Thoughts on the right wing?

"The enemy is really just whoever's story we haven't had the chance to hear yet." 😢

Matthew Castillo5 said:If you haven't heard of the leftists who—driven by that exact same sense of superiority—systematically purged entire groups of people (the bourgeoisie, the wealthy landowners, intellectuals, homosexuals, "enemies of the state," etc.), then you are seriously lacking a basic understanding of 20th-century history.
Or are you going to try and argue that Stalin, Marshall, Mao Zedong, Ceaușescu, Enver Hoxha, Fidel Castro, and Che Guevara were actually right-wingers? 😵

To be brief:

Adolf Hitler is spelled A-d-o-l-f H-i-t-l-e-r, or H-e-l-t-i-h-f-l-o-d-A backwards, but not as J-o-s-i-p B-r-o-z T-i-t-o. I repeat, not as J-o-s-i-p B-r-o-z T-i-t-o! If necessary, I will say it again.

Even the best can have moments of poor reasoning, including those on the right—especially over in the Psychology department—but hey, what do I know about political correctness?
Thanks.

MrBeast
We haven't heard it because we're deaf. 😛

Thomas Nelson25 said:There's basically zero chance the average Westerner is going to ditch freedom and individualism. Most of the new right-wing platforms are pretty weak—mostly just paranoid nonsense about alien invasions or whatever—and even if they weren't, people just self-censor. They're too scared of being labeled fascists to actually own their views. It's mass psychology at work. Honestly, nothing much will change because politics and the global order are ultimately driven by the market and tech.
If you look at it objectively, the typical citizen in the West—especially in places like Canada or Northern Europe—is arguably the most evolutionarily advanced version of Homo sapiens. And that's largely thanks to liberal democracy.
The real question is... where do we fit into all this? If you look at the psychological games politicians play with the public, it's all just total fake news.

Actually—there's a huge chance the system they live in just turns freedom and individualism into a complete joke (which is already happening) while all those "subjective and objective forces" scream about how they're protecting them.

—mostly because this whole "new right" agenda is a joke (total alien invasion paranoia)—it's useless since they self-censor to avoid the fascism taboo instead of just owning their mass psychology tactics. Basically, nothing's gonna change because the market and tech drive politics and the global order.

Then you've got this omerta among the "pillars of order," aka Liberal Democracy, where everyone dodges actual rational debate about real problems.
Instead, they just hunt for an ideological boogeyman at any cost—someone "beyond debate"—claiming we have to "protect Liberal Democracy like the apple of our eye" or whatever.
And regarding how things are being driven—you could go even deeper and ask what actually drives the market and technology... is there even some unchangeable natural law dictating they work exactly this way?

The average citizen in the West (especially in Canada or Northern Europe) is objectively the most evolutionarily advanced Homo sapiens. All thanks to Liberal Democracy.
The real question is: where do we fit into all this? Look at the psychological games politicians play with the public—it's a total sham.

I don't know if you're being serious here, but this sounds exactly like the "new Soviet man" nonsense those old USSR ideologues used to drone on about when their system was already in its death throes.
I don't think Liberal Democracy is quite there yet, but we seriously need a full audit of everything these "subjective and objective forces" screwed up or ignored... before it’s too late.

America is a different beast entirely... fake politicians, obviously. Worst part is, a good chunk of the current economic boom in the US is just being used to grease the wheels and further corrupt our society from top to bottom.

Joseph Bailey41 said:Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea if we stuck to psychology on this subforum instead of getting bogged down in historical and political debates. What really upsets people—and why this thread was even started—isn't these specific historical figures (they have their own dedicated threads), but rather the people we share our living spaces with (and the internet) who push all sorts of crazy theories and extreme solutions. Modern leftists are often criticized for being too sexually permissive, specifically for their uncritical acceptance of homosexuality, transsexuality, gender identity, and basically any sexual practice involving consenting adults, no matter what it is. So, bringing up Che Guevara's alleged homophobia feels like passive-aggression to me—kind of an attempt to dodge a direct clash of opinions by using minor jabs that aren't even particularly relevant to the topic at hand.

I've been running into this argument quite a lot lately, usually from people who don't really understand how either of these political movements actually formed. That claim might even hold water if we're talking about political parties and prominent figures on the daily news cycle—getting into politics is a job just like any other, and it attracts people driven by a desire for money and influence. In those cases, their ideological stance is basically just surface-level charm typical of certain personality disorders.

