The News Thread

[Dak]

I don't even know what "left" and "right" mean to Leftists.

 

[rms]

pro/con abortion, duh

 

[viewerfromnihil]

Not related, but recent enough to fit the thread:

 

[Dak]

I am now a Paul Ryan fan lol

 

[CiG]

White man's burden was a thing. I don't know how that is flimsy evidence at all. It's quite clear democracy is tied into Christianity as the main religion

What is it with all arguments in support of easing criticism against Islam being decades old. How about try to make a comparison that isn't older than I am?

Get friends that aren't fucking morons then.

People criticize it because it's too fucking simple to be useful. The UK has a Conservative government. Before that it had a coalition that was right of centre. The Labour government before that were right of centre. The most widely read papers are all to the right. The establishment here is on the right.

If you're going to stick to the L/R spectrum then the right as just as bad when it comes to Dawkins anyway. It's the right that tends to be religious and take issue with shit like evolution.

Friends having different opinions to mine isn't grounds for abandoning them or replacing them.

Also it's laughable to say the UK establishment is to the Right, how's that mass immigration supported by the Left going buddy?

 

[tagradh]

It hasn't made any difference to my life. It's probably made the country better off on the whole. It's the poorest that get fucked (as they always do) and they're about as likely to be on 'the left' as 'the right'. A lot of it simply depends upon where abouts in the country they were born. The UKIP is seen as the most right wing major party in the UK and yet if you propose very 'left wing' policies (like nail re-nationalization) to its supporters without telling them that they're the policies of left wing parties, most of them are in favour.

It was the Conservatives that took us into the EU against the opposition of a much more left wing Labour party (largely on the grounds that it'd be bad for poorer British workers). It was New Labour (i.e. a centre right party) that presided over the massive increase in immigration. Since when is the unrestricted movement of cheap labour a truly left wing policy?

 

[Dak]

Unrestricted movement is a Classically Liberal value. Both modern conservatives/liberals could lay claim to it, but conservatives could try to harken back to monarchical days and reject it.

 

[CiG]

Conservatives could reject it just on economics alone. Many already do.

My point is, it's now the Left that looks at opponents of mass immigration and smears them with racist/xenophobic claims.

 

[CiG]

 

[Dak]

Great after that 7 min mark.

 

[tagradh]

Conservatives could reject it just on economics alone. Many already do.

My point is, it's now the Left that looks at opponents of mass immigration and smears them with racist/xenophobic claims.

But 'the Left' doesn't. A subset of 'the Left' may, but they are not 'the Left'. So we're back to the overly simplistic left vs right thing being useless.

 

[CiG]

But 'the Left' doesn't. A subset of 'the Left' may, but they are not 'the Left'. So we're back to the overly simplistic left vs right thing being useless.

Somehow I doubt you would be so gracious with those on the Right that do ridiculous/say ridiculous stuff.

Either way, you'd have a much harder time finding anyone on the Left that are against mass immigration or are even sceptical of it than you would the opposite.

 

[rms]

Well the critiques I read from popular left on rightist immigration views are based on crime, and they attribute it to an entire country or something. I've only heard Trump speak about the lowering of wages due to the influx of immigrants, which would be an interesting political discussion to have.

 

[Dak]

Simple supply/demand issue. More cheap/unskilled labor at one end, or skilled labor just happy to make USD instead of whatever their home country currency is. In both cases, it creates advantages for employers.

 

[tagradh]

Somehow I doubt you would be so gracious with those on the Right that do ridiculous/say ridiculous stuff.

Either way, you'd have a much harder time finding anyone on the Left that are against mass immigration or are even sceptical of it than you would the opposite.

Only if you take people in he media as being representative of everyone on the left. Talk to 'real' people and it's fucking easy.

I'm not especially gracious to people on either side. Those that identify as being on the right just seem to be, in general, less intelligent and/or informed. I hate that 'technocrat' has become a such a negative word.

 

[Dak]

Those that identify as being on the right just seem to be, in general, less intelligent and/or informed. I hate that 'technocrat' has become a such a negative word.

I'd say many on the right are differently misinformed. People on the left are usually more well read of the officially sanctioned propaganda. That they can regurgitate "common knowledge" doesn't make them any more informed, although they are more than likely in possession of an IQ on the upper side of 100 rather than the lower (compared with say, Trump fans).

I'm pretty sure technocrat was coined to be a pejorative, it didn't "become" negative.

 

[tagradh]

People have talked about technocrats and a technocracy since, at least, the early 20c. It's definitely become, at least in europe, a pejorative more recently.

 

[Dak]

People have talked about technocrats and a technocracy since, at least, the early 20c. It's definitely become, at least in europe, a pejorative more recently.

Yeah I just went and did some reading. it was originally used in different ways, but it's been pretty consistent in it's application for the last 8 decades or so. I guess whether or not it is a pejorative is in your perspective of the technocratic method of governance. People are rightly at least skeptical of a utilitarian (non-hedonic) government run by non-existent "rational powermongers".

 

[Dak]

http://tribune.com.pk/story/1027742/settled-matter-bill-aiming-to-ban-child-marriages-shot-down/

Banning child marriages is un-Islamic.

 

[Dak]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-15/why-donald-trump-praying-market-crash

in the three months leading up to a Presidential Election has displayed an uncanny ability to forecast who will win the White House… the incumbent party or the challenger. Since 1928, there have been 22 Presidential Elections. In 14 of them, the S&P 500 climbed during the three months preceding election day. The incumbent President or party won in 12 of those 14 instances. However, in 7 of the 8 elections where the S&P 500 fell over that three month period, the incumbent party lost.



There are only three exceptions to this correlation: 1956, 1968, and 1980. Statistically, the market has an 86.4% success rate in forecasting the election!



This relationship occurs because the stock market reflects the economic outlook in the weeks leading up to the election. A rising stock market indicates an improving economy, which means rising confidence and increases the chances of the incumbent party’s re-election. Therefore, your time might be better spent from August through October watching the stock market rather than the debates if you want to know who will be President for the next four years.