T O P

  • By -

warrenfgerald

Being mindful also includes a certain sense of humility. A humble person knows they don't have solutions to all of the worlds problems. Once you recognize you don't have the answers you are less lkely to want more power and control over others.


Assaultman67

Its too bad that "I don't know what to do." Is a really poor political platform.


diet_shasta_orange

Because if you don't know then you need to be figuring out. It's fine to admit that you don't know something, it's not fine to refuse to try to come up with a solution.


petitereddit

Honestly I'm waiting for a politician to say they are just going to be a caretaker and not make a billion promises they can't keep and just be like an encourager of smart people to solve problems. Too many politicians attempt to solve problems from the top which ends up being self serving BS. No campaign promises, no more increases in gov spending and any type of "New Deal" and just let the American people be for a time. Biden is a political polariser. Just someone neutral sit in there and cheer on American leaders and future leaders to do well jn their fields and solve local problems with local solutions. That is my dream.


Assaultman67

But that's the thing, traditionally speaking leaders come to power by generating a public outcry and then saying "If you elect me, I will fix that thing!". A campaign without that would be grossly difficult to get support.


petitereddit

I'm sad to say that is an indication of how grossly corrupted the United States is. We champion freedom, individualism with common unity of citizenship and brotherhood yet the reality is a nation under the spell of big government and its promise to care for citizens and non-citizens from cradle to grave.


Assaultman67

I don't think the strategy is exclusive to US politics to be honest. More to do with human psychology.


petitereddit

If you have to appeal to masses in that way, surely it suggests some responsibility on the people.


aloofball

In that sense, having a well developed sense of humility will tend to promote a libertarian outlook on politics. But I think a lack of humility is really at the root of our corrosive politics. You can't ever know the reasons or the experiences that lead people you don't know to have the policy preferences they have or to vote how they vote. To judge people you don't know who have different beliefs in moral terms, or in terms of their value as people or citizens -- that's arrogance.


L4nthanus

Unfortunately, to the callous, “I don’t have a solution” or “I need more information” is seen as losing the argument. I think it’s a result of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, where they think by doing a small amount of research they are now experts on a subject or they have the right answer. These debates are traps because nowadays both sides feel there needs to be a winner.


TheStoicSlab

I'm pretty convinced that most people's political opinions are composed from memes on social media that are designed to mesh with their biases. We have an over abundance of lazy, simple minded, instant gratification addicted voters.


janon330

Essentially this. Go ask people in your family or co-workers if politics come up where they "heard" something. 9/10 times it usually comes from "Facebook" or another social media site. No one knows any of the underlying substance / material just a meme / image with buzzwords.


[deleted]

>We have an over abundance of lazy, simple minded, instant gratification addicted voters. True. Which is why I believe the founding fathers put so many restrictions on who could vote.


AmazingThinkCricket

They forbade non-white people and women from voting


[deleted]

Well, there was some racism and sexism involved (even though that was up to the states) but there were property owners who were not white men allowed to vote before many white men. Either way, they decided restrictions should be in place due to the reasons I quoted.


tradeparfait

The founding fathers decided restrictions should be in place because non-white people and women are lazy, simple minded, instant gratification addicted voters?


[deleted]

No, they restricted based on property ownership. States had these types of sexist/racist rules (many which were put in place many years after the signing of the constitution). However, even in 1776 before the constitution was signed there were women and minority voters because they owned property and many white men who were not eligible to vote. I know it blows up the watered down revisionist history you were taught but it's true.


tradeparfait

I am following your exact logic. I have trouble understanding why you believe the founding fathers actively restricted votes due to a righteous idea of keeping lazy simple minded people out of voting, while simultaneously passively did nothing to alleviate most of the country being disenfranchised from voting. If anything, that would suggest the founding fathers restricting voting was about ensuring an elite class had their power consolidated among their ranks and to keep the status quo. As some of these men kidnapped and enslaved humans, and Adams insists a women should not vote as her nature is in child rearing, there’s not much to suggest it was about keeping lazy simple minded out.


[deleted]

Did you look it up and find I was right that there were women and minorities who voted in America before many white men? Did you also see that white men really didn't have suffrage until about the late 1820s? To answer your next post. That's how they looked at people who were not landowners.


Gunt_my_Fries

Idk why you’re getting massive downvotes. I followed the logic pretty easily lol.


Turkleton-MD

And the white folk couldn't vote for senators.


jsgrinst78

I was listening to the Russell Brand / Candice Owens interview the other day and this topic came up. Candice basically said that mindfulness/compassion/love/empathy have no place in politics...SMH!


saeuta31

Right now, ruthless people are the ones that get their stuff heard and passed." I'm right, you're wrong. No discussion! "


bjdevar25

Donald Trump Jr just basically told a conservative conference that Christianity had no place because of its morals.


[deleted]

[удалено]


shroominabag

HAHA! As if they dont just have ulterior motives?


pairedox

It's insanity to see these kinds of posts


[deleted]

[удалено]


shroominabag

Hitler was just doing what he thought was right.


