• 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
Like most libertarians, I could generally be described as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but there are variances on both axis. Socially, I am pro life. I don't think there is a right to gay marriage, but if the people want to redefine marriage through their legislators that's fine. Personally, I'd probably prefer a civil union compromise, but either way its not a huge issue to me. Fiscally I'm OK with government investment in infrastructure, education, and advanced research which has lead to some dogmatic libertarians to call me a statist.

I personally try to mix principle with pragmatism. Too much of either can lead to bad results in my book.
 
Okay, I'll guess I'll go into detail.

Pro-gun
Pro choice
Pro drugs
Pro gay rights
****, mind blank...
Basically social liberal
Kinda anti-religion, but I'm trying to tone that down.

Economic
Increase government spending on infrastructure, education, and technology. Not much else...
 
Okay, I'll guess I'll go into detail.

Pro-gun
Pro choice
Pro drugs
Pro gay rights
****, mind blank...
Basically social liberal
Kinda anti-religion, but I'm trying to tone that down.

Economic
Increase government spending on infrastructure, education, and technology. Not much else...

I'm with you on a couple of those. I believe that there are somethings that government should be doing that it is not doing enough of, and some things that it is doing that it should not be doing.

I'm pro-gun rights but also pro sensible forms of gun control - the two are not mutually exclusive.
I'm pro-legalizing marijuana and some of the softer gateway drugs but not much else.
I'm not anti-choice but I lean pro-life.
I'm not anti-religion but I am virulently anti-ignorance and anti-critical thinking. As a rule I generally can't stand fundamentalist theists, nor militant atheists.
 
I'm with you on a couple of those. I believe that there are somethings that government should be doing that it is not doing enough of, and some things that it is doing that it should not be doing.

I'm pro-gun rights but also pro sensible forms of gun control - the two are not mutually exclusive.
I'm pro-legalizing marijuana and some of the softer gateway drugs but not much else.
I'm not anti-choice but I lean pro-life.

I'm not anti-religion but I am virulently anti-ignorance and anti-critical thinking. As a rule I generally can't stand fundamentalist theists, nor militant atheists.

Most of my despise of of organized religion just stems from bad experience with certain people. I try to control it, but then I just think of certain things and I lose it.
 
Most of my despise of of organized religion just stems from bad experience with certain people. I try to control it, but then I just think of certain things and I lose it.

I try to make a distinction between organized religion and simple faith/belief.
 
Like most libertarians, I could generally be described as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but there are variances on both axis. Socially, I am pro life. I don't think there is a right to gay marriage, but if the people want to redefine marriage through their legislators that's fine. Personally, I'd probably prefer a civil union compromise, but either way its not a huge issue to me. Fiscally I'm OK with government investment in infrastructure, education, and advanced research which has lead to some dogmatic libertarians to call me a statist.

I personally try to mix principle with pragmatism. Too much of either can lead to bad results in my book.

I just mentioned last night that we need to work on the infrastructure, education , transportation and research... interesting. I have not seen anyone else mention infrastructure on this forum yet, maybe I am just not looking in thr right places (I tend to debate social issues) but I have only been on this forum for a month or so.

An interesting item about the infrastructure, Obama wants to use it to create work. But the problem is that it will create work, not jobs (long-term). What do you think?
 
But the problem is that it will create work, not jobs (long-term). What do you think?

Although this probably wasn't aimed at me, temporary jobs are the key to long term growth.
 
I just mentioned last night that we need to work on the infrastructure, education , transportation and research... interesting. I have not seen anyone else mention infrastructure on this forum yet, maybe I am just not looking in thr right places (I tend to debate social issues) but I have only been on this forum for a month or so.

An interesting item about the infrastructure, Obama wants to use it to create work. But the problem is that it will create work, not jobs (long-term). What do you think?

I think infrastructure is one of the best places to invest when the economy is down. It is true it does only create short term jobs, but unlike a lot of make work programs or outright hand outs (like unemployment extensions) it leaves something of value behind while also injecting money into the economy in the short term.

I saw a great special that was made a few years ago called the Crumbling of America or something and it details how most of our infrastructure is 50 to 100 years old and is nearing the end of its original projected lifespan. It also details the millions and billions of dollars we spend every year at all levels of government just to maintain our current crumbling infrastructure. With technological advances, we could not only replace it, but often improve it giving us increased efficiancy and also freeing up those annual expenses and work hours to be used to create new opportunities in the economy.
 
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 everything 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 assisted suicide
Absolute protester 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 socializing) 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 spending 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.

You saved me a lot of time outside of gun control everything you say matches up well. I would add a few things. I am anti gun and anti military. I believe the best defense is being a good neighbor and not acting superior to the neighborhood. How can anyone who has nuclear weapons tell others they can't.
I think the prison system should actually work toward making a convict a productive citizen and not make them a better and more dangerous criminal.
I lean a little more toward the Utopian ideal and do think that if we gave it a chance we could make it.
I am also against private land ownership. I also think that necessary commodities, such as oil, electric, medicines, medical care and so on should not be subject to profit swings i.e market swings and speculation. Incomes should be leveled to a place where no one makes more than 50 times more than anyone else. Education at the higher levels should also be free.
 
Last edited:
I think infrastructure is one of the best places to invest when the economy is down. It is true it does only create short term jobs, but unlike a lot of make work programs or outright hand outs (like unemployment extensions) it leaves something of value behind while also injecting money into the economy in the short term.

I saw a great special that was made a few years ago called the Crumbling of America or something and it details how most of our infrastructure is 50 to 100 years old and is nearing the end of its original projected lifespan. It also details the millions and billions of dollars we spend every year at all levels of government just to maintain our current crumbling infrastructure. With technological advances, we could not only replace it, but often improve it giving us increased efficiancy and also freeing up those annual expenses and work hours to be used to create new opportunities in the economy.

Having good infrastructure is great. But do you need a building that costs 20M when a building that costs 5M would do nicely.
 
Having good infrastructure is great. But do you need a building that costs 20M when a building that costs 5M would do nicely.

Who's talking about buildings? I'm talking about highways, roads, bridges, our power grid, and sewer and water lines.

You saved me a lot of time outside of gun control everything you say matches up well. I would add a few things. I am anti gun and anti military. I believe the best defense is being a good neighbor and not acting superior to the neighborhood. How can anyone who has nuclear weapons tell others they can't.

That's a great defense if you also have good neighbors, but if you have aggressive self interested neighbors then you need something a little more intimidating than good intentions to keep them at bay. Same is true with guns. A gun free society would be great, if there were no criminals to worry about. But there are criminals and a lot of folks don't want to rely on a squad car being at the right place at the right time to save them, their family, or their property from harm.

I don't understand how anyone can be anti-military. Its almost universally recognized as a legitimate role of government. Now you can against interventionism or imperialism, that's one thing. But to say we shouldn't have a military that's just kinda naive. Its like saying we shouldn't have police.
 
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 could go along with this, with the additional note that I would very much prefer such programs be created, as needed, at the town, county, or state level only. The states united in their federation in order to accomplish tasks none of them could accomplish on their own. These tasks were basically common defense and establishing a free trade zone among themselves. Aside from these functions, there is nothing the federal government can do that any of the states could do for themselves. So, I would say that the decision as to whether any sort of government assistance ought to be given should lie solely in the hands of state and local governments.
 
Somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan, apparently. :roll:
 
Who's talking about buildings? I'm talking about highways, roads, bridges, our power grid, and sewer and water lines.



That's a great defense if you also have good neighbors, but if you have aggressive self interested neighbors then you need something a little more intimidating than good intentions to keep them at bay. Same is true with guns. A gun free society would be great, if there were no criminals to worry about. But there are criminals and a lot of folks don't want to rely on a squad car being at the right place at the right time to save them, their family, or their property from harm.

I don't understand how anyone can be anti-military. Its almost universally recognized as a legitimate role of government. Now you can against interventionism or imperialism, that's one thing. But to say we shouldn't have a military that's just kinda naive. Its like saying we shouldn't have police.

I was referring to the waste on ostentatious buildings. I can agree on highways, power grid and so on.
I can be anti-military, it doesn't mean the world will change. Humans can always find a way to fight with violence. It starts in the sand box and only changes by the degree with which we do damage to others. I find it senseless. It certainly is not naive to desire a peaceful planet.
When people start out believing military is necessary there is no chance for anyone to change. Just goes to show from your attitude alone how silly the idea of peace and peaceful solutions are. I try not to be so negative about humanity. It seems in your eyes though humanity has no hope and will always end in death and violence.
 
I don't believe we're destined to always end in death and violence, but I do recognize it is a possibility. Humans are by nature competitive and there will always be some folks who are willing to use violence to further their aims. We can put our heads in the sand and ignore that fact or we can take precautions to make us a less desirable target to predators. This is true on a person to person level and on a state to state level.

To use an analogy, the military is like car insurance. I hope I never need it, but I still have it because if I don't have it when I do need it, I'm totally screwed. Again, you can be against militarism or interventionism or imperialism. I understand those positions, but to say we shouldn't have a military at all is just a formula for disaster.
 
When people start out believing military is necessary there is no chance for anyone to change.

Given some 10,000 years of written history, it's immediately obvious a military is not only necessary but vital, and not being reticent to use it is also a necessary component of national leadership.
 
Given some 10,000 years of written history, it's immediately obvious a military is not only necessary but vital, and not being reticent to use it is also a necessary component of national leadership.

I'll agree that a strong military is both necessary and vital. But "using it"? Our military is being used on a daily basis for peaceful purposes. If you're talking about reticence in initiating military force, well let's just say that I think we have the opposite problem the past decade or so.
 
I can't vote in the poll as I don't think that things can be split up into just liberal or conservative. For example, I am a fan of social welfare programs, a supposed "liberal" position, but I also want a strong national defense and am a strong supporter of the right to bear arms, a supposed "conservative" position.
 
I'll agree that a strong military is both necessary and vital. But "using it"? Our military is being used on a daily basis for peaceful purposes. If you're talking about reticence in initiating military force, well let's just say that I think we have the opposite problem the past decade or so.

Some of the current tactics used in the last decade or so are certainly not well thought out, but I happen to think taking Saddam out was necessary, and I also think going into Afghanistan was, and is, necessary.

What I disagree with re past and current uses of the military is to treat them like this is some sort of Peace Corp camp-out and doing the ludicrous 'nation building' nonsense that's all the rage now. It's obvious neither the people in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other Islamic countries are capable of modernity and giving up their clan feuds an their medieval political cult. All that 'nation building' nonsense is a waste of time and effort.

The current problem in Afghanistan is created mostly in Pakistan, and the failure and timidity involved in not dealing with that is dooming the entire operation to defeat. I can criticize plenty of decisions as well as anybody.

What I don't have is access to the same intelligence and political information the President and his advisers have, and in many cases that has to be secret, so naturally, it's all just opinion. Neither you or anybody else outside the loop has any real idea what the true situation is, so it's just an exercise in sophistry and gossip at this point.

And, by the way, the U.S. has been 'involved' in Afghanistan for a long, long time; Franklin Roosevelt and the New Dealers financed and built the first modern paved highway there in 1934, for instance.
 
Last edited:
Fiscal conservative and social moderate.
 
Socially I'm progressive. I want to see equality for all and want to see economic fairness from unfair buisness practices. I also want to see this country move foward in science, technology, and space as much as possible so we can be the leader in innovation once more.

But as a progressive I also wish to make progress without interfering with the constitution. Where Republicans have taken away certain right s with the Patriot Act and liberals seek to abolish the second ammendment, I say we must protect all of our rights from extremist Liberals and conservatives which is why i label myself under none of these parties these days.

Which brings me to the Judicial side of things. I'm very much a libertarian when it comes to the judicial aspect of government. I believe there is way too much government and laws controlling this land. Each passing year congress creates thousands of new laws that restricts are freedoms. The Patriot Act is huge but thousands of little laws are also passed. I think we need to go in the opposite direction and have less laws.

Fiscally I'm moderate. I think we need to stop spending trillions on wars across the globe and start spending it on things here at home. At the same time we don't need to get rid of social security which secures peoples lives and this country. Simply sometimes hard choices are made and honestly we need to raise taxes on every person in america to get out of financial ruin just like it was done in the 90's and we came out with surplus for several years.
 
Last edited:
Not sure what I am. Guess I'm a mutt.

Social Liberal:

—Pro-prostitution. [I don't support it, and I think it's demeaning, but people have the right to do what they want with their bodies. Also, if legalized, it'll undoubtedly be safer for them.]

—Neutral on gay marriage. [Neither support nor oppose it. Used to oppose it, but didn't have much supporting data to fight the flood of well-thought-out arguments. America is no theocracy, and we all must have the freedom to either save or damn our souls. Plus, freedom is precious.]

Social Conservative:

—Views homosexuality as a sin. [Just my opinion from a Traditionally Christian pov. Hate the sin, not the sinner.]

Fiscal Liberal:

—Pro Alternative/Green energy. [Naturally, I think we should all be stewards of the earth God gave us. Take care of His creations, cute down on pollution, create a TON of solar panels/etc, and put more money into research for alternative energy.]

—Aware of climate change/global warming. [Whether it's true or not that the climate is changing from human activity, it should be a given to care for the earth and its bounty. I guess you can call me a liberal on all things eco-friendly, though I don't think only liberals should champion the cause. Also, I DON'T like it when some who are communistically-minded try to use the platform of going green, etc.]

Fiscal Conservative:

—Cut government spending on things that aren't necessary. [To be clear I don't know all of the economical issues republicans and democrats fight over. It should be a given to cut what's truly unecessary, imho.]

Other:

—Taxes. [I don't have enough knowledge to come to a comfortable stance. I don't like high taxes, nor do I like low taxes; either way someone benefits, and someone struggles. Fairs taxes sound great, but how do we get there?]

—Abortion. [I'm been ambivalent on it. Life is very important, but banning abortion would probably have dire consequences. Not sure what to do.]

—War. [I don't like uneccasry wars and dying. I hate how soldiers fight and die for truly unimportant whims of our leaders. If a war isn't necessary, it shouldn't be fought. The crux: define "necessary."]

—Race. [I think discrimination is wrong and we true equality. Affirmative Action is racist in a way, meaning that it prefers some races over others. That's not equal. Two wrongs don't make a right. I long for the day when all races are treated absolutely equally across the board.]

Side note: There's probably more than a few things I've forgotten.
 
Back
Top Bottom