• 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!

My age is

I am between


  • Total voters
    92
Republicans in Lincoln's time were often extremely socially liberal. In fact that strain of conservatism survived into the 90's, when socially liberal conservatives argued in favor of gay marriage. Then they were mostly pushed into the libertarian realm, after authoritarian conservatism took over. Conservatism didn't really used to mean "back to the good ole' days." It used to mean something more along the lines of "conserving rights."

Failing to factor in historical context means you lose the suffrage and slavery points.

The rest of the developed world has banned (or invalidated) the death penalty. And they are nearly all more socially liberal than we are. Also note that most of the states still practicing the death penalty are pretty red.

Then there was one you conceded, and one you didn't address at all. So much for that whoopin'.

Conservatism has always meant many different things in this country. It could have always meant an aversion to mass democracy, social liberalism, and so forth.
 
The rest of the developed world has banned (or invalidated) the death penalty. And they are nearly all more socially liberal than we are. Also note that most of the states still practicing the death penalty are pretty red.
This is not true. Here is a list of death penalty per 10 million in 2010. Don't forget that US nearly banned the death penalty in 1970s.

Singapore: 40
Taiwan: 1.78
United States: 1.48
Japan: 0.18
South Korea: 0 (but 0.25 on death row)
 
I am using "socially liberal" because it is the modern term that people understand. Republicans of yore were what we, in 2011, call "socially liberal."

And obviously your "authoritarian conservative" if you were to look at their operations.
 
24, 25 next month.
 
And obviously your "authoritarian conservative" if you were to look at their operations.

Actually authoritarian applies to social issues, and I am very socially liberal. Not sure where that came from. Economically I am middle-of-the-road left.

When it comes to authoritarianism, that is now the stomping ground of the conservative party.
 
Last edited:
Appears that the most intelligent posters are 10-19, not sure if that's very depressing or very uplifting.
 
I am using "socially liberal" because it is the modern term that people understand. Republicans of yore were what we, in 2011, call "socially liberal."

No, you didn't prove me wrong. I was talking about what is known today as social liberalism. All of your "counters" were about social liberals making socially liberal changes. You've served to prove my point more than anything.

What conservatives of the day fought it every step of the way?
 
Most of my favorite posters on this site are probably within the 20-29 or 30-39 age range.

I thought the better of the posters were typically at least 30+, usually older than 40.
 
less hackish, more willing to consider the other sides viewpoint (if it has at least some validity), don't stubbornly cling to their position at the expense of reality, fair-minded.

Those are few and far between, eh?
 
I thought the better of the posters were typically at least 30+, usually older than 40.

I agree, in very general terms. However, I've seen some really great posters that were under 20 and some really awful ones that were 50+. I think that, again in general, the more actual life experience one has, the better decisions and thus the better posters they make. Life experience, and lack thereof, does certainly color ideals.
 
But these are not liberal issues. Racial equality and woman's equality is just as important for conservatives.

They are these days, but thats because those values were socialized into people due to the efforts of the past. There is a good reason for things like black history month and what not, the month itself is not important, but it does indoctrinate kids to believe in racial equality.

We just differ in the method to achieve the goal. I don't believe we can achieve equality be forcing companies to hire women and minorities. I believe we need to change our mindset or increase productivity of certain groups. Secondly, racial equality is backtracking in Europe.

You are right about gay marriage. That's why I said partly. But gay marriage is not a big issue outside the US.

The same thing will likely happen about gay marriage. We will no doubt have something like gay history month in our schools in the next decade to achieve the same results.
 
When it comes to authoritarianism, that is now the stomping ground of the conservative party.
You're on a sweeping generalization role MN... got anything to back up your assertion?
 
I am seeing an obvious correlation here with age and politics. Most young people are lib, older people are cons. I was a lib kid myself so I cut them a lot of slack, it’s the old libs that I have a hard time not being annoyed with.

I too was a liberal until I got married and had children. With age comes wisdom, I voted for Regan that is around the time my politics were becoming more conservative. Most of my friends growing up and into my twenties who were also liberal are now conservative. I can think of one exception. My friend Rob. Rob is still a liberal. He is unemployed and receives ssi checks which he spends on marijuana and beer. He is a 50 year old bevis and butthead type that lives in his 74 year old mothers basement. Everyone else grew up and became responsible productive citizens.
 
With age comes wisdom, and now I'm liberal. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom