View Poll Results: What is your politics?

Voters
36. You may not vote on this poll
  • social conservative, economic conservative, aggressive foreign policy

    2 5.56%
  • social conservative, economic conservative, internationalist foreign policy

    3 8.33%
  • social liberal, economic conservative, aggressive foreign policy

    8 22.22%
  • social liberal, economic conservative, internationalist foreign policy

    7 19.44%
  • social conservative, economic liberal, aggressive foreign policy

    3 8.33%
  • social conservative, economic liberal, internationalist foreign policy

    1 2.78%
  • social liberal, economic liberal, aggressive foreign policy

    2 5.56%
  • social liberal, economic liberal, internationalist foreign policy

    10 27.78%
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 62

Thread: What is your politics?

  1. #11
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: What is your politics?

    I picked the closest match you had listed - social liberal, economic liberal and internationalist foreign policy.

    I believe in a strong defense but do not buy into our country's armed imperialism through optional wars like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  2. #12
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: What is your politics?

    Quote Originally Posted by vauge View Post
    I am "social conservative, economic conservative," but there is not an option for a non-interventionalist foreign policy.

    My arguments against Internationalism:
    1. I am a citizen of a country (US), not the world.
    2. I do not believe in applying leadership throughout the world, I think we have enough problems on our own turf and need to look within.
    3. I think the world would be much better off without the UN.
    4. I am not interested in a single world government.
    5. Internationalism is as bad as an aggressive foreign policy as I see the same results from both of them.
    i'm with you on the non-interventionist policy. of course, i am socially liberal and economically centrist.

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  3. #13
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,544

    Re: What is your politics?

    Social Moderate, Economic Conservative, non-interventionalist Foreign Policy.

    None of the poll category's fit me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  4. #14
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,797

    Re: What is your politics?

    I'm socially moderate, economically conservative and agree with lizzie, "Stay the hell out of other countries' business".
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  5. #15
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: What is your politics?

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    Hey, yeah, I saw that vote and found it very curious. I am glad you posted about it. I can dig the socially conservative position, although we disagree on that one, and the aggressive foreign policy position, which we share. However, in what ways are you economically liberal? How do you define that?
    I'm using the accepted definition in US politics, economic policies in line with or similar to the Democratic Party or those few parties further Left. I'm not a Leftist in any ideological sense-- I'm not concerned with equality-- but I think progressive tax schemes are a worthwhile end in their own right aside from their value in funding the government and I believe in extensive government programs and services as well as strict regulatory control over the economy.

    I just don't want the same kind of programs and services that the more traditional liberals want. For instance, I would want to pour substantial amounts of government funds into the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. I would want to drastically increase school budgets, but I'd want the money going primarily into creating a robust vocational education system and enhanced gifted & talented programs. And better funding for public universities. Military funding would probably stay the same or even increase. (Funnel the money from boondoggle R&D programs into salaries and training budgets, though.) I'd like to have CCTV, at very least in high crime areas, and enough money to put police officers, on foot, in those areas in sufficient numbers to ensure their safety and their efficacy.

    For starters.

    As far as social conservatism goes... I'm a little off there, too. Fine with gay marriage and abortion, it's divorce and raising children out of wedlock I object to. Want drugs legalized, but I don't want them advertised and I want them kept behind the counter and out of sight in pharmacies, with the pornography and the marital aids. I want laws on obscenity back, if only in public, and for indecent exposure to be a little broader in scope than genitals and womens' nipples. I support gun ownership, and open carry, and for the castle doctrine to apply to your lawn. (The moat doctrine?) Protesters should be polite, out of the way, and quiet; police should be able to arrest, beat, or turn the hoses and dogs on people bothering innocent bystanders, making noise, or carrying indecent picket signs. The press, on the other hand, should be able to print anything that is not libel, obscenity, or that does not fall under the strictest definition of national security.

    We probably see eye-to-eye on military matters. I think American blood is precious and every single drop of it spilled-- by foreigners, at least-- requires justification, but that our military exists to do what's good for us first and foremost and what's good for the rest of the world as an afterthought.

    So, yeah. Mixed bag. In terms of label, I consider myself simply a moderate authoritarian, with a tolerance for those traditional freedoms that uphold order and civility.

  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: What is your politics?

    Very interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain your positions. For comparisons purposes, I'll lay mine down.

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    I'm using the accepted definition in US politics, economic policies in line with or similar to the Democratic Party or those few parties further Left. I'm not a Leftist in any ideological sense-- I'm not concerned with equality-- but I think progressive tax schemes are a worthwhile end in their own right aside from their value in funding the government and I believe in extensive government programs and services as well as strict regulatory control over the economy.

    I just don't want the same kind of programs and services that the more traditional liberals want. For instance, I would want to pour substantial amounts of government funds into the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. I would want to drastically increase school budgets, but I'd want the money going primarily into creating a robust vocational education system and enhanced gifted & talented programs. And better funding for public universities. Military funding would probably stay the same or even increase. (Funnel the money from boondoggle R&D programs into salaries and training budgets, though.) I'd like to have CCTV, at very least in high crime areas, and enough money to put police officers, on foot, in those areas in sufficient numbers to ensure their safety and their efficacy.

    For starters.
    I am pro-business. I do not like the progressive tax system, as it stifles business. People need to be encouraged to take risks and make money. I would actually prefer a consumption tax, drop the income tax and drop the capital gains tax.

    I also believe in government programs to a degree. Welfare, national health care - it is an embarassment that we have people here that aren't covered: SHAME! Public education although I am for School Vouchers and I like your idea of "creating a robust vocational education system and enhanced gifted & talented programs.". I like your idea of funding the Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts. I am a big fan of National Parks and Seashores.

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    As far as social conservatism goes... I'm a little off there, too. Fine with gay marriage and abortion, it's divorce and raising children out of wedlock I object to. Want drugs legalized, but I don't want them advertised and I want them kept behind the counter and out of sight in pharmacies, with the pornography and the marital aids. I want laws on obscenity back, if only in public, and for indecent exposure to be a little broader in scope than genitals and womens' nipples. I support gun ownership, and open carry, and for the castle doctrine to apply to your lawn. (The moat doctrine?) Protesters should be polite, out of the way, and quiet; police should be able to arrest, beat, or turn the hoses and dogs on people bothering innocent bystanders, making noise, or carrying indecent picket signs. The press, on the other hand, should be able to print anything that is not libel, obscenity, or that does not fall under the strictest definition of national security.
    I am with you on gay marriage and abortion. What can be done about divorce and raising kids out of wedlock? Agreed that it is really hurting our society. It's a go on legalizing drugs. On indecent exposure, I would actually make it more liberal. It's not a crime to see a penis or a nipple. Lighten up America! Guns are good to go. I like noisy in-your-face protestors and think it is not a nuisance violation in many cases, although there are some boundaries you should cross, like go out of a designated area or start damaging property (Seattle WTO riots). If the protestors do violate then turn the dogs loose and let the cops get the job done. I am with you on the press.

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    We probably see eye-to-eye on military matters. I think American blood is precious and every single drop of it spilled-- by foreigners, at least-- requires justification, but that our military exists to do what's good for us first and foremost and what's good for the rest of the world as an afterthought.
    I am not sure of this. I agree the blood of Americans is precious and requires justification. I also agree that what's good for us is first and foremost than what is good for the rest of the world. Where we may differ is that I think spreading democracy is good for us and ought to be aggresively pursued. It so happens it is good for targeted parts of the world, that have the capacity. By capacity, I mean Iraq is literate and has the capacity (Iraq war and rebuilding was awesome, with some bumps), while Afghanistan may not have the capacity (we should get out).

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    So, yeah. Mixed bag. In terms of label, I consider myself simply a moderate authoritarian, with a tolerance for those traditional freedoms that uphold order and civility.
    I call myself a liberal neoconservative, mainly because of the aggressive democracy-spreading position. Cool beans.
    Last edited by reefedjib; 10-28-09 at 03:04 PM.

  7. #17
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:07 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,343
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: What is your politics?

    I am socially and economically liberal, but neither of your options for foreign policy fit me. I would call myself a pragmatist on foreign policy, with the situation defining the correct response, and always taking into account what is in our best interest.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  8. #18
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: What is your politics?

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    I am pro-business. I do not like the progressive tax system, as it stifles business. People need to be encouraged to take risks and make money.
    Not really, because making money is its own encouragement. There is no progressive taxation scheme in which making more money is not rewarded-- it is only a matter of diminishing returns, which is justified in the fact that beyond a certain point, income is not reflective of productive behavior but merely of ownership. The purpose of ownership and capital is to encourage productive behavior; it is the means to an end, not an end of itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    I would actually prefer a consumption tax, drop the income tax and drop the capital gains tax.
    Consumption taxes depress consumption. Where does the capitalist's income derive from, except from consumption? Such a tax hurts everyone, and hurts disproportionately those who can bear it least.

    I actually agree with you on capital gains. People should not pay taxes based upon wealth-on-paper and market fluctuations, only upon the exchange of real money. Same goes for corporate taxes; corporations are not real, and thus should not pay taxes (they don't, anyway), but their owners should pay taxes on income derived from their ownership. With no loopholes.

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    Welfare, national health care - it is an embarassment that we have people here that aren't covered: SHAME!
    More importantly, it is an expensive policy failure. Insufficient coverage not only means that the poor go without all but emergency care, but that prices must increase to cover indigent care-- meaning that more people cannot afford routine care. Vicious cycle. And the taxpayer ends up eating a large portion of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    What can be done about divorce and raising kids out of wedlock? Agreed that it is really hurting our society.
    Though I am not of Christian faith, I'm fond of the concept of Covenant marriage. Premarital counseling should be subsidized if not mandatory, divorce should only be granted with legal grounds and only after marital counseling unless the grounds for divorce involve danger for spouse or children. Neither counseling requirement should involve permission from the counselor, merely participation.

    There's no way to stop people raising children out of wedlock that I am comfortable with, but I think we can stop encouraging it and there are certainly means by which we can discourage it. Abolish mandatory child support for children born out of wedlock. Make Welfare requirements more stringent in terms of program participation. Subsidize more effective forms of birth control, including abortion. Improve adoption services, including matching pregnant women with childless couples. (Voluntarily, of course.) Prohibit reproduction assistance technology for singles.

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    On indecent exposure, I would actually make it more liberal. It's not a crime to see a penis or a nipple. Lighten up America!
    Of course. Everyone else would.

    It isn't a crime to see a penis or a nipple. People should be expected to have seen these things and to be comfortable with dealing with them by the time they're adults-- but they should also have the decency to not be waving them around in public. They are called "private parts" for a reason, and people ought not have to see them in public or see the parts of people they're not interested in. They certainly should not have to see them constantly flashed at them in advertisements, nor should they have blatant sexual imagery used to sell them every product under the sun.

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    Where we may differ is that I think spreading democracy is good for us and ought to be aggressively pursued.
    It's more fundamental than that. I don't think democracy is all that good for us in the first place. Look at what we elect and consistently re-elect to the Legislature, at the State and Federal levels. (Our Governors are generally pretty good I'd say... but I never would have dreamed that I could miss President Clinton so much.) Look at the shambles of our legal system, our tax codes, our regulatory structure... the sorry state of every government agency except those that are least governed democratically.

    You talk about whether other countries might or might not have the capacity for rational self-government. I can't honestly say that ours does, and there isn't an example I can think of and use to demonstrate a society that's better suited to democracy than ours.

    People are naturally lazy and short-sighted, and only exceptional individuals are capable of rising above this nature. Theoretically, a democratic government is the best means for selecting these people-- but in practice, the people will vote on the basis of their laziness and short-sightedness, voting for whomever promises them the most bread and circuses or whomever they'd most like to have a beer with.

    And for those dedicated intellectual partisans who support one party with a deep ideological fervor? The most reliable predictor of their party affiliation is their parents' affiliation. The number of people who make rational political decisions on the basis of their enlightened self-interest or their love of country is vanishingly small, and I'm not certain I can even number myself among them.

    The fact of the matter is that the "will of the people" is far too weak and malleable to make a good foundation for public policy. Houses built on a foundation of sand, and all that.

  9. #19
    John Schnatter 2012 Phantom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    03-20-12 @ 12:48 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    638

    Re: What is your politics?

    I'm a mixture of both classical and modern liberal. My political views are:

    • Against gun control
    • Pro-Choice
    • Believe we should withdraw from the U.N.
    • Against tax cuts to the wealthy
    • Strong supporter of free speech
    • Against the PATRIOT act
    • Against the drug war
    • Against nation building
    • Believe war should only be used as last resort
    • Believe gay marriage should be legalized
    • Against the Federal Reserve
    • Believe we should have a strong separation of church and state.
    • Strongly against torture or "enhanced interrogations"
    Last edited by Phantom; 10-28-09 at 06:31 PM.

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: What is your politics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    Not really, because making money is its own encouragement. There is no progressive taxation scheme in which making more money is not rewarded-- it is only a matter of diminishing returns, which is justified in the fact that beyond a certain point, income is not reflective of productive behavior but merely of ownership. The purpose of ownership and capital is to encourage productive behavior; it is the means to an end, not an end of itself.
    Allowing those means as much flexibility as possible, not restricting it, enables them to reach more productive ends.

