• 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!

Should DP add 'independent conservative' and 'independent liberal'?

Should DP add 'independent conservative' and 'independent liberal' options


  • Total voters
    32
  • Poll closed .
Disagree. How strong an issue's importance is impacts how much one will spend time addressing or advocating for that issue.

SSM and abortion are both topics I spend a lot of time on here, yet in the real world care very little about.

Also, when voting for someone, if a candidate's position on that one important issue, opposes one's position, that might prevent that individual from voting for that candidate. I know it would for me.

For example, Jerry... if there was a candidate who was mildly for most of the things you support, but STRONGLY for abortion on demand, would you vote for him?

You're mixing political theory with the practical application of policy.

To answer your question, yes, I probably would vot for him, because abortion isn't a big deal to me. It's just fun to debate. Same with SSM. Liberals are right, these things don't effect me, and so I don't care; but this isn't the real world, this DebatePolitics.com, a video game, and it's fun to argue the hot-topics.

In truth social issues aren't going to make or brake my support for any given candidate. I am a social conservative, but it's not a big deal. I didn't vote against President Obama because he was pro-choice, but because he's on the record in strong support of single-payer nationalized healthcare. The social issues and speaking gaffs (57 states; "punished with a baby", etc) were just tools to troll the left here, nothing more.

If a liberal came out and was strong on SSM, abortion rights and nationalized healthcare, yet immovably resilient on national security and the 2nd amendment, then this conservative would be voting for a liberal.

That doesn't change my positions on those various issue, though, which means who I support doesn't define what I am.

Put all of those same social issues in front of me in a ballot box, and though I overlooked them when considering a candidate's total political platform, I would still vote to oppose elective abortion and SSM.
 
Last edited:
I agree.


Now, about independent. Give me a minute, please, a look at my explaination alone. Forget what other independents have used for excuses up till now, for the sake of this minute.

Passionately, in order of importance:

Militant (DemPeaceTheory).
Green (not AGW).
Pro-gay (Regarding SSM, the abolition of marriage and civil union is my fundamental stance, but I'll support 'unions for everyone' for transitional equal rights purposes).
Pro-life (few reservations).

The rest is pretty much disinterested libertarian.


What's my lean?

Anyone else, feel free to jump in and let me know if there is a better option than independent. I'm pretty sure that being most passionate about militant and green largely screws the pooch from the git-go.

Thanks

I have no idea what DemPeaceTheory is, never heard of it, but if by "green" you mean cliamat change then as all of that is a hoax like the world ending on May21st, flat-earth theory and young-earth creationism then your lean is "kook".

"Pro-gay" is another label that doesn't mean anything.
 
Last edited:
I have no idea what DemPeaceTheory is, never heard of it, but if by "green" you mean cliamat change then as all of that is a hoax like the world ending on May21st, flat-earth theory and young-earth creationism then your lean is "kook".

I took it as "no justice, no peace" based on the "militant" part.
 
Last edited:
I took it as "no justice, no peace" based on the "militant" part.

Dems are the party who stood with fire hose in hand to oppose desegregation, and are the party with the most, by far, connections to the KKK, La'Raza, Planned Parenthood and other openly racist organizations, so it would be wise not to leave it for me to guess what DemPeaceTheory means :)...the term smacks of a 'final solution'....
 
Last edited:
Dems are the party who stood with fire hose in hand to oppose desegregation, and are the party with the most, by far, connections to the KKK, La'Raza, Planned Parenthood and other openly racist organizations, so it would be wise not to leave it for me to guess what DemPeaceTheory means :)...the term smacks of a 'final solution'....

Yeah.

Militant.
 
Democratic Peace Theory is the (naive) idea that democracies won't fight with each other. I'd guess that being militant about it means he supports the neo-conservative viewpoint about spreading democracy through war.
 
Democratic Peace Theory is the (naive) idea that democracies won't fight with each other. I'd guess that being militant about it means he supports the neo-conservative viewpoint about spreading democracy through war.

For the most part... democracies haven't fought each other. There's been peace throughout Europe since the spread of democracy. All of the monarchies have gone or at least become constitutional, totalitarian regimes like the Nazis or Soviets are gone, and Germany and Russia are now at peace with other democratic nations. Even the middle eastern nations were more peaceful when they were democratic, or at least moving towards democracy.

