[Politics] How have you political views changed during your life?

[withdeanwombat]

Left, lefter, lefter.

And I’ve had my three score and ten.

And I saw the Albion v Man Utd game in Funchal.

We won here, too!

 

[looney]

Then you've not met [MENTION=277]l How has it succeeded in the US the "land of the free" when Trump has to round up immigrants and impose 25% tariffs?

As you tagged me I will respond. Libertarianism is an ethos deployed democratic by Governments. Just because you exist and live outside that zone does not provide you with any rights or say, there is no global vote on how countries are managed as this would lead to global popul;ations voting down all other countries, You create an argument where the alternative is either unworkable or nonsense, as is being seen in Germany with Mirkels open borders madness which the Germans are back peddling on.

Libertarianiosm doesn't work like that, it is spread outwards and doesn't allow itself to collapse and be over run, like all other ethical systems or ideology.

Then you've not met [MENTION=277]l Do we grade the UK as having succeeded more than say, Sweden?.

Good question, I would say niether have a Libertarian ethos so it would be a futile attempt.

 

[jimhigham]

I was solidly Tory until the financial crash on 2008. Since then it's been a steady drift to the left encompassing votes for the LibDems, Labour and Greens depending on the election and candidates available. Odd to have a political conversion occur squarely in middle age.

 

[Guinness Boy]

As you tagged me I will respond.

you self important dick.

Libertarianism is an ethos deployed democratic by Governments.
Good question, I would say niether have a Libertarian ethos so it would be a futile attempt.

Not only does your first sentence there not make any sense whatsoever, it contradicts the last part. So, come on. You said "libertarianism as expressed in freer markets, speech and societies has always succeeded". If huge Western economies are NOT deploying it democratically - and I don't know which of your contradictory points you believe - how is it a success?

 

[Weststander]

This is the problem with the country in a nutshell. The tories are the party of oppression greed and inequality, Large sectors of the press are in cahoots with them financially and they sell lies to the ignorant.

You've got the Guardian, Independent and Mirror all favourable to non-Tory thinking, plus large swathes of the internet, bloggers, the Labour machine and its massed members all plugging vehemently anti-Tory propaganda.

These days, whinging about a Tory press simply doesn't wash.

 

[Hastings gull]

At 44 I'm still left of centre, but less of a socialist than I used to be. And sometimes I at least understand what the right are getting at. I've also, for quite some time now, come to respect those with the highest tax burden - whilst a progressive tax system is the fairest, we on the left would do well to be thankful for those who pay the most, and not push it too far.

I also hate welfare cheats, illegal immigration and serial criminals - all things that for some reason tend to be associated with the right but should really be standard bearers for the left. We built the welfare state, we should defend it against cheats.

Fascinating post.

 

[spence]

Never been left and won't start now.

 

[Hastings gull]

This is the problem with the country in a nutshell. The tories are the party of oppression greed and inequality, Large sectors of the press are in cahoots with them financially and they sell lies to the ignorant.

Ironic when you talk about the problem with the country -your post is precisely why political activists only serve to divide us. Not only is it hopelessly divisive but you show the arrogant tendency of the fanatic when you dismiss millions of others as ignorant. These sort of views are the problem.

 

[Weststander]

Ironic when you talk about the problem with the country -your post is precisely why political activists only serve to divide us. Not only is it hopelessly divisive but you show the arrogant tendency of the fanatic when you dismiss millions of others as ignorant. These sort of views are the problem.

Great post.

The arrogance of the angry left that only they have the answers, and that anyone with a different view is either a dimwit or fascist.

 

[knocky1]

Fascinating post.

Fascinating post.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I also think the reason people tend to become more 'right wing' as they age is less to do with more experience and more to do with an inclination to be less contrary and/or rebellious and happier to conform.

And fear. Of death, in particular.

For me, party politics is an unfortunate product of party based democrasy. I don't like it, but I can't ignore it. And in the end I have to vote for one of the two groups who have a chance of running the show. I have never liked either of them. I did particularly loath Thatcher, and so it was a relief when Blair eventually got in. He was good, till the idiot Brown bullied him out. But...this my navigating the political system....different issue...

My personal politics are a private matter. Left wing people (I use the stereoptype to define, here) who know me have accused me of being right wing. Right wingers (ditto) accuse me of being a left wing menace.

The only thing that has changed with age is my willingness to gve too much of a shit about tiny unimportant things, like the terms of the Brexit deal. But the extent to which I find other people, who think they know best about such ephemeral things and push their hopeful opinion with strident bravura, the irritating ********s, has not diminished. And I will see them dead. Dead.