However, when it comes to a genuine desire to shape society, the motivations of people on the left and the right differ drastically. It isn't enough to just look at the horizontal spectrum, though; you also have to add the vertical "authoritarian vs. anti-authoritarian" axis. That gives us the famous political quadrants, representing the four fundamental political orientations. Where someone lands in a quadrant reflects their vision of an "ideal world." Since those four visions are wildly different, it's reasonable to assume they stem from very different personality traits. And that's really what we're trying to discuss here.

There are actually other ways to slice it with quadrants—one uses 'acceptance of inequality' on the horizontal axis and 'individualism vs. collectivism' on the vertical.
It’s basically a psychological-political puzzle.

If you've got the time and interest, say something about Jonathan Haidt's book "The Righteous Mind"—that would fit this thread perfectly.

mistyscout2 said:"The enemy is really just whoever's story we haven't had the chance to hear yet." 😢

Too bad we only ever hear the stories that are hand-picked for us.

Matthew Castillo5 said:If you haven't heard of the leftists who—driven by that exact same sense of superiority—systematically purged entire groups of people (the bourgeoisie, the wealthy landowners, intellectuals, homosexuals, "enemies of the state," etc.), then you are seriously lacking a basic understanding of 20th-century history.
Or are you going to try and argue that Stalin, Marshall, Mao Zedong, Ceaușescu, Enver Hoxha, Fidel Castro, and Che Guevara were actually right-wingers? 😵

You've thrown just about everything into one giant pile here.🙄 If all of those qualify as "leftists" to you, then I’m afraid you’re missing the basic definitions we're using here—it’s clear that cause and effect don't really factor into your logic.🙄 But, without getting into specific individuals, I can't point to a single law in socialist America that mandated the elimination of people based on race, nationality, or religion through systematic extermination—the way right-wingers did under Nazi, Fascist, or Nationalists regimes. I’d love for you to cite such a law from America if one actually exists. Or do you think racial laws are "okay legislation"—maybe even better than laws that guarantee equality regardless of any criteria?😬 Wouldn't surprise me.

placidorca16 said:You've thrown just about everything into one giant pile here.🙄 If all of those qualify as "leftists" to you, then I’m afraid you’re missing the basic definitions we're using here—it’s clear that cause and effect don't really factor into your logic.🙄 But, without getting into specific individuals, I can't point to a single law in socialist America that mandated the elimination of people based on race, nationality, or religion through systematic extermination—the way right-wingers did under Nazi, Fascist, or Nationalists regimes. I’d love for you to cite such a law from America if one actually exists. Or do you think racial laws are "okay legislation"—maybe even better than laws that guarantee equality regardless of any criteria?😬 Wouldn't surprise me.

I’m sure you could pull a list together right now and pick out the ones who definitely weren't leftists.

placidorca16 said:You've thrown just about everything into one giant pile here.🙄 If all of those qualify as "leftists" to you, then I’m afraid you’re missing the basic definitions we're using here—it’s clear that cause and effect don't really factor into your logic.🙄 But, without getting into specific individuals, I can't point to a single law in socialist America that mandated the elimination of people based on race, nationality, or religion through systematic extermination—the way right-wingers did under Nazi, Fascist, or Nationalists regimes. I’d love for you to cite such a law from America if one actually exists. Or do you think racial laws are "okay legislation"—maybe even better than laws that guarantee equality regardless of any criteria?😬 Wouldn't surprise me.

I have never denied or justified the atrocities committed under Nazi, Fascist, or Pavelić's systems. On the flip side, leftists either routinely deny (pre-1990) or justify (post-1990) the crimes committed within totalitarian socialist/communist regimes.
Whether the criminals I mentioned were killing according to some law or outside of it isn't really the point. They wiped people out based on nationality (think folks in the USSR or minority groups in China), religion, social class, gender identity, or political affiliation.
And since you want to talk about cause and effect: was every single one of those tens of millions killed in socialist gulags responsible for Hitler's or Pavelić's crimes? I highly doubt it.

The idea that "right-wingers lean toward criminal extermination of others, while leftists fight for equality for all" simply doesn't hold water.

Left-wing politics centers on the pursuit of social equality and egalitarianism, usually by pushing back against established social hierarchies. It’s generally driven by a deep concern for people who are seen as disadvantaged compared to the rest of society—what some call prioritarianism—along with a core conviction that many existing inequalities are fundamentally unfair and should be dismantled through social justice initiatives.