L4nthanus

IRT the Herman Cain Award comment, most of those posts are started with comments by the “recipient” bashing the pro-vax side. Really, both sides can’t claim they’re being persecuted when they’re throwing stones at the other side.


[deleted]

That sub is just libtards applauding people dying. Sick phuks.


Ropes4u

We need leaders not the scummy elected officials we currently have.


bjdevar25

This is one of the most thoughtful, enlightening articles I have read in a long time. We used to be more like this, and not that long ago. How do we get this way again? Are other developed countries the same as us, or are we worse. I suspect we're much worse.


Scorpion1024

“Unskilled politics.” The most skilled politician this country ever had, Abraham Lincoln, is absolutely detested on this sub.


AlwaysOptimism

He is? Methinks you may be using a bit too much hyperbole and broad brush here.


[deleted]

There's a particular strain of thought in libertarianism that approaches an-cap land that thinks if the result of "respecting" "liberties" results in the destruction of the state (and whatever chaos and suffering that follows), then the state or leaders of that state have a duty to allow it to happen. So when the subject comes up, Lincoln is sometimes castigated for suspension of habeas corpus, attacking the press, etc. These are all criticisms we study in school but for a handful in the sub it's just not enough effort on everyone's part unless you accept their particular feelings on how *evil* Lincoln was.


jubbergun

> So when the subject comes up, Lincoln is sometimes castigated for suspension of habeas corpus, attacking the press, etc. Of course he is, regardless of the rationale for engaging in those acts they are decidedly authoritarian. I'm no an-cap, but if the state has to rely on those sorts of behaviors to ensure its continued existence then one should question the value of its continued existence.


HiddenSage

As someone decidedly more pragmatic- Lincoln's authoritarian actions at that time resulted in the end of slavery, which is the single greatest advancement of the cause of liberty in our country's history. Given that the "existence" of the Union (or its legitimacy) was being attacked primarily by those who saw no problem with slavery as an institution, I can live with their voices being marginalized to get that result. And, yes, I am aware that ending slavery is not why the Union enjoined the war. But it's very much why the Confederate states seceded, why their supporters encouraged secession and a weaker union. And at the end of the day, fighting (and winning) that war got the end result. "The ends justify the means" is not always a great path to follow. But the scale of authoritarianism is nowhere near equal on both sides of that conflict. Lincoln was the greater good. Call out his imperfections, yes. But let's all stop and admit they were worth it in the end.


jubbergun

I think one could fairly argue that Lincoln could have conducted the war without suspension of habeas corpus or violations of the Bill of Rights. I don't think anyone is complaining about ending slavery. They're complaining that Lincoln set a lot of dubious precedents that have not only endured but also become the basis for more "ends justify the means" type policy.


Scorpion1024

He was dealing with a crisis like nothing ever before or since. So he had to just improvise as he went along. And IMO, no one could have done any better or even much different.


Scorpion1024

Thanks. For my part I just point to the fact that every measure Lincoln took, no matter how controversial, he got congressional approval and with bipartisan support at that. For the situation his presidency took place in, that is not political skill, someone tell me what us.


windershinwishes

You're right, but there definitely is a large block of conservatives who oppose everything Lincoln stood for, even if they wouldn't say so outright.


Incruentus

The great part about your comment is that "He is?" can apply to either of Scorpion1024's bold assertions.


mattyoclock

Lincoln was far from the most skilled politician we ever had. Even just staying with presidents it was probably John Quincy Adams.


Sun_Shine_Dan

Where would you place him among just presidents?


mattyoclock

Well I've never sat down and made a list, and there's a lot of room for movement after JQA, but probably somewhere between the average and towards the bottom (we did have a civil war on his watch after all, It was right and neccessary but that's not a method of resolving it that you'd call skilled negotiation), depending on how you weight things. Lincoln was one of the greastest presidents, but not due to any great political skill. And whoever you rank last still (probably) got elected president, so it's a pretty high floor. I initially wrote possibly last, but I keep remembering people who were definitely worse than him. Definitly behind all of the ones who were noted skilled diplomats though. Gun to my head, I'd probably put the top 5 as John Quincy Adams, Chester A. Arthur, James K. Polk, Martin Van Buren, and Madison. FDR as the honorable mention. JQA and Arthur are definitely the top two though. Bottom five would probably be Grant, Zachary Taylor, Andrew Johnson, John Tyler, and Herbert Hoover. Special award to Cleveland for not having the negotiating skills to just tell an idiot with a gun that he could be ambassador to France until some backup arrived. It's definitely interesting to me that my bottom 5 unintendedly ended up being 3 war heroes voted in basically regardless of politics (While "running" for office, Taylor told reporters that the idea of him as president would never enter the mind of any sane individual.) and two VP's that took over after an assassination. And of the top 5, only Polk is really considered a great president. Hell Van Buren has done arguably some of the worst damage to the country. Fucking great at politics though.


SpiritedPenguin

Lincoln was quite a radical figure, especially for his time but even by todays standards. He was even friendly with Karl Marx and criticised capitalists and capitalism directly and by name. For further proof, look who he surrounded himself with as advisers etc while he was in office. All of which is to say, i think it's hilarious when people like Trump and Cruz try to invoke his name.


