I went with LEFT. It's all relative though I guess. I think the best government is just the least corrupt. Communism, Fascism, Socialism and Capitalism all work in theory, and all fail in the hands of the greedy and corrupt. The biggest world problem that everyone seems to be ignoring is that of overpopulation, because god knows there's no good way about solving it. _________________ http://jonnyleather.com
The only thing studying politics for years taught me is that I have no idea where I am on the "political spectrum"
Economically I am in favour with whatever gives me the greatest means in my current situation. And socially I don't care, people can do whatever they want, the law isn't really an effective deterrent if someone wants to do something they probably will, so I really don't see the point. Well that and I don't think right and wrong/morality actually exist. Or rather they exist as concepts, and there is nothing factual about them. Which makes it extremely difficult to agree with any social platform.
The only thing studying politics for years taught me is that I have no idea where I am on the "political spectrum"
This is me. I suppose to the typical American I'd be considered "left" (I'm a pretty big environmentalist), but generally I have very clear views, and they don't all fit into the whole left-right political spectrum. That's my problem with American politics. It's all made out to be black-and-white. Our founding fathers warned us against this, and we had to be huge douchers and separate into 2 political parties anyway. I disagree with parties in general, but having 3-5 parties is definitely better than having 1-2 from what I can tell. _________________ 51 Washington, D.C. albums!
It's all made out to be black-and-white. Our founding fathers warned us against this, and we had to be huge douchers and separate into 2 political parties anyway. I disagree with parties in general, but having 3-5 parties is definitely better than having 1-2 from what I can tell.
I have exactly the opposite problem. In Peru we have about 11 or 12 political parties which constantly appear and disappear and aren't based on ideas but on people. Some parties are even called after the leaders instead of after the ideas they should follow. So politics here are extremely chaotic, and each government follows completely different directions than the last. We're lucky to have had similar parties get the vote three periods in a row, so we're doing fine, but we have about 6 or 7 candidates with completely different ideas going for the next, so god knows what'll happen.
I have exactly the opposite problem. In Peru we have about 11 or 12 political parties which constantly appear and disappear and aren't based on ideas but on people. Some parties are even called after the leaders instead of after the ideas they should follow. So politics here are extremely chaotic, and each government follows completely different directions than the last. We're lucky to have had similar parties get the vote three periods in a row, so we're doing fine, but we have about 6 or 7 candidates with completely different ideas going for the next, so god knows what'll happen.
This, especially the bolded part, is pretty much the case in Slovenia too... Except there is not much difference between them, even though they like to create illusion that that's not the case.
I have exactly the opposite problem. In Peru we have about 11 or 12 political parties which constantly appear and disappear and aren't based on ideas but on people. Some parties are even called after the leaders instead of after the ideas they should follow. So politics here are extremely chaotic, and each government follows completely different directions than the last. We're lucky to have had similar parties get the vote three periods in a row, so we're doing fine, but we have about 6 or 7 candidates with completely different ideas going for the next, so god knows what'll happen.
19loveless91 wrote:
This, especially the bolded part, is pretty much the case in Slovenia too... Except there is not much difference between them, even though they like to create illusion that that's not the case.
Interesting. 10+ political parties must be annoying. If there's no difference between the parties and you're voting for the person rather than the party, then there's a problem there too. However, in the US, we have the opposite problem, where people vote for the party even though the person might be totally incompetent, and they start to agree with certain running points of a candidate just because they agree with another point. For example: I had a friend who was very pro marriage equality, but also a an advocate for small government, big business, and the government staying out of the economy as much as possible. This friend ended up supporting the Democratic/Obama/left side because marriage equality was the most important factor, even though overall the Republican/Romney/right side probably would have benefitted this friend and their beliefs more overall.
However, as far as "not much difference between them, even though they like to create the illusion that that's not the case" goes... I feel the same way about the US sometimes. Every election there's two rich-as-fuck super educated Harvard/Yale grads with law degrees running against each other. I suppose it's just the nature of US politics that you need to be very rich to even consider campaigning in the first place, since campaigning is basically a full time job and requires a lot of travel and expenses otherwise. I donno, I'm just kinda rambling I guess.
It's always interesting to hear about non-US politics. Sometimes I suppose I think political problems can be solved easily or simply, but then I hear about another country which tried that "solution" and it didn't work. _________________ 51 Washington, D.C. albums!
As many folks have already said, though, "left" and "right" can have vastly different meanings in different parts of the world. In many parts of Europe, I might be right of center.
Coming from the US, where the "Left" and "Right" aren't really good representatives of what those terms really mean, it's difficult for me to say exactly where I stand in the broader context. I'm very liberal on social issues, but on economic issues I tend to be more conservative, but the more I research and understand, the more I find myself wanting to support higher wages and access to some sort of health care options, at some point moving to some sort of system like Canada has. I do support the market, however, but there is an economist that said something that applies to my line of thinking: "I'm pro market, but not necessarily pro business". I also find myself now starting to support affirmative action programs (at least in the US), as they have completely failed in their original purpose, having come to only benefit white women in this country. I don't know, it's all very confusing.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
