Jump to content
270soft Forum

4 Politicians that Represent your Political Views.


Recommended Posts

Economic - Bill Clinton
Social - Dennis Kucinich (I searched one of the most hard left democrat on libertarian civil rights activist)
Foreign Policy - JFK (but I would have loved to say Woodrow Wilson for defending decolonialism and right to exist to others countries which were parts of empire).

Misc - Beto O Rourke

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

6 hours ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Did you also saw my 2nd post which answered your question on the most progressive chancellor?

Yeah. I did. I’m going to read some about him. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Actinguy said:

Actually, my recollection is that I admitted from the start that I didn't have the magic words that would persuade you, and that I accepted that.

It still sounded disingenuous, arrogant, and insulting. Maybe not to you - but I certainly took offense to your cavalier tone, and I want to make that clear. I probably wouldn't have gotten so riled up and ended making such a comparison as offended you greatly if that WASN'T your attitude and approach from the start.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Patine said:

It still sounded disingenuous, arrogant, and insulting. Maybe not to you - but I certainly took offense to your cavalier tone, and I want to make that clear. I probably wouldn't have gotten so riled up and ended making such a comparison as offended you greatly if that WASN'T your attitude and approach from the start.

I accept that you feel this way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Edouard said:

Economic - Bill Clinton
Social - Dennis Kucinich (I searched one of the most hard left democrat on libertarian civil rights activist)
Foreign Policy - JFK (but I would have loved to say Woodrow Wilson for defending decolonialism and right to exist to others countries which were parts of empire).

Misc - Beto O Rourke

Ah, yes, John F. Kennedy for foreign affairs. "We'll risk the gamble the existence of all life on Earth other than rats, cockroaches, and hardy microbes to stare down the Soviets over strong entrenchment in their ally Cuba, because the new government their is intolerable, because it's a horrible dictatorship that overthrew in a popular revolution another horrible dictatorship, but one that was our corrupt ally, even though if it had next to no popular support at all, and was in fact hated by it's people," and "let's get the ball rolling on the Vietnam War - my untimely demise will just mean Johnson and Nixon will take the historical heat for it." I am dubious of JFK for FOREIGN Policy, at least.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Actinguy said:

I accept that you feel this way.

Is this response taken from your counselor to PTSD soldiers job script, if I may ask? It sounds like a counselor line of some sort (as a social worker, I'm VERY familiar with the sort of things counsellors say - some of which are much more productive and useful than others).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

Is this response taken from your counselor to PTSD soldiers job script, if I may ask? It sounds like a counselor line of some sort (as a social worker, I'm VERY familiar with the sort of things counsellors say - some of which are much more productive and useful than others).

I'm not a counselor.  I was a radio/tv broadcaster in the military (think "Good Morning Vietnam"), and am in Public Relations now. 

I did go through peer mediation training in school, and worked a crisis (suicide and others) hotline in college.  So, perhaps it's a line I subconsciously stole from there.  

It's more of a deflection, I suppose.  We've been at this for something like a year now.  You will sometimes catch me in the mood to go 40 rounds, but more often than not I have other things I'm focused on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Patine said:

Ah, yes, John F. Kennedy for foreign affairs. "We'll risk the gamble the existence of all life on Earth other than rats, cockroaches, and hardy microbes to stare down the Soviets over strong entrenchment in their ally Cuba, because the new government their is intolerable, because it's a horrible dictatorship that overthrew in a popular revolution another horrible dictatorship, but one that was our corrupt ally, even though if it had next to no popular support at all, and was in fact hated by it's people," and "let's get the ball rolling on the Vietnam War - my untimely demise will just mean Johnson and Nixon will take the historical heat for it." I am dubious of JFK for FOREIGN Policy, at least.

What I like in both JFK and Wilson policies is the stand for decolonialism

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Edouard said:

Economic - Bill Clinton
Social - Dennis Kucinich (I searched one of the most hard left democrat on libertarian civil rights activist)
Foreign Policy - JFK (but I would have loved to say Woodrow Wilson for defending decolonialism and right to exist to others countries which were parts of empire).

Misc - Beto O Rourke

Interesting answer. Kucinich does have lots of ideas that used to be on the fringe of the left. But is now mainstream. I'd say the closest to kucinich Politically that's prominent right now is Bernie Sanders and maybe Andrew Yang

Link to post
Share on other sites

Economic- Liz Warren. 

Social- Sanders.

Foreign Policy- Wilson, with the idealistic belief that liberal democracy and diplomacy can heal the world. 