 

[The Clamp]

Put a sock in it you mentally disturbed twaat, Im not bothered you have el presidente backing you up with the panel, the more he abuses it the more people will see him as biased and incompetent.

And you are a cub scout leader?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

you self important dick.



Not only does your first sentence there not make any sense whatsoever, it contradicts the last part. So, come on. You said "libertarianism as expressed in freer markets, speech and societies has always succeeded". If huge Western economies are NOT deploying it democratically - and I don't know which of your contradictory points you believe - how is it a success?

On the basis of your reply only.....now you can see why I blocked him. Having issues doesn't preclude someone from also being a jackass.

 

[The Clamp]

I have always been slightly right of centre with a healthy dose of left to keep me in check. For example I don't agree with benefits cheats but believe it;s a price worth paying for a welfare system. I have always been like this and I;m old enough now to believe I'll stick with it.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I was solidly Tory until the financial crash on 2008. Since then it's been a steady drift to the left encompassing votes for the LibDems, Labour and Greens depending on the election and candidates available. Odd to have a political conversion occur squarely in middle age.

So you accepted this was due to sub-prime lending in the US, and not due to wee jock McBrown having some sort of seizure one Friday aftrnoon, as we have been lead to believe by the Mail and the tories? It was at this exact moment that lots of other voters decided to jump the labour ship. In my view, Brown and his cohorts' failure to stand up for themslves (and labour's failure to dump Brown) was responsible for labour's decline into handwringing irrelevance and finally the (geriatric) studenet agit prop shambols they now are.

 

[jimhigham]

Not really. My conversion wasn't even really steeped in party political points scoring. More of a wider inequality thing. Personally it was the point where I came to believe that the "trickledown economics" that we had been sold by the right was a pup. The rest kind of kicked on from there. I'm currently unaffiliated while left leaning.

 

[looney]

And you are a cub scout leader?

No, you are a mental case who likes spewing his bile at his bettters, that would be about everyone. Put a sock in it and try not to ruin another thread with your moron antics.

 

[Weststander]

So you accepted this was due to sub-prime lending in the US, and not due to wee jock McBrown having some sort of seizure one Friday aftrnoon, as we have been lead to believe by the Mail and the tories? It was at this exact moment that lots of other voters decided to jump the labour ship. In my view, Brown and his cohorts' failure to stand up for themslves (and labour's failure to dump Brown) was responsible for labour's decline into handwringing irrelevance and finally the (geriatric) studenet agit prop shambols they now are.

It's true to an extent that Brown/New Labour were victims of a US crash in derivatives, but only partly. Particularly in the second part of the 1997-2010 UK Government, Blair & Brown ditched financial prudence in favour a spending spree (including huge 'off balance sheet' in PFI's), and grew ever closer The City. Soft touch regulation was the fashionable, over supervision. The Government, business and consumers rode a wave of huge credit and spending. Government and personal debt rose exponentially.

It left the UK in a place more vulnerable than some other Western nations, when the American crisis started a chain of events.

Vince Cable did genuinely warn of a derivatives based crash well before it happened.

 

[looney]

you self important dick.



Not only does your first sentence there not make any sense whatsoever, it contradicts the last part. So, come on. You said "libertarianism as expressed in freer markets, speech and societies has always succeeded". If huge Western economies are NOT deploying it democratically - and I don't know which of your contradictory points you believe - how is it a success?

Cant see what your getting at here it sounds like if its not specificly stated on the manifesto it isn't democratic?

What you are saying doesn'y make any sense. If a Government introduces hate laws, raises taxes and increases regulations, this can be considered illiberal, the opposite would be liberalism. To go forward with the attitude that those things are bad in principle can be described as being a Libertarian view. It doesn't need a rubber stamp.

I am not telling you how to live your life but in your philosophy its implied that you would tell others how to live their lives/ Opposing that can be said to be Libertarian. Yes I understand the conflict between Tyranny of Democracy, and Liberty. thats why Libertarianism tries to use Democracy that doesn't harm anyone other than preventing those who would harm or mess with others.. thats the ethos

 

[Guinness Boy]

Cant see what your getting at here it sounds like if its not specificly stated on the manifesto it isn't democratic?

I'm picking you up on one specific point which you have failed to answer on three occasions. You said it has ALWAYS succeeded. I'm asking you how you managed to come to that conclusion. Try to justify things like the global financial crisis, the amount of control in economies that are successful and the illiberal government controls in China that accompanied its economic success. If it ALWAYS succeeds it should be very easy to demonstrate. Or were you talking bollocks? Can you at least try to attempt this without being deliberately obtuse, throwing around false accusations of argumentative technique or copying and pasting from the dweebs you hang about on 4Chan with? Ta.