• 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!

Debate Politics change in political lean?

Should we add "slightly Republican" to the political lean on Debate Politics?

  • Yes we should, not all Republicans are conservative

    Votes: 4 23.5%
  • No, I consider all Republicans, conservatives

    Votes: 6 35.3%
  • The new Call of Duty is horrible. I liked Call of Duty Ghosts better.

    Votes: 7 41.2%

  • Total voters
    17
I was far too young when Goldwater ran to support him or vote for him, but from what I know about him, he'd be the ideal candidate for me today.

I don't know that he'd be ideal but he'd certainly be head and shoulders above anyone from any party that we have to pick from today.
 
I don't know that he'd be ideal but he'd certainly be head and shoulders above anyone from any party that we have to pick from today.

That's setting the bar low comparing him to today's politicians, 99.99% of whom are abysmal.

Generally speaking, his views are in line with mine. Jon Huntsman is the closest thing I've seen in recent years to Goldwater. He'd never get the nomination today. The far religious wing would oppose him.
 
Wow, you assume the best in people, don't you? lol

I'm asking to be associated with Republicans, not against them.

If I'm only a little bit fiscally conservative (that's the only kind of conservative), yet I'm liberal on many instances, but fit the definition of actual Republicanism (political tests put me a Center-Right), why is my request not "fitting" to you?

I'm literally a centrist who leans Republican, not conservative. In fact, I'm more liberal than conservative.

It's attitudes like yours that really make me wonder....Best of luck with all of your future pessimism

But what is 'liberal' in modern day vernacular? Is being pro gay marriage, for instance, 'liberal' or 'progressive', which in modern day vernacular would mean somebody wants a powerful government to order something like that?

Or is it true liberty that the most staunch conservative (as defined in modern day vernacular) would favor along with a conviction that the government should not interfere in that one way or the other?

This is where the lines get really blurred when we try to pigeonhole a conviction about something as 'liberal' or 'conservative' or 'left' or 'right' or whatever.

When I describe myself as a 'classical liberal', it is strictly defined by me as what I think the proper role of government should be and says nothing about what I believe about religion, abortion, welfare, gay rights, human rights, etc.
 
I know you've changed your lean a few times in the last year and now that I think about it, you're really smart for doing it. I should probably do the same thing. I'm sick of the idiotic posts from posters who think they know my "lean" - yesterday I was called a progressive by one poster, a leftist by another poster, and a rabid right winger by a 3rd poster.:roll:

Posters tend to get too wrapped up in what they believe your "lean" is based on the specific post that is being quoted and responded to. That's why lean is irrelevant. Unless a poster is a die hard leaner (uber Liberal or ultra Conservative), you can usually find other posts from the poster on the same day that don't feat neatly and nicely into that little "Liberal" or "Conservative" box.
It's even more frustrating when you feel compelled to give someone's post a "like" when they're publicly listed as being directly opposed to your ideology. How dare they step outside my stereotype of their views?!
 
sorry no, i am for smaller government, reduced to the confines of the constitution.
Do you currently feel our government is fulfilling all its duties adequately? If you don't, you're for bigger government.
 
It's even more frustrating when you feel compelled to give someone's post a "like" when they're publicly listed as being directly opposed to your ideology. How dare they step outside my stereotype of their views?!

Change your view to "Radical Rabid Liberal" so I can give your damn post a like.
 
Fair enough. Except the liberals believe that because mine says "slightly conservative", that I'm some Bush loving, god fearing, anti- gay commenter.

When the only thing i'm really conservative on is 2 aspects of our economy.

Well ya ain't to fond of Obama. Perhaps those comments on the Iran negotiations put a nail in that coffin.
 
yesterday I was called a progressive by one poster, a leftist by another poster, and a rabid right winger by a 3rd poster.:roll:

Reminds me of an anecdote a friend told me a few months back - "If you get called a socialist, an anarchist, a liberal, and a conservative, all in the same day, you might be a Libertarian." :lol:
 
Do you currently feel our government is fulfilling all its duties adequately? If you don't, you're for bigger government.

our government is doing many things it was never intended to do.

anything not in article 1 section 8 is not a power of the federal government, plain and simple.
 
Reminds me of an anecdote a friend told me a few months back - "If you get called a socialist, an anarchist, a liberal, and a conservative, all in the same day, you might be a Libertarian." :lol:

That is classic! Love it!
 
Do you currently feel our government is fulfilling all its duties adequately? If you don't, you're for bigger government.

Disagree. I think it is not fulfilling all its duties adequately and want our federal government to fulfill the duties assigned to it by the Constitution, and I want the federal government to butt out of all the stuff it does that it was never intended to do. And that is most definitely a plea for much smaller, more efficient, more effective, and more constitutionally centered government.

The numbnuts accuse me of extremism, being a government hater, or wanting to do away with all government when I make statements like that.

I call it classical liberalism.
 
Last edited:
When filling out my Bio, I wanted to list my accurate political lean. I am not slightly conservative, but I am more Republican than a centrist. Political tests put me at "right-leaning centrist". However, my right-leaning views aren't really conservative, more general Republicanism. I'm a social liberal too.

What do you guys think? Could we add the choice "slightly Republican"?



The entire labeling system is wrong and outdated.

"Liberal" does not apply to most Democrats as they are more socialist than Canada's socialist NDP. Conservative does not apply to me, however most of my posts tend to agree with "conservative" members.

Today, even left and right are absurd. In Canada we have a very strong social safety net, including the ever-so-frightening universal health care....a plan our current Conservative is pouring more and more money into.

In the US you have self identified "liberals" who are really socialist opportunists [usually evidenced that their programs are for 'everyone' else as they opt out]. From there, you have conservatives in varying degrees.

So the choices could read:

Very conservative, nuke Bejing and bring back jobs
A lot conservative - but you're still on your own for medical
Conservative - we'' talk health care but illegals have to be stopped first
Not so conservative - The Keystone goes now
Lukewarm conservative - a health plan that creates jobs
Least conservative - yes to Keystone after massive environmental studies that line the pockets of the new companies we create....and we might consider universal health care..if its "viable"
last but not least
Stupid voters - whatever costs the most
 
Best to go with other or undisclosed.
I am fiscally conservative, human rights, very liberal.
Note the link and how many portions related to the US Constitution. But a document written centuries ago by men well ahead of their time.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Caring for those that need help, children, the elderly, those with illness very liberal.
I do not believe in the death penalty. To many mistakes for one, and vengeance sought is another.
So when you go thru those choices offered, well I do not fit any.
Members will make their own opinion of you based upon what you post.
 
Well ya ain't to fond of Obama. Perhaps those comments on the Iran negotiations put a nail in that coffin.

Many independents and serious liberals hate Obama. Obama has been droning women and children in nations that don't want us there since 2008.

Nice try though
 
But what is 'liberal' in modern day vernacular? Is being pro gay marriage, for instance, 'liberal' or 'progressive', which in modern day vernacular would mean somebody wants a powerful government to order something like that?

Or is it true liberty that the most staunch conservative (as defined in modern day vernacular) would favor along with a conviction that the government should not interfere in that one way or the other?

This is where the lines get really blurred when we try to pigeonhole a conviction about something as 'liberal' or 'conservative' or 'left' or 'right' or whatever.

When I describe myself as a 'classical liberal', it is strictly defined by me as what I think the proper role of government should be and says nothing about what I believe about religion, abortion, welfare, gay rights, human rights, etc.

Good question. I am speaking of literal definitions, not what might be hip or cool version of those definitions today.
 
The entire labeling system is wrong and outdated.

"Liberal" does not apply to most Democrats as they are more socialist than Canada's socialist NDP. Conservative does not apply to me, however most of my posts tend to agree with "conservative" members.

Today, even left and right are absurd. In Canada we have a very strong social safety net, including the ever-so-frightening universal health care....a plan our current Conservative is pouring more and more money into.

In the US you have self identified "liberals" who are really socialist opportunists [usually evidenced that their programs are for 'everyone' else as they opt out]. From there, you have conservatives in varying degrees.

So the choices could read:

Very conservative, nuke Bejing and bring back jobs
A lot conservative - but you're still on your own for medical
Conservative - we'' talk health care but illegals have to be stopped first
Not so conservative - The Keystone goes now
Lukewarm conservative - a health plan that creates jobs
Least conservative - yes to Keystone after massive environmental studies that line the pockets of the new companies we create....and we might consider universal health care..if its "viable"
last but not least
Stupid voters - whatever costs the most

Perhaps look at how US doctors are gaming the system. There is a chemo drug, at a power dose than presently available that can treat a specific eye disease, well under 1 K.
The manufacturer refuses to make this at the lower dose. Drs. can go and order thru a facility a lower dosage, or bill the system 20 k. Guess which route they choose.

Or today we see stents being placed in patients where stents were rarely used previously. Why - more money to bill
Or when going in for say neck surgery- cost - 30 k - patient negotiates with the Dr and arrives at 6 K for the surgery. Unbeknownst to the patient the surgeon can then call in another surgeon during the operation, result, 100 K bills are normal from the surgeon called in. Not done yet, they then call in others such as physio, and unknown to you they bill at around 500 per hr.
1 surgeon in NY is presently being sued for this billing.

Inflation for medical care in the US has slowed.

I do not believe a person should face bankruptcy and loss of all for medical care. And I am not referring to anything other than routine surgeries. Not orphan drugs or treatments
Should there be a patient fee - yes- if you can afford it- otherwise - give them the care needed.
And yes I was born before Medicare came into effect in Canada and I remember how Drs were avoided due to costs.
 
Good question. I am speaking of literal definitions, not what might be hip or cool version of those definitions today.

Then you would be an island unto yourself because 99% of those using 'liberal' or 'conservative' or any similar designations on message boards are not using the literal (dictionary or encyclopedia) definitions but are rather using them as they are understood in modern day language.
 
Many independents and serious liberals hate Obama. Obama has been droning women and children in nations that don't want us there since 2008.

Nice try though

Your comments then were over the line. Hateful is all I can say. Never mind excuses, generalizations or assumptions, you posted it, not others, you own it.
 
our government is doing many things it was never intended to do.

anything not in article 1 section 8 is not a power of the federal government, plain and simple.
There's a difference between the government doing things you don't like and the government doing all the things you want it to, correctly.
 
Holding a belief or strong conviction about something is not the same thing as being 'close minded', but unfortunately on message boards, there are always those numbnuts who accuse people of some form of fanaticism because they do hold a certain belief or a strong conviction. But that is irrelevant as to whether we can articulate a rationale for our belief or conviction. Those who cannot are almost certainly just parroting what somebody else said or wrote just because it sounds good to them or they are just being jerks or worse just for the fun of it. Just like those who can't discuss any topic without making an insulting comment about those with whom they disagree.

My goal is not to change somebody else's mind, but to reassure myself that my own beliefs and convictions are based on something defensible. In the process I occasionally learn from others and I hope others will sometimes get something worthwhile from what I post.

A discussion does not always have to have winners or losers or result in agreement in order to be worthwhile. But those who are truly close minded can't see that.

And in any case there is no classification offered on the 'lean' options that fit my own sociopolitical ideology.

Umm..ok.

No offense, I don't care about articulating anything. And I care little about theories.

I care about one thing only...can you (a theoretical poster) back up your position with unbiased facts? If you cannot, you opinion means little to me (unless I know/respect you). If you can, then I am interested. It is totally irrelevant how articulate you presented your opinion...back it up with proof and you have my attention.

As I said, I am here to learn, teach and kill time.

Sitting around, going back-and-forth with endless 'theories' with no facts from unbiased sources to back them up seems silly to me. And most people on here do exactly that, it seems.

What's the point? If it's not a fact, what difference does it make?

Sure, do a couple of back-and-forth's with your theories. But why on Earth people waste lots of time on debating just theories (with no facts for evidence) with faceless nobodies on a chat forum is beyond me.
Boredom, I guess.


Anyone that can have their minds changed by unproven theories is weak-minded. And anyone that is not open to change is arrogant.
Unfortunately, I believe at least 80% of all humans fall into one or both of these two areas.
 
Last edited:
There's a difference between the government doing things you don't like and the government doing all the things you want it to, correctly.

i did not say doing things i dont like, i stated clearly things that are not powers of the federal ogvernment, i do not base the operations of government based on my personal feelings, as many do..
 
Umm..ok.

No offense, I don't care about articulating anything. And I care little about theories.

I care about one thing only...can you (a theoretical poster) back up your position with unbiased facts? If you cannot, you opinion means little to me (unless I know/respect you). If you can, then I am interested. It is totally irrelevant how articulate you presented your opinion...back it up with proof and you have my attention.

As I said, I am here to learn, teach and kill time.

Sitting around, going back-and-forth with endless 'theories' with no facts from unbiased sources to back them up seems silly to me. And most people on here do exactly that, it seems.

What's the point? If it's not a fact, what difference does it make?

Sure, do a couple of back-and-forth's with your theories. But why on Earth people waste lots of time on debating just theories (with no facts for evidence) with faceless nobodies on a chat forum is beyond me.
Boredom, I guess.


Anyone that can have their minds changed by unproven theories is weak-minded. And anyone that is not open to change is arrogant.
Unfortunately, I believe at least 80% of all humans fall into one or both of these two areas.

And who do you trust for your 'facts'? I personally endorse critical thinking that does not depend solely on 'facts' or 'statistics' or 'pronouncements' that can be manipulated to appear to mean whatever those putting them out want to mean. Some logic and reason and different possibilities have to factor into that too. If some weren't interested in exploring unpopular theories and go against the conventional wisdom in the past, our science books would still promote a flat Earth as 'fact'. The Sun would still revolve around the the Earth, we would still need phlogiston in order to have fire, and doctors would still be using leeches as a valid medical treatment.

To dismiss unsupported theories out of hand is to dismiss any chance to build support for those theories. And that stops science and innovation dead in its tracks. And THAT is close mindedness.
 
Your comments then were over the line. Hateful is all I can say. Never mind excuses, generalizations or assumptions, you posted it, not others, you own it.

Nice deflection. Goes back to my point. Many people dislike Obama just like me. Liberals, Indys, Democrats, Republicans.... sure, not enough to make him lose an election, but I seem to think that was because the Repubs didn't have a candidate that was good enough to beat him.

Meanwhile, Obama's droning a wedding in Pakistan or Yemen
 
I went with "Independent", because I don't ascribe to the views of either party as a whole.

Further, I tend to be more libertarian/liberal on social issues, and some weird combination of libertarian/centrist/conservative on fiscal issues.
 
Back
Top Bottom