• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which one is the most dishonest active Politician?

Which one is the most dishonest active politician?


  • Total voters
    67
  • Poll closed .
You might want to read some original works by Mussolini. He was the "father" of modern fascism, and he stated that fascism is completely opposed to socialism and liberalism. Apparently YOU didn't know this particular fact. Here are some quotes from The Doctrine of Fascism by Benito Mussolini:

"Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism"
"Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere."
"The Fascist negation of socialism, democracy, liberalism"

Mussolini* - THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM

I always enjoy watching right wingers attempt to paint fascism as a left wing ideology... and have that erroneous belief blown apart by the guy who developed the ideology in the 20th Century.

While I would not want to disagree totally, seeing that Fascism is certainly the opposite of liberal. But the Nazis were Fascists and they were socialistic right down to the name. But then Liberalism and Socialism are mutually exclusive also.
 
You can only vote for one and it would be nice if it came with an explanation.

I don't think the most dishonest politician is in the US.

But it looks as if some people distrust Obama and that he, at least, takes that cookie.
 
While I would not want to disagree totally, seeing that Fascism is certainly the opposite of liberal. But the Nazis were Fascists and they were socialistic right down to the name. But then Liberalism and Socialism are mutually exclusive also.

Just because they used the word socialist in their name doesn't mean they stuck to socialist ideals. Some believe that the use of the term "socialist" was a misnomer to attract popularity of the movement. Remember... socialism was against private ownership... nazism had no issue with private ownership. Socialism has a classless society... nazism is anything but classless... there is always a hierarchy. The only commonality that socialism and nazism have is government ownership and administration. However, pretty much everything else is different.
 
Just because they used the word socialist in their name doesn't mean they stuck to socialist ideals. Some believe that the use of the term "socialist" was a misnomer to attract popularity of the movement. Remember... socialism was against private ownership... nazism had no issue with private ownership. Socialism has a classless society... nazism is anything but classless... there is always a hierarchy. The only commonality that socialism and nazism have is government ownership and administration. However, pretty much everything else is different.

I do not know that I would go along that route with you. Socialism puts the collective ahead of the individual as the leading principal of organisation. And that is exactly, what fascism does. It defines who is part of the collective, what is best for the members and how to do it. This is the opposite to liberal philosophy, though, there is some confusion in the States, as liberal has assumed the meaning of fiscal largess. Actually that is not liberal in the meaning outside the US and originally.
 
For example, how he was the first republican governor to endorse Romney. He made that claim for the first time in August of 2012. He endorsed Romney on October 11 in 2011 when he traveled to New Hampshire to endorse Romney as presidential nominee for the republican party. He might have been one of the first but governor David Heineman of Nebraska had endorsed Romney 4 months earlier than Christie had done and Idaho governor Butch Otter was also earlier than Christie to endorse Romney for President/nominee. It may not be a big lie but it is untrue nevertheless.

Another example in which Christie boasted he cut 360 million from the budget by using line item vetoes was also ruled as false PolitiFact New Jersey | Chris Christie claims he cut $360 million from the state Legislature

He lied when he stated in a video posted on youtube that the democrats that year "are opposed to ANY tax cuts". The democrats might have been against his plan but had also put forward a plan to lower taxes but had only wanted to cut them for people making less than 250,000 dollars. That seems to mean that they were willing to cut taxes after all, something Christie said the democrats did not want to cut ANY taxes, making his statement completely false. PolitiFact New Jersey | Chris Christie claims Democrats

This one is also a lie/false claim that Christie loves to repeat (even though it has been proven wrong more than once by politifact) PolitiFact New Jersey | Chris Christie repeats misleading statistic on Newark

Okay, so a bunch of irrelevant bull****.

In other words, a politician being a politician.

Yawn...
 
Okay, so a bunch of irrelevant bull****.

In other words, a politician being a politician.

Yawn...

Asked was if he had lied and he has lied. And I just gave a few examples, there were plenty more there. Sure, he does not tel lies like Bachmann does but that does not change the fact that he does lie.
 
Asked was if he had lied and he has lied. And I just gave a few examples, there were plenty more there. Sure, he does not tel lies like Bachmann does but that does not change the fact that he does lie.

Of course he's lied.

He's a politician, that's what they do.

I never suggested that he didn't lie.

I just asked what lies he's told because, frankly, as a NJ resident and habitual Christie voter I've never head of him lying in any kind of outrageous manner.

I was afraid (?) that there was some vast conspiracy theory circulating throughout the far right wing idiotsphere that I hadn't heard about.

But his BIG LIE is that he personally only cut the budget by about 1/4 as much as he claimed?

Like I said, yawn.

In NJ, I'm grateful we've got a governor cutting the budget at all.
 
While I would not want to disagree totally, seeing that Fascism is certainly the opposite of liberal. But the Nazis were Fascists and they were socialistic right down to the name. But then Liberalism and Socialism are mutually exclusive also.
Naming is more marketing than anything else. The "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" (North Korea) is hardly democratic nor a 'people's' government, regardless what the name says.
 
You are absolutely within your right to think Obama sucks and to a point I will agree with you, he will not go into the history books as a great president but guess what, neither will his predecessor go into those history books as a great president. Some might actually call him an even worse president than Obama (I would be one of them) but that does not mean that I think Obama is that great a president.

It all comes down however in this poll is whether Obama is the most dishonest active politician and that is not the case IMHO, there are people way worse (like Bachmann) who qualify for that title.

Fortunately for me Bush allowed me to double down on income so even a bad President like Obama could not **** it up.
 
Fact of the matter is, that Fascism has a lot of different definitions, it has been, and no doubt will continue to be, greatly argued… However, Fascism, as I originally premised, hardly comes from the right… it comes, initially, from Mussolini who previously held the very prestigious position as the vaunted editor of Avanti!, the most prominent Socialist paper in Italy, while simultaneously being considered one of the most foremost Socialists in Italy prior to WW1… and he is also considered the Father of Fascism, more narrowly Italian Fascism, so you cannot deny, in the face of the facts, that he came out of the left. Where is evidence of right wing influence in the formation of fascism?


Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (there's a whole slew of definitions there, actually, but anti-marxist and anti-left principles are predominant
Here you have many conflicting values involved.

Should you really want to debate this, if you feel confident in what you believe to be the truth, first you will need to define your terms… after which we can discuss where on the political spectrum lies Fascism...left or right.

So I ask you, what is it that you consider left wing/liberal … and what do you consider right wing/conservative?

I would suggest there might be considerable overlap and so we need to dispense with those values as they are not specifically determinative of either. I would also suggest that there is a cosmic variance between right wing/conservative this side of the Atlantic contrasted with the other. When we are talking right wing on this side, that is of what I am speaking.



source: my apple computer's on board dictionary (take that as you will)
Nahhh, no thanks.


You see, this, along with much in the other definitions, is where revisionism/error has frequently occurred. If we break down each part of the definition, you could redirect it at those aspects of communism/socialism, which is leftist and from which fascism originally came, far more than you could right wing out of which what is considered American conservatism springs.

So, lets start with what you consider to be left wing and what you think is right wing… establish a baseline and see where the argument actually falls.
 
Yes, and children always do as their fathers do :roll: Mussolini denounced socialism and started something that is close to the opposite of socialism, fascism. Do not get me wrong, fascist and communist dictators are about the same thing when it comes to the misdeeds they do but the do it out of 2 differing ideologies. Fascism is the ideology of right wing policies jumbled together with some left wing political elements in order to form a totalitarian, ultra-nationalist, anti-democratic, highly militaristic order which revels in anti revolutionary tactics like war, inequality, superiority principle of certain individuals, violence and worship of the state. Fascist are known as the opposite end of the spectrum towards communism.

Hitler might have used populist policies that communists often also use as a lure for the poor of Germany to rally around him, his policies have been shown to be the opposite of communism.