Misc- Ralph Yarborough  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, CentristGuy said:

Interesting answer. Kucinich does have lots of ideas that used to be on the fringe of the left. But is now mainstream. I'd say the closest to kucinich Politically that's prominent right now is Bernie Sanders and maybe Andrew Yang

Yes he was very left on everything, I just take the social part (not the economic)

He also widely approved abortion while personnaly he was against it, it shows how objective he could be in his ideology (I am personnaly in favor of abortion but it worth to mention people who can separate their beliefs and their plateform)

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Edouard said:

What I like in both JFK and Wilson policies is the stand for decolonialism

De-colonialism, as it occurred, while it was a very noble and necessary endeavour, usually involved, in most cases, handing power to horrible local tyrants, backing up, leaving, and pretending the responsibility of the colonial legacy was abjured thereafter. JFK and Wilson, as well as De Galle and Heathrow, and others were guilty of a lot of unnecessary death, suffering, and tyranny by their methods. And, to make matters worse, many First World leaders actually armed and financed these tyrants, and turned a blind to, or even encouraged, their tyranny and atrocities, on the pretense of stopping Communists from taking those countries over (Communists who couldn't be, and in some cases proved they weren't, any worse). No, the way de-colonialism was actually done was so sloppy and riven with ulterior motive and apathy, it created a breeding ground for atrocity, and much of the blood is also on the hands of the de-colonizers, including the two you listed, and the two I listed, and horrid Cold War leaders who profited from the situation for their inhuman, sociopathic geo-political strategum, and brought more blood onto the First World leaders.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Patine said:

De-colonialism, as it occurred, while it was a very noble and necessary endeavour, usually involved, in most cases, handing power to horrible local tyrants, backing up, leaving, and pretending the responsibility of the colonial legacy was abjured thereafter. JFK and Wilson, as well as De Galle and Heathrow, and others were guilty of a lot of unnecessary death, suffering, and tyranny by their methods. And, to make matters worse, many First World leaders actually armed and financed these tyrants, and turned a blind to, or even encouraged, their tyranny and atrocities, on the pretense of stopping Communists from taking those countries over (Communists who couldn't be, and in some cases proved they weren't, any worse). No, the way de-colonialism was actually done was so sloppy and riven with ulterior motive and apathy, it created a breeding ground for atrocity, and much of the blood is also on the hands of the de-colonizers, including the two you listed, and the two I listed, and horrid Cold War leaders who profited from the situation for their inhuman, sociopathic geo-political strategum, and brought more blood onto the First World leaders.

I have a serious question for you. 

You are Woodrow Wilson in the 1910's. You know that their colonial nations are being used for extraction of natural resources and cheap labor, and that native peoples are being genocided and enslaved. 

What do you do with your power within the context of the times that is realistic? I want to know your thoughts. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Herbert Hoover said:

I have a serious question for you. 

You are Woodrow Wilson in the 1910's. You know that their colonial nations are being used for extraction of natural resources and cheap labor, and that native peoples are being genocided and enslaved. 

What do you do with your power within the context of the times that is realistic? I want to know your thoughts. 

That would be hard, because I would have Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Alaska, and the Philippines, as well as the horrible record of cheating, abusing, genociding, and exploiting Native American peoples, and before 1865, African-American slave labour, on my own conscience if I were just inserted therein, so I might not view myself as the best neutral arbiter on the situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

That would be hard, because I would have Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Alaska, and the Philippines, as well as the horrible record of cheating, abusing, genociding, and exploiting Native American people's on my own conscience if I were just inserted therein, so I might not view myself as the best neutral arbiter on the situation.

I think that it really puts an executive in between a rock and a hard place. Wilson pursued one of the most altruistic foreign policies of any American leader, even when it was deeply unpopular for him to do so. He did what he could do within the context of the times even though it wasn't popular. While it's true that he was likely responsible for the deaths of some, he was responsible for saving the lives of many others and he helped give those nation's a fighting chance. If America had more leaders who were interested in spreading democracy for democracy sake and for the sake of a peaceful society, we'd have a much better world, I think. I know that's not realistic, but it's a thought nonetheless. 

Are you a subscriber to the world systems theory or dependency theory? The latter is rather outdated, but the former seems right up your alley for your general world view. When you articulate more clearly you remind me at times of Wallerstein's writing style, which can end of being a very academic stream of consciousness IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Herbert Hoover said:

I think that it really puts an executive in between a rock and a hard place. Wilson pursued one of the most altruistic foreign policies of any American leader, even when it was deeply unpopular for him to do so. He did what he could do within the context of the times even though it wasn't popular. While it's true that he was likely responsible for the deaths of some, he was responsible for saving the lives of many others and he helped give those nation's a fighting chance. If America had more leaders who were interested in spreading democracy for democracy sake and for the sake of a peaceful society, we'd have a much better world, I think. I know that's not realistic, but it's a thought nonetheless. 

Are you a subscriber to the world systems theory or dependency theory? The latter is rather outdated, but the former seems right up your alley for your general world view. When you articulate more clearly you remind me at times of Wallerstein's writing style, which can end of being a very academic stream of consciousness IMO.

