View Poll Results: What are you, politically?

Voters
51. You may not vote on this poll
  • Social conservative

    7 13.73%
  • Social liberal

    24 47.06%
  • Fiscal conservative

    26 50.98%
  • Fiscal liberal

    8 15.69%
  • Other

    24 47.06%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 48

Thread: What are you, politically?

  1. #11
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: What are you, politically?

    I am socially middle of the road. I am very pro-gay rights/marriage. Middle of the road on abortion. Middle of the road on gun control. Pro-loosening immigration restrictions. Pro-1st Amendment rights. Anti-death penalty (too inconsistently applied, potential for innocent deaths unacceptable).

    Fiscally? I am for spending on whatever the government should be spending money on, and I am in favor of a balanced budget in the long run. No person who is a pragmatist thinks it's a good idea for the government to chronically spend more than it takes in.

    Foreign policy-wise, I am in favor of not doing dumb ****. I am a foreign policy/IR liberal in the fact that I believe the US should attempt to accomplish its objectives in a multilateral fashion and through international institutions.

    In large part my philosophy is informed by liberal utilitarianism, but that does not encompass the whole of my beliefs.

    More to come later if I can flesh out my thoughts more discretely.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  2. #12
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: What are you, politically?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thrilla View Post
    i'm pretty close to this .... but i'm a bit more agreeable to social safety nets (social welfare) and infrastructure investment (corporate welfare) than your average Libertarian.
    I can live with an extremely strict social safety net system, but it would be so limited that it would not be recognizable compared to current standards. Iow, you would have to be blind and deaf, or have all limbs missing, or be literally terminally ill to receive benefits. No bennies for mental disabilities, and no children would be on SSI. Social security would pay out to an individual no more than he contributed, period. There would be no ag subsidies, no oil subsidies, no green energy subsidies, and no arts funding. I could go on and on, but you guys get the point.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

  3. #13
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: What are you, politically?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thrilla View Post
    i'm pretty close to this .... but i'm a bit more agreeable to social safety nets (social welfare) and infrastructure investment (corporate welfare) than your average Libertarian.
    I wouldn't care infrastructure investment corporate welfare, since whatever private firm you contract to do the job isn't exactly getting a handout. At least any more than I view defense contracts as not being corporate welfare. That being said, there exist immense problems with the government's contracting and procurement process at all levels.
    Last edited by StillBallin75; 03-14-12 at 10:39 PM.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  4. #14
    Jedi Master
    Captain America's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,673

    Re: What are you, politically?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I voted other, I think I'm odd.

    Fiscally I'm conservative when it comes to government spending and debt. We shouldn't spend as much as we are. I'm fiscally liberal when it comes to how the money should be spent. We need to reduce defense spending and increase/reform spending in education, healthcare, infrastructure, and funding science.
    Socially I am more conservative. I am pro-life, against legalizing drugs, and I support personal responsibility and reforming social programs to prevent abuse. Although, I support same sex marriage and full rights to homosexuals. When it comes to drugs I think rehabilitation should be the focus, not serving jail time/punishment. I also support a nationalized healthcare system.

    I don't particularly like either party nor do I hate them. I think most policies should have the influence of both sides and have a middle approach, especially on economics. On economics we should be in the center with a free market capitalist system that has necessary government regulation to prevent income inequality, monopolies, and the life.
    I agree with just about all of that. Almost.

    Funny thing is, (see bold in quote) I agree with you 100% on the things our tax dollars should be spent on. Yet, I call myself fiscal conservative. Perhaps I do not have a clear understanding of the definition "fiscal conservative." I view it as being able to responsibly balance a check book and pay your bills.

    To me fiscal conservative means responsible spending and fair taxation. It does not mean blowing it on corporate welfare, nation building, global meddleing and endless wars. I would rather the taxpayer, the every day American, reap the benefit of their tax investment. That means roads, education, healthcare, and a plethora of other items that show return in investment.