But as said, revisionist right wing individuals are not too happy with the filth at their end of the political spectrum and try to revise it so that it is the fault of the leftists (like they do with just about everything else in the universe that is not approved by them) instead of realizing that this filth of fascism and nazi might be right wing but that it has nothing to do with right wing policies as a whole. Own your black sheep (the nazi's and fascist) just like we of the left have to own our black sheep (the commies and their decades of terror and death) and be happy that we are no longer like that.

Someone from the right should feel sad that one time there was an extreme right but also be aware that it has nothing to do with a democratic right wing person of the here and now. You have no responsibility for the dark history that fascists and nazi perpetrated in the name of right wing ideology, it has nothing to do with right wing people of today. Learn from the mistakes of the past and move forward into a brighter future for right wing and conservative politics. And the same goes for left wing people, we should feel sad that there once was communism like Stalin and Mao etc. perpetrated but also be aware that it has nothing to do with democratic left wing person of the here and now. We have no responsibility for the dark history that communists perpetrated in the name of left wing ideology, it has nothing to do with left wing people of today. Learn from the mistakes of the past and move forward into a brighter future in the name of left wing and progressive politics.
Peter, you are going to have to be a lot more specific than just throwing the word "filth" over in our, the conservative's, direction. Maybe over there, on your side of the Atlantic, right wing might be what your vision is of what you are talking about, though I doubt that.

The "filth" is all leftist styled filth. Without trying to be overly simplistic, the main difference between a Stalin and a Mussolini or Hitler/Schicklgruber, would be the internationalism of communism originating from Moscow versus the nationalism of the Italian Fascist and the Germanic Fascist/Nazi. All three had the state in a supreme role, not at all like the individualism of rights as promoted by the Classical Liberalism of our founding fathers/framers, the conservatism to which we harken back and which has continuously been upheld by the American right.
 
You might want to read some original works by Mussolini. He was the "father" of modern fascism, and he stated that fascism is completely opposed to socialism and liberalism. Apparently YOU didn't know this particular fact. Here are some quotes from The Doctrine of Fascism by Benito Mussolini:

"Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism"
"Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere."
"The Fascist negation of socialism, democracy, liberalism"

Mussolini* - THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM

I always enjoy watching right wingers attempt to paint fascism as a left wing ideology... and have that erroneous belief blown apart by the guy who developed the ideology in the 20th Century.
As always, nice try (sic) there Cap'n.

You can avoid it all you want, but Fascism [ you can read my recent posts to others ] most definitely comes out of the left, not the right. So strain or contort as much as you may desire, facts are facts, history is there to be referenced. Beware of the mental hernia from pushing too hard.

The main reason that the Fascists/Nazis hated the Communists so much is that they were trying to recruit from basically the same base of the ideologically lost/stupid... both wanting to remake man, the "New Man", the incessant liberal vision, the constant mantra, for achieving their idea of a utopia here on earth.

Yes, they were against, diametrically opposed to [Classical] liberalism, the idea of individual rights, free markets, the idea of limited government. Certainly.

Right wing/conservatism in the United States, and that is what we are referencing here, is all about democracy, principally the representative style of democracy, republicanism, as proposed/practiced by our founders/framers.

Please know your terms so as not to keep stepping on your own arguments.
 
As always, nice try (sic) there Cap'n.

And, as usual, you failed... so you attempt to place an e-smirk on your face to hide this failure.

You can avoid it all you want, but Fascism [ you can read my recent posts to others ] most definitely comes out of the left, not the right. So strain or contort as much as you may desire, facts are facts, history is there to be referenced. Beware of the mental hernia from pushing too hard.

Facts are facts. And facts are precisely what I posted... from Mussolini himself. I never stated that Mussolini's fascism came from the right. What I claimed was that Mussolini's fascism was anti-liberal and anti-socialist. It was, just as he stated. So, as usual, your mental gymnastics to attempt to be correct fall flat.

The main reason that the Fascists/Nazis hated the Communists so much is that they were trying to recruit from basically the same base of the ideologically lost/stupid... both wanting to remake man, the "New Man", the incessant liberal vision, the constant mantra, for achieving their idea of a utopia here on earth.

Actually, the main reason the Fascists/ Nazis hated the Communists was because in pure communism, there is no hierarchy; in fascism few have the power over the many. This is such a basic distinction, I am surprised that you didn't know it.

Yes, they were against, diametrically opposed to [Classical] liberalism, the idea of individual rights, free markets, the idea of limited government. Certainly.

They were diametrically opposed to democracy, liberalism, and socialism. Mussolini said it himself. Just because you refuse to acknowledge it doesn't make it any less true.

Right wing/conservatism in the United States, and that is what we are referencing here, is all about democracy, principally the representative style of democracy, republicanism, as proposed/practiced by our founders/framers.

Our founders practiced a variety of philosophies ranging from the liberal to the conservative. Only someone who reads history with blinders on would not see that.

Please know your terms so as not to keep stepping on your own arguments.

Well, since you did absolutely nothing to refute a word I said (typical of you), I would suggest that you go back and read up on fascism and nazism so you have a better understanding of things. That way, I won't have to correct you... as I always do.
 
Naming is more marketing than anything else. The "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" (North Korea) is hardly democratic nor a 'people's' government, regardless what the name says.

True. And I like what you say there as a general rule. But in the case of the Nazis they did install systems to benefit the laborers, control prices, rents, medical care and so forth. They aimed for an egalitarian society under the Party, though, they were realistic enough to know they could not rock the boat before winning the war. Luckily for Quandt, Flick etc they did not win and went on to bring us BMW and Mercedes.
 
And, as usual, you failed... so you attempt to place an e-smirk on your face to hide this failure. Truly, the only failures are those pronouncing them in others without this being so. I won't, and cannot, take those failures away from you Cap'n, this is what you do, always do, anyhow. But does start getting tired and haggard rather quickly. Makes it rather a drudge for which I can only waste so much of my time. This is it.

Facts are facts. And facts are precisely what I posted... from Mussolini himself. I never stated that Mussolini's fascism came from the right. What I claimed was that Mussolini's fascism was anti-liberal and anti-socialist. It was, just as he stated. So, as usual, your mental gymnastics to attempt to be correct fall flat. First of all, you were countering what I said which was exactly that Fascism comes from the left. And, just like Obama saying "If you want to keep your health care plan, you can keep it. Period", you cannot, should not, believe what those from the left tell you... they are not, in fact, facts... but often carefully manipulated lies. Obama also tries to say he is not a Socialist and yet in almost every action, including the lying, shows himself to be a major redistributionist.

Did you actually read what Mussolini said, by the way... or just take someone's word for it? You do not see the obvious statist, stated anti-individual rights stance which in the first instance all limited-government conservatism fights so constantly against, the later sentiment regarding individual rights being just what right wing conservatives fight so hard to retain:


Directly, in red, from the article you posted Mussolini* - THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM

"There can be no conception of the State which is not fundamentally a conception of life" That is hardly an American right wing concept...it is, however, a liberal, definitely a left wing concept.

"Fascism sees in the world not only those superficial, material aspects in which man appears as an individual, standing by himself, self-centered, subject to natural law, which instinctively urges him toward a life of selfish momentary pleasure; it sees not only the individual but the nation and the country;" or... this, which builds on what I was saying in my other posts which, I am sure even tho I encouraged you to do so, you probably did not read "Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity. It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts "


Actually, the main reason the Fascists/ Nazis hated the Communists was because in pure communism, there is no hierarchy; in fascism few have the power over the many. This is such a basic distinction, I am surprised that you didn't know it.
Well, as you know, or should know, there is not now, has never been and will never be [ and I use such absolutes rarely] PURE COMMUNISM. So, there was no reason whatsoever to fear the communists for that silliness. That proposed view of what went on is almost a sixth grader's and it is absolutely absurd to propound such.