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    Consumption taxes depress consumption. Where does the capitalist's income derive from, except from consumption? Such a tax hurts everyone, and hurts disproportionately those who can bear it least.
    There is no evidence that consumption taxes depress total consumption. Some things may depress, while others may grow. Everyone should pay tax and this covers missing taxes from undeclared income. Most importantly it doesn't disproportionately hurt those who can bear it least, it makes is equitable.


    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    More importantly, it is an expensive policy failure. Insufficient coverage not only means that the poor go without all but emergency care, but that prices must increase to cover indigent care-- meaning that more people cannot afford routine care. Vicious cycle. And the taxpayer ends up eating a large portion of it.
    Good point.


    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    There's no way to stop people raising children out of wedlock that I am comfortable with, but I think we can stop encouraging it and there are certainly means by which we can discourage it. Abolish mandatory child support for children born out of wedlock. Make Welfare requirements more stringent in terms of program participation. Subsidize more effective forms of birth control, including abortion. Improve adoption services, including matching pregnant women with childless couples. (Voluntarily, of course.) Prohibit reproduction assistance technology for singles.
    I've no problem with any of these ideas. Sounds reasonable.



    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    It isn't a crime to see a penis or a nipple. People should be expected to have seen these things and to be comfortable with dealing with them by the time they're adults-- but they should also have the decency to not be waving them around in public. They are called "private parts" for a reason, and people ought not have to see them in public or see the parts of people they're not interested in. They certainly should not have to see them constantly flashed at them in advertisements, nor should they have blatant sexual imagery used to sell them every product under the sun.
    Well, I was half-joking and you raise some problems with waving them in public and have the advertising barrage. I just wish we weren't so puritanical. There was a thread here on DP where someone was naked in their home with an open window and a passing lady called the cops who busted the door down to charge him. That's ridiculous.


    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    It's more fundamental than that. I don't think democracy is all that good for us in the first place. Look at what we elect and consistently re-elect to the Legislature, at the State and Federal levels. (Our Governors are generally pretty good I'd say... but I never would have dreamed that I could miss President Clinton so much.) Look at the shambles of our legal system, our tax codes, our regulatory structure... the sorry state of every government agency except those that are least governed democratically.
    That is part of the price you pay in a Democracy. Inefficiency and corruption. Still beats out not being able to vote somebody out of office.

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    You talk about whether other countries might or might not have the capacity for rational self-government. I can't honestly say that ours does, and there isn't an example I can think of and use to demonstrate a society that's better suited to democracy than ours.
    Well, now you are calling it rational self-government, like it is out of an Ayn Rand novel. Of course it isn't rational. We don't always make the best individual choices. We vote for people because of their persona as much as their positions which are half lies anyway. But globally, our systemm optimizes itself. It is able to transform itself. I know only a little political history, but the evolution of political thought in this country since the founding is simply remarkable. Civil-rights, Women's rights, child welfare, etc..

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    People are naturally lazy and short-sighted, and only exceptional individuals are capable of rising above this nature. Theoretically, a democratic government is the best means for selecting these people-- but in practice, the people will vote on the basis of their laziness and short-sightedness, voting for whomever promises them the most bread and circuses or whomever they'd most like to have a beer with.
    I think that's a simplification. People have complex behaviors spanning the range. The people who decide to go into politics successfully, don't tend to be the cherries I'll give you. The system works in spite of these pits.

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    And for those dedicated intellectual partisans who support one party with a deep ideological fervor? The most reliable predictor of their party affiliation is their parents' affiliation. The number of people who make rational political decisions on the basis of their enlightened self-interest or their love of country is vanishingly small, and I'm not certain I can even number myself among them.
    I don't see the same correllation regarding parent's affiliation and child affiliation, just from my personal exposure. Perhaps this is true across the country. But there you go with the rational bit again. People are not rational, so political decisions, economic decisions and the like are irrational, but sometimes educated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    The fact of the matter is that the "will of the people" is far too weak and malleable to make a good foundation for public policy. Houses built on a foundation of sand, and all that.
    I totally disagree with this. I believe this country is a rock, even with all of the bickering and bad decisions and policy shifts we see.
    Last edited by reefedjib; 10-28-09 at 06:38 PM.

Page 2 of 7 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
  •