See, the thing also is, Wilson was very on in the process, and probably had no idea what would ensue. Plus, he was the U.S. President to travel abroad while in office (barring Taft's family cottage in Quebec, which he went to for vacation and not for work), and probably the first U.S. President to ever visit or hear accounts from outside academically-written university texts about many of the parts of the world. A certain naïve optimism may have been mixed with his altruism. However, my criticism in response to @Edouard was more strongly aimed at JFK's foreign policy in regards to de-colonialism, who was already in the Cold War, and the sort of thinking (including the proxy regime and moving to neo-colonial economics) was already in full swing. Wilson wasn't really what I was criticizing in that post, directly, but JFK (@Edouard's first choice), and his contemporaries on the issue, like Heathrow and de Galle. I apologize if my focus wasn't clearer, there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Patine said:

See, the thing also is, Wilson was very on in the process, and probably had no idea what would ensue. Plus, he was the U.S. President to travel abroad while in office (barring Taft's family cottage in Quebec, which he went to for vacation and not for work), and probably the first U.S. President to ever visit or hear accounts from outside academically-written university texts about many of the parts of the world. A certain naïve optimism may have been mixed with his altruism. However, my criticism in response to @Edouard was more strongly aimed at JFK's foreign policy in regards to de-colonialism, who was already in the Cold War, and the sort of thinking (including the proxy regime and moving to neo-colonial economics) was already in full swing. Wilson wasn't really what I was criticizing in that post, directly, but JFK (@Edouard's first choice), and his contemporaries on the issue, like Heathrow and de Galle. I apologize if my focus wasn't clearer, there.

You're totally fine, it's just food for thought on the same general topic. JFK's foreign policy was far too brash for my liking. He had a lot to like about his economic and social policies but not abroad. The Bay of Pigs operation should have never went down. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

And where would the funding to the states for medicare and other social infrastructure come from with no income tax, rock bottom or no business tax, and no government-owned profitable corporations? Have you ACTUALLY READ Ron Paul's economic beliefs, there?!

I said Rand and I worked for Ron in the state of KS in 2012, got to speak for him at the caucus and he did a surprise visit at the end of my speech. It was a great day sans the result!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, billay said:

I said Rand and I worked for Ron in the state of KS in 2012, got to speak for him at the caucus and he did a surprise visit at the end of my speech. It was a great day sans the result!

Yes, @Reagan04 noted this, and I admitted in response it was my mistake in misreading there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

Yes, @Reagan04 noted this, and I admitted in response it was my mistake in misreading there.

Thanks for the admittance. i thought maybe it had to do with a month ago when I got you all fired up lol. We would be better off with the 2 extremes leading the way in politics, we as a nation wouldn't be so focused on militarism and perhaps have a better chance at fighting diseases and improving our overall healthcare system here. Our biggest challenge Imo

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, billay said:

We would be better off with the 2 extremes leading the way in politics, we as a nation wouldn't be so focused on militarism and perhaps have a better chance at fighting diseases and improving our overall healthcare system here. Our biggest challenge Imo

I'm afraid I disagree with this, nor do I think the two establishments should dominate either. I'm a firm proponent of breaking the political Duopoly and enabling a true, functional, and politically healthy multi-party system.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

I'm afraid I disagree with this, nor do I think the two establishments should dominate either. I'm a firm proponent of breaking the political Duopoly and enabling a true, functional, and politically healthy multi-party system.

I'm not sure how a multiparty system happens in this country 1) with how money in politics works 2) the 3rd biggest party is the Libertarian party and they are absolutely out to lunch and this is coming from a guy with a lot of Libertarian beliefs. 

What we have seen is guys who are 3rd partyish Paul, Trump, Sanders have success in the 2 party process. While Paul challenged the establishment we really haven't had the losers in these parties challenge the establishments. People like Booker & Harris quickly fell in line after bowing out. What would happen if they denied endorsing Biden and fought for African Americans in the senate? What if Rand Paul decided to be more like his father and not kiss Trumps ass? Same with Cruz, Lee, etc?  This is the biggest issue with American politics. Team politics is getting us nowhere. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billay said:

I'm not sure how a multiparty system happens in this country 1) with how money in politics works 2) the 3rd biggest party is the Libertarian party and they are absolutely out to lunch and this is coming from a guy with a lot of Libertarian beliefs. 

What we have seen is guys who are 3rd partyish Paul, Trump, Sanders have success in the 2 party process. While Paul challenged the establishment we really haven't had the losers in these parties challenge the establishments. People like Booker & Harris quickly fell in line after bowing out. What would happen if they denied endorsing Biden and fought for African Americans in the senate? What if Rand Paul decided to be more like his father and not kiss Trumps ass? Same with Cruz, Lee, etc?  This is the biggest issue with American politics. Team politics is getting us nowhere. 

The key is that the two major parties are not properly political parties in the way they're defined in many (except, by definition, maybe United Russia and other "parties of power"). They're big-tent, forced coalitions made up of different ideological camps that each could be a fully functional and complete party on it's own. The Primary process is a toxic grinder that bottlenecks things until a candidate from only one camp per election gets the nomination, but the whole "party," expected to support them, vote for a Third Party or Independent, make a cheeky write-in, sit at home, or *gasp* vote for the other "party." Not very satisfying in the long run, if you ask me. The key is to abolish the dinosaur relic of the Electoral College, created for Madison to preserve Slave State power and Hamilton to show his disdain and contempt for competence of the common voter anyways, and let these camps slide apart into the natural, functional, REAL parties they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...