I just wanted to share one way to define the left—assuming anyone actually knows English, since it seems like much of the Republican Party lacks a decent education—so you can all figure out for yourselves which of these figures actually falls under that umbrella.
Honestly, grouping someone like Ceausescu (who was killed by his own people) with Marshall (who was absolutely adored by his nation), and then tossing in revolutionaries like Guevara alongside dictators like Stalin, says everything you need to know about how uneducated or biased a person is, which pretty much makes any meaningful debate impossible.

Trying to defend the Republican Party vote is a lost cause anyway, since most of society tends to split right down the middle, though you always see those more extreme individuals clustering at the edges of the bell curve. I'll let you all draw your own conclusions about who belongs where.
Just take comfort in knowing you aren't part of that crowd.

ironrider11 said:Without people like that, how many of us actually stepped up fast enough? We seriously need some righteous ones in our corner right now...

History is a two-faced coin. Sometimes it looks like a heavy bag of cash, other times it’s just empty air. But who actually takes the fall? Is it the masterminds behind the scenes, the red tape, or the masses who happily reaped the rewards of a crime? Maybe it's the ideologues spinning lies, the bureaucrats cooking the books, or the media outlets that twist "facts" depending on which side of the coin they're betting on... Or maybe it's just the regular citizens—that massive crowd always standing against an ideology they didn't sign up for... pretty much always... Nothing...?

Everything. ☕

nimbleridge5 said:Left-wing politics centers on the pursuit of social equality and egalitarianism, usually by pushing back against established social hierarchies. It’s generally driven by a deep concern for people who are seen as disadvantaged compared to the rest of society—what some call prioritarianism—along with a core conviction that many existing inequalities are fundamentally unfair and should be dismantled through social justice initiatives.

I just wanted to share one way to define the left—assuming anyone actually knows English, since it seems like much of the Republican Party lacks a decent education—so you can all figure out for yourselves which of these figures actually falls under that umbrella.
Honestly, grouping someone like Ceausescu (who was killed by his own people) with Marshall (who was absolutely adored by his nation), and then tossing in revolutionaries like Guevara alongside dictators like Stalin, says everything you need to know about how uneducated or biased a person is, which pretty much makes any meaningful debate impossible.

Trying to defend the Republican Party vote is a lost cause anyway, since most of society tends to split right down the middle, though you always see those more extreme individuals clustering at the edges of the bell curve. I'll let you all draw your own conclusions about who belongs where.
Just take comfort in knowing you aren't part of that crowd.

Based on that specific definition, I’m a total leftist. And if we’re going by the assumption that conservatives are uneducated, then I guess I fit that description too.
I honestly have no idea why anyone would ever categorize me as being on the right. 🤷

Side note: here in America, terms like "left" and "right" carry a completely different weight than how they're used in the rest of the world.

If you want to get into deep dives about how much the entire nation supposedly loved Mao Zedong (which is a bold claim considering how many people he purged), or why his followers eventually turned on him, we should probably move this conversation over to the History subforum.

Matthew Castillo5 said:Based on that specific definition, I’m a total leftist. And if we’re going by the assumption that conservatives are uneducated, then I guess I fit that description too.
I honestly have no idea why anyone would ever categorize me as being on the right. 🤷

Side note: here in America, terms like "left" and "right" carry a completely different weight than how they're used in the rest of the world.

If you want to get into deep dives about how much the entire nation supposedly loved Mao Zedong (which is a bold claim considering how many people he purged), or why his followers eventually turned on him, we should probably move this conversation over to the History subforum.

If Marshall had actually lived to see the fall of the Berlin Wall, I imagine he would have fought tooth and nail against it until the very last second.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Actually—there's a huge chance the system they live in just turns freedom and individualism into a complete joke (which is already happening) while all those "subjective and objective forces" scream about how they're protecting them.

—mostly because this whole "new right" agenda is a joke (total alien invasion paranoia)—it's useless since they self-censor to avoid the fascism taboo instead of just owning their mass psychology tactics. Basically, nothing's gonna change because the market and tech drive politics and the global order.

Then you've got this omerta among the "pillars of order," aka Liberal Democracy, where everyone dodges actual rational debate about real problems.
Instead, they just hunt for an ideological boogeyman at any cost—someone "beyond debate"—claiming we have to "protect Liberal Democracy like the apple of our eye" or whatever.
And regarding how things are being driven—you could go even deeper and ask what actually drives the market and technology... is there even some unchangeable natural law dictating they work exactly this way?

The average citizen in the West (especially in Canada or Northern Europe) is objectively the most evolutionarily advanced Homo sapiens. All thanks to Liberal Democracy.
The real question is: where do we fit into all this? Look at the psychological games politicians play with the public—it's a total sham.

I don't know if you're being serious here, but this sounds exactly like the "new Soviet man" nonsense those old USSR ideologues used to drone on about when their system was already in its death throes.
I don't think Liberal Democracy is quite there yet, but we seriously need a full audit of everything these "subjective and objective forces" screwed up or ignored... before it’s too late.

America is a different beast entirely... fake politicians, obviously. Worst part is, a good chunk of the current economic boom in the US is just being used to grease the wheels and further corrupt our society from top to bottom.

__there's no conspiracy here in terms of the liberal order—things just happen within the natural democratic framework. It's just a standard that emerged as a result of the two global wars last century.
I'm sure you know all this and you're just philosophizing, but an ideal order is impossible. We can only get close to it, provided we maintain it so things don't spiral into chaos.
The American psyche is pretty conservative (that's a topic in itself)—it's mostly just "how much more right-wing can we go?" which is totally wrong and a waste of time.☕

My bad for replying inside your post. You'll figure it out.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:If Marshall had actually lived to see the fall of the Berlin Wall, I imagine he would have fought tooth and nail against it until the very last second.

Honestly, you’re just living in some weird fever dream if you think that guy—who, let’s be real, basically played dress-up as a monk to escape through the woods toward the border—is some kind of hero. There are plenty of people out there who actually feel grateful that he built and maintained a decent, stable nation, and frankly, they wouldn't know how to deal with people like you if they were facing off against someone from the WWII era.

It’s pretty obvious you sound like a total Martian based on the way you write, using these bizarre sentence structures and trying to equate things that are completely incomparable.
There is a massive difference between an entire nation looking at you with disdain and being targeted by a tiny handful of frustrated extremists who seem to find their only purpose in life through pure hatred and clinging to where they were born because they haven't actually achieved anything worth mentioning on their own merit.
And then, when you throw in a sadistic psychopath like Stalin, an idealist revolutionary, and that paranoid dictator Hoxha into the mix, you end up with this nonsensical mess that doesn't have anything to do with the actual American left.

Unbelievable—talk about moving the goalposts. Suddenly, the far-left radicals are the paragons of virtue, while a mass murderer and dictator like Franklin D. Roosevelt is being painted as some kind of hero. Honestly, give me a break. And then someone like that actually tries to lecture us on education. 🤣 🙏

nimbleridge5 said:Honestly, you’re just living in some weird fever dream if you think that guy—who, let’s be real, basically played dress-up as a monk to escape through the woods toward the border—is some kind of hero. There are plenty of people out there who actually feel grateful that he built and maintained a decent, stable nation, and frankly, they wouldn't know how to deal with people like you if they were facing off against someone from the WWII era.

It’s pretty obvious you sound like a total Martian based on the way you write, using these bizarre sentence structures and trying to equate things that are completely incomparable.
There is a massive difference between an entire nation looking at you with disdain and being targeted by a tiny handful of frustrated extremists who seem to find their only purpose in life through pure hatred and clinging to where they were born because they haven't actually achieved anything worth mentioning on their own merit.
And then, when you throw in a sadistic psychopath like Stalin, an idealist revolutionary, and that paranoid dictator Hoxha into the mix, you end up with this nonsensical mess that doesn't have anything to do with the actual American left.

It seems quite easy for the right wing to make those claims, Goc. I mean, true conservatives haven't really existed for decades now, and I suspect Roosevelt would have been dealt with quite harshly by the very people who claim to be his closest allies today. Besides, isn't it true that many of today's modern republicans and similar groups actually emerged from the ranks of the old party establishment back in the nineties? 👍

At its core, this is really just about looking at things practically. You basically just put all the factors on a scale and see which side carries more weight.

