Oh man, yeah, these "authoritarians", such a novel concept both in the US and in Europe!
Printable View
Oh man, yeah, these "authoritarians", such a novel concept both in the US and in Europe!
It's a good thing she wasn't in Germany, Merkel would have ordered her prosecuted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
So tell me, are you going through a particularly bad breakup or are you always an asshole?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
That seems a very limited definition of authoritarian either that or just a wholesale redefining of a word that fits their political views.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Research on authoritarian personalities is more than half a century old.
They are talking about persevering the status queue and anti-immigration issues. The way I view authoritarians in government is about command and control:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Minimum Wage laws
Strict Business Regulation (Frank-Dodd)
Banning of political speech (Campaign Finance Reform)
Compulsory Education (see blue states that make parents jump through hoops for home schooling)
Forced confiscation of money for non-essential government programs
These are all example of authoritarian acts that I wage the author has NO problem with.
War is peace.
The authoritarian personality is separate from a person's political beliefs. Otherwise, it would be a circular argument.
Actually no it isn't. You can be authoritarian and be in either party. IE Republicans who want to ban sodomy are of the same ilk as those who want to ban political speech. They think the state knows better than the common person on how to run their life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
It goes beyond politics of course. You'll also see rules obsessive people often in neighborhood associations measuring the height of other people's grass and the type of playground in a backyard. :|
You missed my point. You can't use an authoritarian personality to predict political beliefs if you define that personality in terms of those political beliefs. It would be true by definition (akin to saying scoring more goals than the other team is a cause of victory). The point of this research is to show that genetic personality traits, ones relating to how one views the world and one's position within it, lead people to support certain kinds of politicians under certain conditions. An authoritarian personality is one that prizes order over creativity, stability over justice, etc.
I think what Merkel chose to do was an injustice and a betrayal. Odd that you should be linking behavior your find unpleasant to either personal problems or a deficient personality though. Which of those two options explains the last fifteen years of your interaction with. . . well almost everyone on here outside the EMU? Does your partner really make you that miserable, Hazir?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Yes there has been a shocking amount of authoritarians in the UK whining about why the government didn't "ban" the Leave side from making the 350mn claim? Without a bit to say about far more egrious lies on the government's side like the "punishment budget" or £4300 figures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I'm shocked and horrified that in the 21st century people think the government censoring political speech is a good idea, but apparently anything is acceptable nowadays so long as it prevents the government being defeated.
Twit and twat. Between RandBlade and you who is who?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
FYI my partner and I have fun following both this and Game of Thrones.
:shrugs: Not just Rand and me. You treat everyone across the pond, along with Rand, EJ, and even Steely, the exact way I'm responding to Merkel's decision any time the topic goes against what you agree with. Most of the posters here make those sarcastic jabs from time to time, even Minx (not Wiggin though).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
But you've declared that such behavior can only arise from venting as coping for unrelated stress or from a personality disorder. If you aren't miserable with your boyfriend, by your own framework that means you're just a raging asshole.
You guys should totally kiss
I doubt it :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
What? WTF are you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Where have you been hiding, my love?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-b..._10619944.html
True or not, will this prove to be important in the upcoming election?
I doubt it; the kind of people who would vote for Trump would almost automatically assume this is an attempt to bring him down. The kind of people who take it serious would never even consider voting for Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I find the author a bit disingenious by the way; the main media are merely reporting in the Cosby case. The reporting in a Trump case could - regardless of veracity of the claim - potentially have political effects. They have to consider that.
I think the Trump University lawsuit is more damning, especially in terms of the amount of evidence present. And yet it's had no effect.
Can anyone explain to me, in a reasonably objective and charitable way and not too simplistic way, why some of Bernie's supporters may seriously be considering voting for a third candidate in the belief that Clinton would be worse than Trump?
Like, what do they seriously believe Clinton would do that would be worse than what Trump may do?
I'm completely baffled. I can understand how the left may dislike Clinton but to think that a Clinton presidency would be worse than driving the entire political system of the US closer to the brown end of the spectrum? I dunno. I don't understand it.
Politics isn't always transitive. You always get idiots, and you get people who get so angry during primaries that they decide to vote for the other party rather than the person who defeated their preferred candidate. Last I saw, it was only 20% of Bernie supporters, and those numbers will come down as campaigning will get under way. I believe about 50% of Clinton supporters said they wouldn't vote for Obama in 2008, and yet a vast majority did.
Similar but in reverse to how mainstream Republicans may seriously be considering voting for a third candidate in the belief that Trump would be worse than Clinton (despite hating Clinton for decades).Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Moonbat loons (like Bernie and Trump) are not on the same field as mainstream politicians. Their supports similarly are not the most well grounded either.
The idea would be to send a message to the 'establishment' that they don't want 'third way' DINOs considered in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Told ya... Cruz was right. "If Trump is the nominee, Clinton will win."
This guy is a clown, best thing that can happen is that he gets obliterated and Republican voters learn how to vote properly. My protest vote is going for Johnson. Bring on Rand Paul as the anti-Trump in 2020.
Cruz wouldn't win. Too unlikable. Rubio probably would though.
I would give Cruz one in three odds, still likely to lose but could have done it. I'm giving Trump one in a hundred odds. Basically Clinton has to do something completely retarded in the debates or videotape of her being a grade A bitch to someone. Its hers to lose at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Pretty sure there are millions of people in this country who could chosen to run against Clinton today and have a higher chance of winning than Trump. That's a rather low threshold. But Cruz is liked by no one and is too extreme ideologically to win the presidency. In fact, if I recall correctly, Trump was polling better against Clinton than was Cruz.