As for the OP... I listed independent because there's no option for socialist. And because I think that the mainstream liberalism is too pro-business.
 
For the most part... democracies haven't fought each other. There's been peace throughout Europe since the spread of democracy. All of the monarchies have gone or at least become constitutional, totalitarian regimes like the Nazis or Soviets are gone, and Germany and Russia are now at peace with other democratic nations. Even the middle eastern nations were more peaceful when they were democratic, or at least moving towards democracy.

As for the OP... I listed independent because there's no option for socialist. And because I think that the mainstream liberalism is too pro-business.

I think it's more accurate to say that trading partners don't fight with each other.

How do you feel about the progressive label, in place of socialist? (Or is that even an option?)
 
I think it's more accurate to say that trading partners don't fight with each other.

How do you feel about the progressive label, in place of socialist? (Or is that even an option?)

PS - I see that it isn't an option. But very conservative is. Considering what I've read of conservative posters here, I'm switching to VC.
 
For the most part... democracies haven't fought each other. There's been peace throughout Europe since the spread of democracy. All of the monarchies have gone or at least become constitutional, totalitarian regimes like the Nazis or Soviets are gone, and Germany and Russia are now at peace with other democratic nations. Even the middle eastern nations were more peaceful when they were democratic, or at least moving towards democracy.

As for the OP... I listed independent because there's no option for socialist. And because I think that the mainstream liberalism is too pro-business.

I agree, 'socialist' should be an option.
 
I'd guess that being militant about it means he supports the neo-conservative viewpoint about spreading democracy through war.

Correct. Minus the big lie. No one ever told me what that was, exactly, so I don't advocate it. Did you NOT notice my avatar and title?

Let's note that Obama agrees - Libya.


I think it's more accurate to say that trading partners don't fight with each other.

Trade helps, but plenty of trading partners have gone to war - sometimes because of trade dependency and/or disagreements.

But you liked DPT being labeled naive. Hah. "Oh, that's naive... let me just make something up to counter it."
 
Last edited:
I have been thinking about this. I am quite conservative in my outlook, though I define what it means for myself and I am not affiliated with the GOP. However, due to my conservative lean, some mistakenly ascribe that to myself (and others who are like me.) Thus, should DP add 'independent conservative' and 'independent liberal' to the political affiliation options.

I am going to have to agree with spud_meister on this. No party owns the copyright on liberalism or conservatism. Should DP add conservative democrat or liberal republican to the political affiliation options? Because there are plenty of liberal republicans and conservative democrats.
 
Yes, I think that indie liberal/conservative should be added because when one sees "liberal" or "conservative" they usually think that the user is either a Dem or a Repub, which may not always be the case. For example, I am a liberal, yet I am not a fan of the Democratic party in the least bit.
 
Yes, I think that indie liberal/conservative should be added because when one sees "liberal" or "conservative" they usually think that the user is either a Dem or a Repub, which may not always be the case. For example, I am a liberal, yet I am not a fan of the Democratic party in the least bit.

People make those assumptions even without ever looking at your lean, and many times even in spite of it.

I've seen strong pro-choice accused of walking the Republican party line simply for suggesting that women be more responsible in their sex life to avoid unwanted pregnancy.

There is no avoiding it.
 
Yes, I think that indie liberal/conservative should be added because when one sees "liberal" or "conservative" they usually think that the user is either a Dem or a Repub, which may not always be the case. For example, I am a liberal, yet I am not a fan of the Democratic party in the least bit.

If you are not a fan of the democratic party then why do you have those little donkeys above your avatar?
 
Why not just remove the selection all together and let people type in what they want?

There are more leans than there are options and clearly people have different ideas about what their lean should be. So why not give them the freedom to fill in the blank?
 
So what's the deal, Jerry?


Lucky says I'm a pro-life liberal. Unfortunately for him, this was a snap judgement and probably ignored the libertarian base. I'm right wing economically. And then he found out I'm a neocon on foreign policy (Cheney might be my favorite VP ever). I don't think he wants me in the liberal group anymore.

You don't mind a pro-gay marriage, pro-legalization, anti-death penalty, green (not AGW), rabid-hawk (money is no object) conservative on the team, right? I'm in, right?

You said everyone must be one or the other, and I don't think the libs want me.

What are we gonna do? You could claim I'm stupid or that my philosophy is inconsistent, but I think that would be a mistake.


No one belongs to nothing, which is what you would have to be as an independent or unaffiliated, etc. You have to be truly neutral on every conceivable issue.

That's ignorant.
 
Last edited:
So what's the deal, Jerry?

What are you asking here?

Lucky says I'm a pro-life liberal. Unfortunately for him, this was a snap judgement and probably ignored the libertarian base. I'm right wing economically. And then he found out I'm a neocon on foreign policy (Cheney might be my favorite VP ever). I don't think he wants me in the liberal group anymore.

You didn't clarify anything I didn't understand about you in my last post to you, so as you've given me no new information, I don't know what sort of response, other than trolling, you're trying to get from me.

If trolling is all you want from me, I can oblige. Please let me know either way.

You don't mind a pro-gay marriage, pro-legalization, anti-death penalty, green (not AGW), rabid-hawk (money is no object) conservative on the team, right? I'm in, right?

Pro-legalization...of what? Immigration? Hard drugs? Just pot? Machine-guns?

What does "green" mean? What is AGW and how do your views differ from it?


darkslategray said:
You said everyone must be one or the other, and I don't think the libs want me.



darkslategray said:
What are we gonna do?

I generally play it by ear.
 
Last edited:
I think it's more accurate to say that trading partners don't fight with each other.

How do you feel about the progressive label, in place of socialist? (Or is that even an option?)

You're right, that might be a more accurate way to put it. Financial interdependence is a good way to ensure peace. The other way is sex (usually in the form of intermarriage).

I would add both. They're not the same thing. Though I might have difficulty choosing which one I felt closer to. Maybe I just don't have a good understanding of what "progressive" really means.
 
So what's the deal, Jerry?


Lucky says I'm a pro-life liberal. Unfortunately for him, this was a snap judgement and probably ignored the libertarian base. I'm right wing economically. And then he found out I'm a neocon on foreign policy (Cheney might be my favorite VP ever). I don't think he wants me in the liberal group anymore.

You don't mind a pro-gay marriage, pro-legalization, anti-death penalty, green (not AGW), rabid-hawk (money is no object) conservative on the team, right? I'm in, right?

You said everyone must be one or the other, and I don't think the libs want me.

What are we gonna do? You could claim I'm stupid or that my philosophy is inconsistent, but I think that would be a mistake.

Okay, then, how about small L libertarian? I think of that as being fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
 
You're right, that might be a more accurate way to put it. Financial interdependence is a good way to ensure peace. The other way is sex (usually in the form of intermarriage).

I would add both. They're not the same thing. Though I might have difficulty choosing which one I felt closer to. Maybe I just don't have a good understanding of what "progressive" really means.

Progressives, going by what I've read from those who self-describe as such, are the ones who really fell hard for BO's line about "fundamentally transforming America." They're secular, equality-oriented in just about everything, comfortable with wealth-redistrubution through taxation, and suspicious of American power and influence globally.
 
Why not just remove the selection all together and let people type in what they want?

There are more leans than there are options and clearly people have different ideas about what their lean should be. So why not give them the freedom to fill in the blank?

Good idea. At the very least we need more options. I was a little dismayed that I had to pick the ambiguous 'Other.'
 
Good idea. At the very least we need more options. I was a little dismayed that I had to pick the ambiguous 'Other.'

Maybe some people are just putting too fine a point on it. The question is "lean?" Not "define your philosophy in one word."
 
Okay, then, how about small L libertarian? I think of that as being fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Libertarian is a party, and as such there are conservative libertarians ( who emphasis personal responsibility) and liberal libertarians (who want all drugs legalized).
 
Good idea. At the very least we need more options. I was a little dismayed that I had to pick the ambiguous 'Other.'

I agree, 'other' needs to go away.
 
Back
Top Bottom