On one hand, you have this authoritarian, somewhat flamboyant leader who chased off the local farmers—which was a massive blunder because it permanently crippled the Midwest—and dealt with the Italians (though some might say they got exactly what they bargained for). He didn't spend much energy defending those who collaborated with the Nazis after the war either, nor did he seem to care much about the fates of those fleeing alongside them—honestly, the list of crimes is endless. It’s funny how people tend to pick on the losers, especially when they were so deeply compromised themselves. I mean, who was out there feeling sorry for the conquistadors when, in rare instances, they caught a beating from the Native Americans? How would the elites of our society react if they had their own camps and were busy wiping out the American intellectual elite alongside everyone else who fell into their hands? Even Douglas MacArthur ended up facing the ultimate judgment in the eyes of civilization for us Americans, and women were publicly shamed just for being with the occupiers.
He ruled with a firmer hand, sure, but nothing that couldn't be compared to other leaders in American history. And honestly, looking at how chaotic things are today, you could argue that a firm hand is actually the best way to manage such a fractured nation.

On the flip side, thanks to his leadership, you get almost perfect territorial integrity, an infrastructure that was kept up and even improved (take the massive expansion of the national power grid and dam projects compared to the single aging plant we used to rely on), and generally the easiest standard of living among all the countries that were once behind the Iron Curtain.
As a little bonus, you can point out that he was respected and held in high regard by the entire world, even by the Nazis themselves 😲 (though it feels like some people here are even bigger fascists than Hitler—pardon me, I meant Himmler 😁), and even most Americans weren't exactly throwing parades back in May of '80 🙂

To me, it’s perfectly clear where the scale tips and which of these factors actually matters more.

nimbleridge5 said:At its core, this is really just about looking at things practically. You basically just put all the factors on a scale and see which side carries more weight.

On one hand, you have this authoritarian, somewhat flamboyant leader who chased off the local farmers—which was a massive blunder because it permanently crippled the Midwest—and dealt with the Italians (though some might say they got exactly what they bargained for). He didn't spend much energy defending those who collaborated with the Nazis after the war either, nor did he seem to care much about the fates of those fleeing alongside them—honestly, the list of crimes is endless. It’s funny how people tend to pick on the losers, especially when they were so deeply compromised themselves. I mean, who was out there feeling sorry for the conquistadors when, in rare instances, they caught a beating from the Native Americans? How would the elites of our society react if they had their own camps and were busy wiping out the American intellectual elite alongside everyone else who fell into their hands? Even Douglas MacArthur ended up facing the ultimate judgment in the eyes of civilization for us Americans, and women were publicly shamed just for being with the occupiers.
He ruled with a firmer hand, sure, but nothing that couldn't be compared to other leaders in American history. And honestly, looking at how chaotic things are today, you could argue that a firm hand is actually the best way to manage such a fractured nation.

On the flip side, thanks to his leadership, you get almost perfect territorial integrity, an infrastructure that was kept up and even improved (take the massive expansion of the national power grid and dam projects compared to the single aging plant we used to rely on), and generally the easiest standard of living among all the countries that were once behind the Iron Curtain.
As a little bonus, you can point out that he was respected and held in high regard by the entire world, even by the Nazis themselves 😲 (though it feels like some people here are even bigger fascists than Hitler—pardon me, I meant Himmler 😁), and even most Americans weren't exactly throwing parades back in May of '80 🙂

To me, it’s perfectly clear where the scale tips and which of these factors actually matters more.

I guess you would defend Ratko Mercer in that same way, since he was, you know, a provocateur of terrorists in Srebrenica, a comrade, a high-ranking officer, and a patriot—it’s pretty obvious where the scale lands in your eyes.

nimbleridge5 said:At its core, this is really just about looking at things practically. You basically just put all the factors on a scale and see which side carries more weight.

On one hand, you have this authoritarian, somewhat flamboyant leader who chased off the local farmers—which was a massive blunder because it permanently crippled the Midwest—and dealt with the Italians (though some might say they got exactly what they bargained for). He didn't spend much energy defending those who collaborated with the Nazis after the war either, nor did he seem to care much about the fates of those fleeing alongside them—honestly, the list of crimes is endless. It’s funny how people tend to pick on the losers, especially when they were so deeply compromised themselves. I mean, who was out there feeling sorry for the conquistadors when, in rare instances, they caught a beating from the Native Americans? How would the elites of our society react if they had their own camps and were busy wiping out the American intellectual elite alongside everyone else who fell into their hands? Even Douglas MacArthur ended up facing the ultimate judgment in the eyes of civilization for us Americans, and women were publicly shamed just for being with the occupiers.
He ruled with a firmer hand, sure, but nothing that couldn't be compared to other leaders in American history. And honestly, looking at how chaotic things are today, you could argue that a firm hand is actually the best way to manage such a fractured nation.

