Is Afghanistan a model to follow?

[mr4435669]

Since the Taliban have taken power, the country has improved a lot, because they have censored feminism, and abortion is still illegal.

The West should follow their good example and do the same in their countries, they should also introduce the burqa.

[Goforit1010]

"Since the Taliban have taken power, the country has improved a lot..." BULLSHIT!

Just because the Taliban favors 2-3 things the American right does, that's supposed to prove their form of governance is just as good as America and the world should follow that example? That's an asinine way of thinking. Unfortunately, I see that far too often from people under 30. It's also a very stupid way to look at anything.

You need to get your head out of your ass and realize that style of thinking will cause you far more problems than help you.

[RolandCuthbert]

It is funny how the trumplicans in the forum have responded, when this is the exact type of intolerant society they want.

I will never understand being disingenuous.

[mr4435669]

Most Republicans need to radicalize, I openly support the Taliban, the whole world should be like Afghanistan.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, at least you are honest.

Why do you think the others here lack courage?

[mr4435669]

It is because of its Christian indoctrination, Christianity made man submissive, by telling him that his life goal is to marry a woman and support her.

[Anonymous]

The country has improved a lot? LMAO! You are a moron if you actually believe that.

No, Afghanistan is not a model to follow, and neither is the US but for different reasons. The gender bullshit happening in the US today is pathetic.

[purplepoppy]

I think chess is a better model because only the female piece can do whatever it wants

[likelyOK]

This has to be troll no way would any non radical freak say this

[sheikalana]

Tell me you're trolling without telling me you're trolling.

[jimmy2]

Sure if you want to go back to Jesus walking the earth with women in home to be fuck, cook and pop out kids

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Go away troll.

[2facedfa1ry]

loll

[Avicenna]

Hell no

[Soteris]

Why not? Its a right wing paradise.

[Avicenna]

@Soteris: This is a good example of why leftists are constantly confused by their weird caricatures of everything. Afghanistan is totalitarian, so it is far left. It doesn't have anything closely resembling a free market, it's corrupt, Christians are persecuted, and its blasphemy laws are the kind of censorship leftists love to impose on non-leftists. Its theocracy has much in common with woke totalitarianism in the West, including its educational focus having a very strong component of indoctrination, just like Western leftists love to impose.

[Soteris]

What is there to be confused about? Its regressive, its religious fundamentalist, it is authoritarian. All well known right wing values.

The left supports things like civil liberties, democracy, separation of powers etc..

If you are such a right wing person who is opposed to authoritarianism, would you support strengthening democracy by allowing prisoners to vote and abolishing photo ID laws? How about eliminating the electoral collage which is anti-democratic? Are you salivating at the thought of instituting ranked voting to take down the two party system in USA and allow smaller parties to gain power and influence? How about removing "in god we trust" from the money? I could go on. Prove to me how much of an anti-authoritarian you are.

[Avicenna]

@Soteris: As I said, that's your (false) caricature. Are Christians in Sweden like the Taliban? No, they aren't (nor are they necessarily "right wing"). But for leftists, their totalitarianism is their (fundamentalist) religion.

Photo ID laws strengthen democracy by helping to maintain the integrity of the system. Furthermore, people need them for everyday life, important things like getting job, so they should be provided for free to the unemployed. Secure voting is not "authoritarian", it's commonsense.

People in prison don't vote because they have lost some of their rights, including that one. They can get it restored after their release.

The electoral college is not anti-democratic- quite to the contrary. It ensures that presidential candidates cannot simply ignore less populous areas. Without it, they'd focus solely on large metro areas, which would effectively disenfranchise all other parts of the country.

What prevents smaller parties from emerging in the US is a lack of access to funds. Smaller parties have been used by the larger parties to dilute the rival larger party's share of the vote (a "splitter" strategy). And smaller parties haven't done anything to weaken the political cartel in Germany.

The problem with your examples is that your premises are simply based on your leftist ideology and caricatures- by yourself you are no arbiter of what is "authoritarian" and what isn't and no one has to prove anything to you. But it's interesting that you didn't mention things like speech restrictions that result in criminal prosecution, which is a good example of leftist authoritarianism that bleeds into everything in society.

[Soteris]

Religion in Sweden is not fundamentalist. Religion in USA and Afghanistan is. I would also like to point out that Christianity in Sweden is a state religion AKA controlled by the government AKA the government has authority over Christianity in Sweden. I would not be so quick to use Sweden as an example if I was you since it has at least a foundation of authoritarianism.

Voting strengthens democracy. Anything that gets between me and submitting a vote is anti-democratic. If your system has a problem you should find another way to resolve it which does not get in the way of someone voting.

Restoring voting rights for ex-felons is not guaranteed and only possible in some states. Regardless, this is besides the point. Preventing people who are literally in prison from voting is anti-democratic. Democracy as an ideology has no problems with "bad people" voting because its the belief that if everyone votes, including the bad people, the best outcome will win. Preventing felons from voting is a sign that you do not believe in the system of democracy.

The electoral collage is literally the opposite of democratic. It is empowering a minority to rule over the majority. You can bring up arguments such as how it prevents disenfranchisement which regardless if its true or not is an argument AGAINST democracy so dont come here and pretend the electoral collage is democratic. Its not, objectively so.

The 2 party system in USA has nothing to do with funding and all to do with the limitation of your voting system which only recognizes the winner and the loser meaning there can only ever be a leader and the person looking to take their power. There are better systems.

As for speech restrictions, there are plenty of examples of right wing people in USA trying to limit free speech such as banning CRT in schools.