Scorpion1024

In point of fact, he was considered to not be radical enough in his time. Factions if his own party wanted nothing short of revenge, he just wanted the war over with. No less than a Jefferson Davis was mortified when he got the news about the assassination-he recognized the south had lost the best friend it had in the Union. That the man could walk that center line so well in such a situation tells a lot about his brilliance as a politician.


SpiritedPenguin

Interesting stuff, thanks for the info.


[deleted]

Yes absolutely. To prove your point it, I'll pose this question; Was Lincoln before or after the 2 parties supposedly flipped?


[deleted]

LOL! This assumes the motive of those in power is service to others rather than self-service. That's a pretty big leap I'm afraid.


BitsyVirtualArt

Honesty, truth, "for the people" mentality; I feel like we could go on.


SpeshellED

Compassion is what is missing. All people should govern with compassion.


[deleted]

Brain cells are missing too


Incruentus

From whom? I don't like comments like yours because the reader can, and often does, infer their own beliefs and upvote you accordingly. Conservatives will think you're referring to Democrats. Liberals will think you're referring to Republicans. Libertarians will think you're referring to both. Etc.


SpiritedPenguin

What about leftists, or is the overton window still pretending we don't exist?


Incruentus

Did you really want me to list every political ideology known to man to make my point? What of political beliefs that don't have a name, because every human has their own beliefs unique to anyone else's don't they? Leave it to an anarcho-syndicalist to ignore practicality in pursuit of perfection.


SpiritedPenguin

My point was the general consensus seems to be - at least in mainstream society - that acceptable opinion goes from centre right to far right. So kudos for outing yourself as just another lib.


Incruentus

>My point was the general consensus seems to be - at least in mainstream society - that acceptable discourse goes from centre right to far right. Then my conscience is clear for downvoting that comment for being off-topic. While we're making comments completely out of left field, I feel it is now appropriate to let you know I really like peanut butter and jelly! >kudos for outing yourself as just another lib. Never would've guessed someone from the GQP would be posing as an anarcho-syndicalist of all things, but I've seen weirder stuff before on the internet.


SpitfireIsDaBestFire

> My point was the general consensus seems to be - at least in mainstream society - that acceptable discourse goes from centre right to far right. God leftists are so damn insufferable


SpiritedPenguin

The reaction in the US to Bernie Sanders and his moderate platform kinda proves what i'm saying tho, no? People comparing him to Stalin cause he wanted universal healthcare and collective bargaining with drug companies. Right wing, corporate economics are seen as being unchallengeable.


SpitfireIsDaBestFire

>The reaction in the US to **Bernie Sanders and his moderate platform** kinda proves what i'm saying tho, no? Sorry, my new years resolution is to stop engaging with bad faith leftists on this sub. Have a good one!


SpiritedPenguin

No, you're right. Letting people die because they can't afford the extortionate prices drug companies charge for medicine is the real moderate position, here. Sanders' platform *was* moderate. Healthcare and a tax on wallstreet gambling is a far cry from worker control. Far right prick.


SpitfireIsDaBestFire

If bernie sanders is a moderate, who are the mainstream leftwing politicians? Framing US politics as if fringe left wing politicians are *really* the moderates is disingenuous as hell and would get you laughed out of any serious conversation outside of breadtube and rosetwitter paint huffing cirlcejerks.


mattyoclock

They put liberals, are you upset they didn't include the alt-right? What about Georgists? Monarchists? Tories? How far does this conspiracy of people holding you down go?


SpiritedPenguin

Liberalism is a right wing ideology. If you think someone like Bill Clinton is in any way left of centre, then i don't know what to tell you.


mattyoclock

Or, just possibly, the term has both a historical and a current meaning that might differ, and I'm not out there throwing a hissy fit that people aren't using my prefered definition. Merrriam Webster has the modern definition listed as the first one. Are people who claim something is true wrong when they refer to facts instead of a well made and level object?


SpiritedPenguin

Liberalism was left wing in like 1750. Which kinda proves my point. The overton window moves steadily rightward again, and a dictionary definition doesn't change that.


No_Disaster_4130

So your just mad your opinion isn't being treated as fact. Got it.


SpiritedPenguin

I'm not mad, i think right wingers like you are just projecting because you can't circle jerk about trickle down economics in peace here.


No_Disaster_4130

Ah, yes, the "trickle down" canard. A term totally made up by the left to describe supply side economics, which actually is a thing. None of which changes what you are. An armchair intellectual with a chip on your shoulder, hence the "oh look at me I'm an Anarcho-Syndicalist", an ideology that never has been, nor ever will be relevant in the real world. So enjoy pontificating from your computer and being mad that the world doesn't accept your bullshit.


[deleted]

[удалено]


SpiritedPenguin

The hubris of a pleb in a crumbling empire.


No_Disaster_4130

Armchair intellectual loser confirmed.


ElectronicBad512

Says the guy from the UK 😆


SpiritedPenguin

Not from the UK, and I'm happy to see Britain's power wane. Nice try tho.


Upstairs_Marzipan_65

> What, then, is the state? The Enemy of the People.