• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What are you, politically?

What are you, politically?


  • Total voters
    44

Wake

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
18,536
Reaction score
2,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Regarding the political spectrum: are you more of a liberal, or more of a conservative, on social/fiscal issues? In what ways? This'll be multiple choice for those who are liberal on fiscal issues yet conservative on social issues, etc.
 
Regarding the political spectrum: are you more of a liberal, or more of a conservative, on social/fiscal issues? In what ways? This'll be multiple choice for those who are liberal on fiscal issues yet conservative on social issues, etc.

I tend to be conservative in most things with a leaning toward the Libertarian side.
 
Liberal. Not completely, but mostly. Fiscally and socially.
 
Socially, I'm libertarian (aka liberal). Fiscally, I'm libertarian. Iow, I support equal rights, equal access, and freedoms/liberties, but I don't support government expenditures on any type of welfare, be it social or corporate. I support strong defense, but not national offense and nation-building, and I don't support foreign aid.

I used to refer to myself as fiscally conservative, but the conservatives aren't conservative fiscally anymore. :)
 
Last edited:
Socially, I'm libertarian (aka liberal). Fiscally, I'm libertarian. Iow, I support equal rights, equal access, and freedoms/liberties, but I don't support government expenditures on any type of welfare, be it social or corporate. I support strong defense, but not national offense and nation-building, and I don't support foreign aid.

I used to refer to myself as fiscally conservative, but the conservatives aren't conservative fiscally anymore. :)
What she said.
 
My politics?

Fiscal Conservative.
Social liberal.
Pro gun. pro life. Welfare is supposed to be charity not entitlement. But I am all for charity. Those who can't do for themselves are much different than those who won't do for themselves.

And if I can't make it any simpler to understand, watch the video. That pretty much describes my take on things.

 
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 am a social and fiscal liberal, but not a cultural relativist, so I tend to be in the minority among liberals when it comes to certain aspects of foreign policy and the way I view illiberal societies.
 
Socially, I'm libertarian (aka liberal). Fiscally, I'm libertarian. Iow, I support equal rights, equal access, and freedoms/liberties, but I don't support government expenditures on any type of welfare, be it social or corporate. I support strong defense, but not national offense and nation-building, and I don't support foreign aid.

I used to refer to myself as fiscally conservative, but the conservatives aren't conservative fiscally anymore. :)

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 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.
 
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. :lol:
 
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:
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:
what am I? consistent
 
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?
 
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.”
 
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
 
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:
I can never figure out where to put myself, so why don't you guys decide for me.

I identify as socialist as I believe in 100% income sharing -- voluntary, before you conservatives have an anuerism, yes I said VOLUNTARY. No force, stealing, etc...
That said here I am on eveything else:

Social Issues
Pro-choice but not yet decisive on when life begins (i do have a theory), I also do not WANT people to have abortions, but it is not my choice to make
Pro-gun
Anti-capital punishment
Pro assissted suicide
Absolute protecter of the First Amendment
Pro-gay rights
Pro-civil rights
(My friends argue that the below listed views do not jive with my above listed views. please note that I am against regulating the below listed issues)
Anti-Drug laws
Anti-Alcohol laws
Anti-Tobacco and smoking laws
Anti-Gambling laws
Anti- Prostitution laws

(Got some huge lobby attention in that list)

Foreign Affairs

Um.. this might be weird but how about feed our own first?
There are some conflicts we have no business being involved in
Ambassadorship promotes growth and cooperation
Keep good relations so we can work together / learn and everyone can travel freely

Fiscal Policy

We know my ideal-- 100% income sharing, but if I have to live in the US:

Stop spending money on aesthetics for government buildings!
Stop borrowing money!
Stop spending and taxing for public schools and home school children in a community (organize after school groups for socialiazing) THUS lowering taxing and spending
Hate to say it guys -- but greed is not good. If you can afford 8 houses and joe from down the street lives in his car --well then you pay more taxes
If you quit spendnig money on all the things mentioned in "social issues" that I am "ANTI" then you will save

Is that enough? I realize I am putting myself out there and will probably puty myself at a disadvantage in some threads now.... but I am an honest person and believe in transparency.

Edit: Forgot religion, let everyone believe what they want, I have no god, I have theories, but no god.
 
Last edited:
I can never figure out where to put myself, so why don't you guys decide for me.

I identify as socialist as I believe in 100% income sharing -- voluntary, before you conservatives have an anuerism, yes I said VOLUNTARY. No force, stealing, etc...
That said here I am on eveything else:

Social Issues
Pro-choice but not yet decisive on when life begins (i do have a theory), I also do not WANT people to have abortions, but it is not my choice to make
Pro-gun
Anti-capital punishment
Pro assissted suicide
Absolute protecter of the First Amendment
Pro-gay rights
Pro-civil rights
(My friends argue that the below listed views do not jive with my above listed views. please note that I am against regulating the below listed issues)
Anti-Drug laws
Anti-Alcohol laws
Anti-Tobacco and smoking laws
Anti-Gambling laws
Anti- Prostitution laws

(Got some huge lobby attention in that list)

Foreign Affairs

Um.. this might be weird but how about feed our own first?
There are some conflicts we have no business being involved in
Ambassadorship promotes growth and cooperation
Keep good relations so we can work together / learn and everyone can travel freely

Fiscal Policy

We know my ideal-- 100% income sharing, but if I have to live in the US:

Stop spending money on aesthetics for government buildings!
Stop borrowing money!
Stop spending and taxing for public schools and home school children in a community (organize after school groups for socialiazing) THUS lowering taxing and spending
Hate to say it guys -- but greed is not good. If you can afford 8 houses and joe from down the street lives in his car --well then you pay more taxes
If you quit spendnig money on all the things mentioned in "social issues" that I am "ANTI" then you will save

Is that enough? I realize I am putting myself out there and will probably puty myself at a disadvantage in some threads now.... but I am an honest person and believe in transparency.

Edit: Forgot religion, let everyone believe what they want, I have no god, I have theories, but no god.

fairly sensible?
 
Regarding the political spectrum: are you more of a liberal, or more of a conservative, on social/fiscal issues? In what ways? This'll be multiple choice for those who are liberal on fiscal issues yet conservative on social issues, etc.

If I had to confine myself to a 1-D plot, socially liberal...ish and fiscally.....neither since they both do nothing but grow the federal government.
 
I'm a free market anarchist.

Free-market anarchism refers to an individualist anarchist philosophy in which monopoly of force held by government would be replaced by a competitive market of non-monopolistic organizations providing security, justice, and other defense services. A market would exist where providers of security and law compete for voluntarily paying customers that wish to receive the services rather than individuals being taxed without their consent and assigned a monopoly provider of force. The belief, among free-market anarchists, is that this competition thus will tend to produce cheaper and higher-quality legal and police services including "a high-quality good of impartial, efficient umpiring of conflicting rights claims"

"No government should have the right to prevent another government from going into competition with it, or to require consumers of security to come exclusively to it for this commodity."

Free-market anarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Back
Top Bottom