On the flip side, thanks to his leadership, you get almost perfect territorial integrity, an infrastructure that was kept up and even improved (take the massive expansion of the national power grid and dam projects compared to the single aging plant we used to rely on), and generally the easiest standard of living among all the countries that were once behind the Iron Curtain.
As a little bonus, you can point out that he was respected and held in high regard by the entire world, even by the Nazis themselves 😲 (though it feels like some people here are even bigger fascists than Hitler—pardon me, I meant Himmler 😁), and even most Americans weren't exactly throwing parades back in May of '80 🙂

To me, it’s perfectly clear where the scale tips and which of these factors actually matters more.

🤣🤣🤣

nimbleridge5 said:At its core, this is really just about looking at things practically. You basically just put all the factors on a scale and see which side carries more weight.

On one hand, you have this authoritarian, somewhat flamboyant leader who chased off the local farmers—which was a massive blunder because it permanently crippled the Midwest—and dealt with the Italians (though some might say they got exactly what they bargained for). He didn't spend much energy defending those who collaborated with the Nazis after the war either, nor did he seem to care much about the fates of those fleeing alongside them—honestly, the list of crimes is endless. It’s funny how people tend to pick on the losers, especially when they were so deeply compromised themselves. I mean, who was out there feeling sorry for the conquistadors when, in rare instances, they caught a beating from the Native Americans? How would the elites of our society react if they had their own camps and were busy wiping out the American intellectual elite alongside everyone else who fell into their hands? Even Douglas MacArthur ended up facing the ultimate judgment in the eyes of civilization for us Americans, and women were publicly shamed just for being with the occupiers.
He ruled with a firmer hand, sure, but nothing that couldn't be compared to other leaders in American history. And honestly, looking at how chaotic things are today, you could argue that a firm hand is actually the best way to manage such a fractured nation.

On the flip side, thanks to his leadership, you get almost perfect territorial integrity, an infrastructure that was kept up and even improved (take the massive expansion of the national power grid and dam projects compared to the single aging plant we used to rely on), and generally the easiest standard of living among all the countries that were once behind the Iron Curtain.
As a little bonus, you can point out that he was respected and held in high regard by the entire world, even by the Nazis themselves 😲 (though it feels like some people here are even bigger fascists than Hitler—pardon me, I meant Himmler 😁), and even most Americans weren't exactly throwing parades back in May of '80 🙂

To me, it’s perfectly clear where the scale tips and which of these factors actually matters more.

What does the territorial integrity of the US have to do with Marshall?
The man shrank the country by 20% (about 15,000 sq miles of Canada, plus a chunk of Iowa/Mexico near Sioux City that remains outside), it would have been 30% if it weren't for the fact that the US reclaimed California, Maui, Kauai, Martha's Vineyard, and half of present-day San Diego and Seattle (along with the area near Buffalo—again, depending on your criteria, but it was effectively a return to former status).

The world respected both Stalin and Saddam Hussein; if business is profitable, does anyone in the West truly care who someone killed?

I wonder what the world would actually be missing if we just let go of all these ideologies we feel so stuck on?

I guess my own perspective is pretty much aligned with the folks mentioned in the opening post. And honestly, I probably feel the same way as most of the other people chiming in here, regardless of what their actual political leanings might be.

Extreme right-wingers and extreme left-wingers...
it's basically the same mechanism, maybe even fascist-leaning? It's just different beliefs driving the same engine, I suppose.

Since he’s such a right-wing nationalist, it’s pretty predictable that you’d be out here defending him, BB, and honestly, trying to compare those two—or comparing Marshall to Saddam—is the kind of thing that makes me wonder if the whole concept of banning certain people from voting isn't actually a half-decent idea
(though, let's be real, I know that kind of logic usually flies in your neck of the woods simply because there’s a total lack of any actual, coherent arguments 😉 )
I mean, the concept itself sounds great on paper, but it just doesn't work in practice, and when you're dealing with populations that seem generally incapable of thinking for themselves, these types of people always end up pushing some flavor of totalitarianism as if it's the only way forward

Wikipedia, I'd take one single slice of California over ten different versions of Canada any day of the week. If you're so desperate for that life, go ahead and head over there, but count me out