Btw just to be clear, i am not personally a conservative at all in the italian landscape. I would probably be one in the netherlands.

Which Italian party do you support?

as I wrote I voted for +Europa as the lesser evil. That's the only party in Italy in the ALDE group. They are very good on personal rights (pro cannabis legalization, pro euthanasia, pro gay marriage), decently liberal (in the old sense) in economics. They don't ask for more taxes and that's already heroic as italy goes...

Too much focused on immigrants recently but their proposal is a blanket amnesty and automatic visa for all refugee claimants which at least make us save the 35 eur per day we pay for the 1year+ asylum request process. And mostly if that passed they can then move freely in Europe so most won't stay in Italy for long as we don't have as good a welfare for young adults as other countries. And those that stay will in that case stay by choice so they would be a better match for the country.

When PD (centreleft main party) was led by renzi I didn't hate it, and I voted for it in the previous European elections. Renzi completely renounced the communist past of the party and vowed to kick all veteromarxists out.

Unfortunately he didn't manage to remove all of them, so now the PD is back to evil incarnate and can't be voted by any decent person.

I am desperate for representation because we don't have a normal liberal rightwing party. I'd vote for rutte or fdp or similar parties in a heartbeat

Oh, right, Emma Bonino's lot. Fairly sane and pro-European, but they seem to have a tiny vote share and parliamentary presence. Due to the rise of populism, I suppose. (Although I don't understand Italian politics, and I'm not sure there is anyone alive who does.) As long as it's nothing to do with Giulia Bongiorno, at least it doesn't have that taint.

+europa got 2.4% of the vote but only have 3 people out of 1000 in parliament because of the electoral law (which is extremely complicated so i won't go into details).

That was actually one of the best performances for bonino ever, when her party goes alone (ironically, it was called the radical party) it usually gets 1%.

Radicali got famous when they sponsored several referenda that gave us various freedoms decades ago but then remained on the sidelines basically forever.

I actually see Cappato and Benedetto della Vedova as the people who I care about in +Europa, because bonino is at the end of her days and decided to spend all time on refugees and I really have enough of that topic. Political capital should be spent where it affects the most people in this current climate. Not in hyperdivisive topics about 0...something% of the population, and not even citizens at that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libert...United_States)

Your 100% track record of being utterly objectively wrong continues.

Also when I say ideas I mean emerging from schools of political theory, not lol tubes, where you get your ideas from. There is a huge body of work by intellectuals and academics that support the idea of open immigration from a perspective that is from the right.

Your right/left axis is that of a 5 year old.

This is so wrong, so Luciom.

Bravo, you have outdone yourself in yet another public display of ignorance.

Not at all, both left and right can be radical and push for massive changes in society. There have been left and right wing death squads for instance. The right usually dresses up their radicalism in the guise of traditionalism, or how "true X countrymen", or returning to an imagined better past. The right is interested in building up hierarchy, or at least fighting a reactionary rear guard position to hold onto the hierarchy while they can, while the left is interested in removing hierarchy. They're mirror images of each other.

both a kitchen knife and a rifle can kill even if one is meant exclusively for killing and it has literally no other purpose, while the other has many purposes.

This is literally bothsidism.

The extreme left is only radical, at it is so every single time and transparently so. The "very right" not necessarily so, not automatically, not every time.

In your terms: changing the current hierarchy is always radical. Maintaining the current hierarchy not necessarily so.

I brought you the denmark example in detail after you mentioned that very country and you disregarded it completely. Care to comment about it?

3% in a first by the post electoral system is like 0 in a proportional system. Completly and utterly irrelevant. No congresspeople, no governors, etc etc.

While 8% in a proportional system is huge. Or melenchol at 19% in a trasparently self-described communist platform

Also, it's like the 10th time that I wrote that extreme right in the us in the last few decades went in a direction where no1 else in the world went so it is silly to take it as an example of what the right is, or represents, worldwide.

Your whole role itt is insisting on objective falsehood

Btw per your link OAK, libertarians are not even open border

Immigration and trade agreements
The Libertarian Party consistently lobbies for the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. This is because their platform states that "political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries".[106] To promote economic freedom, they demand the unrestricted movement of humans as well as financial capital across national borders. However, the party encourages blocking immigration of those with violent backgrounds or violent intent.

The bold can clearly be used to keep out whatever group you dislike saying "it is violent".

You post 100% objectively false things and then just try to wiggle and goal post shift when its pointed out to you.

Libertarian party has had 4M votes in presidential elections, it has seats in state legislatures, polled over 40% in senate races.

Trying to hand wave this away as america does not count and OMG they wont let people with criminal records in is pathetic and obvious.

Claiming they are not truly open borders because they wont let violent criminal in is setting an utterly absurd standard for open borders.

You are objectively wrong and make terrible arguments.

The link doesn't say criminal. It says violent.

Let's check on the official libertarian page

https://www.lp.org/issues/immigration/

Of course, if someone has a record of violence, credible plans for violence, or acts violently, then Libertarians support blocking their entry, deporting, and/or prosecuting and imprisoning them, depending on the offense.


This means they can keep out any person who has fought in his own country.

Unless, in english, you thnk that a militia person in syria fighting against ISIS isn't "violent".

Plans for violence, given the funny way americans look at things, can also be just being a muslim. There is on the right the very well known meme that islam is an inherently violent religion, right?

Or for that matter, from a libertarian point of view, anyone advocating for high taxes. High taxes are violent expropriation in libertarian view right? whoops, you can't enter and we can deport because you are planning violence supporting high taxes.

But please, point me to where they say violent CRIMINAL, or did you dream of that in order to concoct one of your rabid pointless replies?

I mean yea, it is bothsidism, because both sides are fully capable of radicalism. How much so depends on the situation. In the United States the right wing has been in power and captured the Overton window so much that the politically viable left leaning politicians are not very radical at all, while the right wingers openly talk about a radically small government with no or little support for the old and sick and white supremacy. In Europe the left may have been more ascendant for so long that the Overton window might be sifted to the left. In either case you're moving the ball between opposing goal posts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.aadb6799f92e

Not even the US does that. As far as the red green goes, nothing in their manifest is striking terrible, mostly because they don't have any real policies listed, just vague statements. Some of them denigrate capitalism, but some skepticism towards capitalism seems perfectly warranted. That skepticism certainly has helped them maintain a healthy welfare state precisely because the majority of the polity is skeptical of capitalism

You know, they changed it as it seems

Unrestricted political refugees; but restrict threats
Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.
Source: 2014 Libertarian Party Platform , Nov 1, 2014

Eliminate all restrictions on immigration
We welcome all refugees to our country. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age, or sexual preference. We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.
Source: National Platform of the Libertarian Party , Jul 2, 2000

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Lib...mmigration.htm

"credible thread to security, health or PROPERTY". That's so loose you can ban any group except atheist healthy rich people basically.

Is that policy more or less open than any country or political party's platform today?

yes both sides are FULLY CAPABLE, but one side is built EXPLICITLY for radical change jesus.

How much so depends on the current situation for the right, but not for the left. The radical left always wants big change no matter what.

This is why even in a country with huge welfare, with stable inequality, where the top 10% of the population didn't see their income increase more than the median in the last decades etc etc, you have a party saying everything has to change and capitalism is terrible.

Because for them it's never enough, they exist for the purpose of upheaval no matter the current conditions.

I am honestly in disbelief with the fact that you can't acknowledge that explicitly asking for socialism in place of capitalism is radical, if proposed in a capitalistic country.

I also don't see what welfare has to do with it, given that ALL parties in denmark are in favour of huge welfare. The "less in favor" wants to cut it very slighty at the margins going as i said from denmark to the netherlands.

I am not moving any goalpost.

I am saying and repeating that when you go and check a lot on the left radicalism (= advocating for huge, rapid, change in society) is an inherent basic property of every single very lefty platform that ever existed.

And that it is simply not the case on the right.

Less open than radical leftists that not only want to let everyone enter, they also want to pay for them. Do you think that's not the platform of at least 4M democrat voters?

The fact that in the USA radical leftism is inside a major party doesn't cancel it from existance.

I am not sure what this has to do with radicalism, or capitalism/communism, can you elaborate?

Or is it a leftist idea to give free stuff to people who can afford to pay for it?

https://twitter.com/business/status/894922691098148865

Onion.