They were diametrically opposed to democracy, liberalism, and socialism. Mussolini said it himself. Just because you refuse to acknowledge it doesn't make it any less true. And as I stated previously, just because a leftist says its true usually makes it otherwise. Mussolini may have been, probably indeed was, against socialism in the Leninist form, Benito's socialism had more of a nationalistic bent...but it was socialism and it was from the left. Deny it all you want, bang your head against the wall all you want, makes no never mind as regards what Benito really was and from where Fascism comes and what it is.



Our founders practiced a variety of philosophies ranging from the liberal to the conservative. Only someone who reads history with blinders on would not see that. Well, I am not going to write a book here on the founding... but what we have with our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, which are two of the main documents upon which the right, the conservatives harken back, those to which we try to preserve [ conserve ] which presupposes individual rights and limited government. And there is nobody that really posits, at least not credibly, that our founders were, and the right wing continues the tradition, what is now known as Classical Liberals. Of course, this flies directly in the face of what Mussolini was stating in the article you referenced and from which I took just a few of the representative of his thoughts, above.



Well, since you did absolutely nothing to refute a word I said (typical of you), I would suggest that you go back and read up on fascism and nazism so you have a better understanding of things. That way, I won't have to correct you... as I always do.
You have only proven that you really have no idea what you are talking about with regards to this specific topic. I am not going to continue going round and round with you, tho, as you never have any inkling as to when you are completely outflanked and beaten, you just keep going like an Everyready Bunny.

But mainly though, as per usual, you have no real concept of what it is you are going on about.

 
True. And I like what you say there as a general rule. But in the case of the Nazis they did install systems to benefit the laborers, control prices, rents, medical care and so forth. They aimed for an egalitarian society under the Party, though, they were realistic enough to know they could not rock the boat before winning the war. Luckily for Quandt, Flick etc they did not win and went on to bring us BMW and Mercedes.
You bet. They did things to help and appeal to the average worker and citizen. But, they also understood that a richer business/manufacturing class was necessary as well.

I read a term in a book just recently about their goal. It was "consensus dictatorship", if I recall correctly. Basically, yes, they wanted to rule dictatorially, but they wanted it to be legitimately popular at the same time.
 
You bet. They did things to help and appeal to the average worker and citizen. But, they also understood that a richer business/manufacturing class was necessary as well.

I read a term in a book just recently about their goal. It was "consensus dictatorship", if I recall correctly. Basically, yes, they wanted to rule dictatorially, but they wanted it to be legitimately popular at the same time.

Sorry if jumping in, but would agree with that being a plausible premise. More the state direction of industry/business through subtle persuasion, from the powerful sidelines, being the government, having the power of the purse, a history of not taking brutality off the table, a very popular "leader", one who, like FDR and Churchill, knew how to use his voice... using the more distant levers of government to control the state.

Popular leader with the stick and carrot game. Tricky, but what isn't?
 
Peter, you are going to have to be a lot more specific than just throwing the word "filth" over in our, the conservative's, direction. Maybe over there, on your side of the Atlantic, right wing might be what your vision is of what you are talking about, though I doubt that.

The "filth" is all leftist styled filth. Without trying to be overly simplistic, the main difference between a Stalin and a Mussolini or Hitler/Schicklgruber, would be the internationalism of communism originating from Moscow versus the nationalism of the Italian Fascist and the Germanic Fascist/Nazi. All three had the state in a supreme role, not at all like the individualism of rights as promoted by the Classical Liberalism of our founding fathers/framers, the conservatism to which we harken back and which has continuously been upheld by the American right.

Filth, with filth I mean the right wing racist groups and right wing terrorists and no other groups. I may dislike anti-women anti-gay and just about anti-anything conservatives but that is just on ideological differences not because I think they are filth.

Filth like the Right wing ideologies of the Nazi's, Fascists and Neo-nazi's. Filth like left wing ideologies like Stalin/Mao/North Korea like communism and left wing terrorist organizations. That is what I think is filth.

And I am sorry, but there is a lot more differences with Stalinist like communists (leftist filth) and Nazi/fascists (right wing filth).

You are the one who is talking about conservatism and that is not what I am including in the right wing filth. And more ideologies other than conservatism uphold the rights of individuals.
 
Filth, with filth I mean the right wing racist groups and right wing terrorists and no other groups. I may dislike anti-women anti-gay and just about anti-anything conservatives but that is just on ideological differences not because I think they are filth.

Filth like the Right wing ideologies of the Nazi's, Fascists and Neo-nazi's. Filth like left wing ideologies like Stalin/Mao/North Korea like communism and left wing terrorist organizations. That is what I think is filth.

And I am sorry, but there is a lot more differences with Stalinist like communists (leftist filth) and Nazi/fascists (right wing filth).

You are the one who is talking about conservatism and that is not what I am including in the right wing filth. And more ideologies other than conservatism uphold the rights of individuals.
I ll put forth the same offer as I made to Cardinal, lets see who can match their claims to the reality....so, how do you define right wing? How do you define left wing?

American conservatism/right-wing is not your Euro right-wingedness.

and...

Mainly, you throw a lot of name association with bad things, I see not one thing persuasive that you are using to score any real/substantive points, much less to win, from your point of view. Lets start at the baseline and work forward, see who can flesh out the argument best assessing which side is which, what is actually left and what is actually right.
 
I ll put forth the same offer as I made to Cardinal, lets see who can match their claims to the reality....so, how do you define right wing? How do you define left wing?

American conservatism/right-wing is not your Euro right-wingedness.

and...

Mainly, you throw a lot of name association with bad things, I see not one thing persuasive that you are using to score any real/substantive points, much less to win, from your point of view. Lets start at the baseline and work forward, see who can flesh out the argument best assessing which side is which, what is actually left and what is actually right.

Far right, nazi

Far left, communism


You may not like it but only revisionists try to distort reality are into re-branding what is right wing filth into left wing filth. We on the left have our own filth/dark past to understand and never repeat and we are not going to take the blame because some on the right are trying to revise history for dishonest or worse reasons. Sorry, not going to play that game.
 
Far right, nazi

Far left, communism


You may not like it but only revisionists try to distort reality are into re-branding what is right wing filth into left wing filth. We on the left have our own filth/dark past to understand and never repeat and we are not going to take the blame because some on the right are trying to revise history for dishonest or worse reasons. Sorry, not going to play that game.
The re-branding was done early on, which is why you are now absolutely convinced, without putting any mental effort at all into it.

Speaks volumes, so thanks... I guess, for sparing me what, obviously, would have been a totally wasted effort.
 
You bet. They did things to help and appeal to the average worker and citizen. But, they also understood that a richer business/manufacturing class was necessary as well.

I read a term in a book just recently about their goal. It was "consensus dictatorship", if I recall correctly. Basically, yes, they wanted to rule dictatorially, but they wanted it to be legitimately popular at the same time.

As far as I understand the people that lived at that time the consensus was rather broadly based. What is interesting is that that is still a central feature of German culture and you could call it a "consensus culture" with what you would then call a "consensus democracy". Problem is, that that means that, when the consensus is wrong it holds on to mistaken policy much longer than less consensus driven societies, because the sanctions for breaking ranks are high. And so the costs of the mistake grow much larger than they would in a less consensus ridden culture. This is what is happening at the moment with a number of issues.
The second problem is that in a consensus dominated society there is no effective mechanism to avoid sliding into dictatorship once the slide take force. Too few realize, what is happening until it is very late. This was one major factor in the 1930s slide into Nazism.
 
I haven't and will not read this thread, which is (I am almost sure) just going to be various posters bitching about their pet politician hates.

But I personally think that, in the current federal political framework (and many if not all of the state frameworks, local frameworks, etc), a politicians success has an inverse relationship to how corrupt they are.

IOW, a corrupt politician is a successful politician.
 
Back
Top Bottom