Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Democratic Party Embraces Nonreligious Voters Officially
#26

Democratic Party Embraces Nonreligious Voters Officially
(09-03-2019, 12:02 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(09-02-2019, 02:35 AM)grympy Wrote: I do not intentionally make enemies on forums or in real life. I apologise for any offence. Can we please move on.

Absolutely, we can. It may be me misreading as well, and if that's the case you have my apologies for such.

It's in the rear-view mirror here, these things happen. Peace, brotha.

Nonsense! Only one of you can be captain of the Milano Knives, knives to the death!

[Image: tumblr_p74xewdqTz1tlgqkgo5_250.gif]
  [Image: pirates.gif] Dog  
Reply
#27

Democratic Party Embraces Nonreligious Voters Officially
(09-03-2019, 05:02 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote:
(09-01-2019, 11:36 PM)grympy Wrote: Although your understanding is historically correct, today the term 'realpolitic' has a broader meaning.  I use it  in that sense. 


"Realpolitik (from German: real; "realistic", "practical", or "actual"; and [i]Politik[/i]; "politics", German pronunciation: [ʁeˈaːlpoliˌtiːk]) is politics or diplomacy based primarily on considerations of given circumstances and factors, rather than explicit ideological notions or moral and ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism. It is often simply referred to as "pragmatism" in politics, e.g. "pursuing pragmatic policies". The term Realpolitik is sometimes used pejoratively to imply politics that are perceived as coercive, amoral, or Machiavellian.[1] "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik




In the US,  realpolitik took on a rather ugly connotation after Nixon and Henry Kissinger.  It became an excuse to do amoral and illegal activities.  Being 'Stralian, you may not know that for many Americans, realpolitik is a dirty word. Just saying...


"Well, when the president does it, it means it is not illegal."
- Richard Nixon


Yes,I'm aware the ignorant and the romantic tend to use the term as a pejorative, as indeed they tend to  use the term  "Machiavellian' 

(they should read Sun Tzu. THAT would shock  their sensitive little souls)

My understanding  of 'realpolitik' boils down to"the ends justify the means"  . My observation is that this is the way politics actually works.

THAT political decisions are seldom if ever made on moral principle, but on the  perceived best  of country, or of party, or of self .  Or any combination of the three. 

That relations between countries are  almost always on the basis of quid pro quo. 

That nations do not have  friends. They have interests, allies, 'neutral' (there's really no such thing, inaction is a choice)  and enemies. 

An example; Port Arthur Tasmania, 1996. A lone gunman killed 32 people injured many more.The Prime Minister of the day was John Howard. He was shown on TV hugging the family members of victims. I remember thinking at he time that was the most human I'd ever seen him appear. 

Within a matter of weeks ,the government had passed legislation banning hand guns.  It is now  very difficult to own ANY firearm and several other weapons  in Oz.  (a bit easier for farmers to own low calibre rifles for killing foxes ,'roos, etc)

At the time, the country  applauded. Australia is not America , we have no second amendment. The majority view wast that the government had acted morally, in the best interest of the country. That was also my view at the time .

A cynical person could say the exercise was about more power for government t, which is objectively true.  I suspect that would be a common attitude in the US if a government did ANYTHING to restrict gun ownership,  let alone banning any kind of firearm .  

-and who would say Donald Trump governs in any other way than through the lense of his personal self interest? Consider .
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)