations, to which your response was that public awareness and transparency is good. I completely agree with that general notion, but I was making the distinction between the utility of government transparency and the danger of open dialogue between the press and intelligence during active investigations. The only reason I even made that distinction was because your response to my assertion that intelligence transparency is bad was that government transparency was good, which I agree with you fully.

By the way, those routes are being used currently and with high frequency in the United States, by both sides.

I understand your position much better after this post and your examples.

The issue i have is independence is very difficult in the intelligence groups. Remember the highest raking leaders in the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc are chosen by the current president at the time. So it is very easy to lose the independence, because you don't know where exactly do their loyalty resides with, the president who appointed them or their duty to the country. Me and you both are in agreement they should be independent and nonpartisan.

Judicial branch should also be nonpartisan, but we know it isn't. If it was you wouldn't have Democrats and republicans fighting over who should be in the supreme court.

[Tamora]

Was trump justified in bombing the airfield in Syria?

[Pegasus]

Meh re the bombing.

I hope his overall performance as president improves ,learning curve and all that.

[akaTrex]

Was trump justified in bombing the airfield in Syria?

We will find out, but IMHO is was better than Obama's Drawing A Line in the Sand !