    Some of Ron Pauls ideas seem whacky but they are based on the absolute foundation this country was built on. He does not take the liberty to tweak and amend the constitution for political gain.
    Last edited by Captain America; 03-14-12 at 10:49 PM.

    It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
    Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.

  5. #15
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,803

    Re: What are you, politically?

    what am I? consistent

  6. #16
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas, Vegas, Colombia
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 06:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,295

    Re: What are you, politically?

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    I wouldn't care infrastructure investment corporate welfare, since whatever private firm you contract to do the job isn't exactly getting a handout. At least any more than I view defense contracts as not being corporate welfare. That being said, there exist immense problems with the government's contracting and procurement process at all levels.
    for the most part, the term corporate welfare is , to me, simply a pejorative for multifaceted investment into infrastructure.
    by multifaceted, I mean.. tax breaks/credits, subsidies, direct capital infusion etc. etc. etc.
    I do, however, stick to stingy levels of such investment/welfare...far more stingy than any Republican or Democrat is seemingly capable of.

    and yes, you are correct, there are major problems with our contract and procurement processes...but that's how bureaucracies operate ..whatchagonnado?

  7. #17
    Guru
    Porchev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    GA
    Last Seen
    01-08-17 @ 12:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    3,092

    Re: What are you, politically?

    Fiscally conservative…for example, I think the federal government should only spend as much money as it currently takes in and not buy things on credit (except for emergencies---such as war time expenditures). I also think the federal government should be limited in its scope: the government should only be a referee and facilitator, not a CEO or king of the people/private sector.

    Additionally, the government has no place in consenting adult’s bedrooms; and it shouldn’t have the power to decide what goes on in a woman’s womb.

    It is also extremely important for the government to facilitate the buildup of the private sector/free market than it is to grow government because as someone once articulated:

    “The free market is the only economic system that produces on a sustainable basis, and for the overwhelming majority of Americans, an abundance of food, housing, energy, and medicine--staples of human survival; it creates an astonishing array of consumer goods that add comfort, value, and security to the quality of life; and the free market recognizes that it is in man’s DNA to take risks, to innovate, to achieve, to compete, and to acquire--to not only survive but also improve his circumstance.”

  8. #18
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas, Vegas, Colombia
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 06:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,295

    Re: What are you, politically?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    what am I? consistent
    that is something i've found that i'm often incapable of being, to a high degree anyways.
    I tend to moderate my position when faced with my own inconsistencies.

  9. #19
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,803

    Re: What are you, politically?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thrilla View Post
    that is something i've found that i'm often incapable of being, to a high degree anyways.
    I tend to moderate my position when faced with my own inconsistencies.
    I tend to distrust big government

    be it in who one sleeps with, what music one listens to, what sort of gun one wants to own or what one wants to do with the money he earns

    I see government as a necessary evil that is needed in some areas but like booze, best taken in moderation because too much is worse than too little

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    11-29-16 @ 07:28 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,441

    Re: What are you, politically?

    I'm a socialist, a Georgist one, to be more specific, so I can be 'All of the above'; it depends on the issue. Much of what was practical from the American Revolution era is now hopelessly obsolete, like 'states' rights', because the whole rationale for states disappeared with the advent of the railroads and the telegraph, to name just one example. We don't need 50 states, just maybe 14 provinces, easily less, given the population distribution these days; some 70% of the population still lives east of the Mississippi, after all, and it's also just ludicrous that Wyoming or Rhode Island have the same voting power in the Senate as New York or Pennsylvania. We don't even need two Houses, for that matter.

    Technological innovation has changed pretty much everything at a pretty rapid pace, and none of the standard ideologies and economic cults actually apply to reality any more, not since the late 1700's in some countries, none currently. Cultural evolution moves a lot slower than technology does, which is a serious handicap to progress, and I don't think the resolution between economics, social and cultural issues, and politics is going to turn out pretty at all, but there is always hope, though nuclear proliferation is narrowing that hope daily these days.
    Last edited by Oberon; 03-15-12 at 12:10 AM.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •