• 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
Most republicans are not conservative at all.
They are right wing extremist radicals.
I would be far less suspicious of someone self identifying as conservative than one calling himself "slightly republican".
Slightly crazy, is still crazy.
 
No. As another poster said, the political party you affiliate with (and the degree to which you affiliate yourself with them) is not the same thing as your political lean or ideology. If someone is a hardcore liberal who is registered Republican (for whatever weird reason) then the correct lean would be liberal.
 
I don't really care.

I just put other (or whatever it says - I don't remember).

Why would I care what others think is my political 'bent'? They could think I am pro-iPhone6+'s and unsweetened fruit salad for all I care.

We are almost all faceless, nameless nobodies anyway. Now if we all put our names/faces out there, I would get it. But we don't, so I don't get what difference it makes.


But...whatever floats your boat.
 
Redress said:
The thing with leans is that no matter what you choose, other people will think it means something completely different. Let me give an example based on mine. I am very liberal, which means I support a strong central government and social safety net. Because of that lean, people have told me I support the following, which I do not: tax increases, banning guns, socialism, communism, fascism, forcing churches to marry same sex couples, limiting free speech(the fairness doctrine especially), special rights, equity of outcome(does any one actually support that at all?), stealing, weak foreign policy(despite that I am more hawkish than average), and that is just the beginning.

So I would not worry much of they do not have a lean tailor fitted to just what you think. That is true for most people here. Argue your points and when people make a misassumption based on your lean, PWN then for it and smile. If the mods tried to include all the leans people have suggested, the list would take all day just to read through, and people would still misunderstand what you really are. People like to tell me and others that "my side" supports or is opposed to this or that, based on my lean, and the truth is the only person who holds the exact views I do is me.
Click to expand...

Precisely why I got rid of my lean altogether. I quickly tired of being told what I think and what I believe, and I got sick of people arguing the lean rather than the person.
 
DA60 said:
I don't really care.

I just put other (or whatever it says - I don't remember).

Why would I care what others think is my political 'bent'? They could think I am pro-iPhone6+'s and unsweetened fruit salad for all I care.

We are almost all faceless, nameless nobodies anyway. Now if we all put our names/faces out there, I would get it. But we don't, so I don't get what difference it makes.

But...whatever floats your boat.
Click to expand...
Is it just me, or is there a trend here? You seem to go around a lot saying you don't care, yet you still go around, read, and post. Evidence suggests that you DO care.
 
11Bravo said:
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"?
Click to expand...

That sounds suspiciously like those who choose "Libertarian" because they are too ashamed to admit that they are Republican.
 
And
radcen said:
Is it just me, or is there a trend here? You seem to go around a lot saying you don't care, yet you still go around, read, and post. Evidence suggests that you DO care.
Click to expand...

You are partially right. But ai do not say 'I don't care'...how could I not care if I am commenting about it?

No, I say 'I don't much care' or 'I don't really care'...big difference (though I assume it will not be to you/most).

I care enough to voice my opinion and leave it (unless someone bugs me about it or I am bored) but not enough to debate it.

Frankly, I don't even get why people debate on here as much as they do. Most people never change their mind and both sides just end up nattering on and on to no end...seems like a huge waste of time.

I am here to teach, learn and kill time (in no particular order)...but debating on and on with closed minded people is not my thing.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
And

You are partially right. But ai do not say 'I don't care'...how could I not care if I am commenting about it?

No, I say 'I don't much care' or 'I don't really care'...big difference (though I assume it will not be to you/most).

I care enough to voice my opinion and leave it (unless someone bugs me about it or I am bored) but not enough to debate it.

Frankly, I don't even get why people debate on here as much as they do. Most people never change their mind and both sides just end up nattering on and on to no end...seems like a huge waste of time.

I am here to teach, learn and kill time (in no particular order)...but debating on and on with closed minded people is not my thing.
Click to expand...

But those who truly want to learn--those who want to BE right rather than just convince others they are right--can benefit from the debate process. It is my opinion that any opinion or conviction worth having will stand up under scrutiny and testing. If we cannot defend our opinions or convictions or cannot explain them convincingly to somebody else, we probably are operating on pure ideology rather than anything of substance.

I have run across exceptions, but it has been my observation that those who identify themselves as conservative, Republican, reformer/Tea Partier (or reasonable facsimile), libertarian (little "L"), classical liberal can all usually provide a pretty good rationale or defense for their point of view. In other words they really do understand WHY they hold the opinions/convictions that they hold. Most of those left of center, no matter what they call themselves, most often cannot and do not.

I keep hoping for discussions with thoughtful people who will prove me wrong about those left of center.
 
AlbqOwl said:
But those who truly want to learn--those who want to BE right rather than just convince others they are right--can benefit from the debate process. It is my opinion that any opinion or conviction worth having will stand up under scrutiny and testing. If we cannot defend our opinions or convictions or cannot explain them convincingly to somebody else, we probably are operating on pure ideology rather than anything of substance.

I have run across exceptions, but it has been my observation that those who identify themselves as conservative, Republican, reformer/Tea Partier (or reasonable facsimile), libertarian (little "L"), classical liberal can all usually provide a pretty good rationale or defense for their point of view. In other words they really do understand WHY they hold the opinions/convictions that they hold. Most of those left of center, no matter what they call themselves, most often cannot and do not.

I keep hoping for discussions with thoughtful people who will prove me wrong about those left of center.
Click to expand...

It has been my experience that the VAST majority of people on chat/debate sites are VERY closed minded...they will argue 2+2=3 (if they believe it) forEVER...no matter what evidence you present to the contrary.

I see little reason to waste my time on them.

When I see someone new, I try and give them the benefit of the doubt. But as soon as it is obvious their mind is closed, I tune them out on that issue.

However, I am open to new information...so if someone - anyone - offers links to unbiased, factual information, THAT interests me.

But opinions that are not backed up with facts or common sense mean little to me.
 
Kobie said:
Precisely why I got rid of my lean altogether. I quickly tired of being told what I think and what I believe, and I got sick of people arguing the lean rather than the person.
Click to expand...

Good point, IMO.

Putting a lean on often just means people pre-judge you without even hearing your side.

Not all Reps don't like welfare and not all Dems like welfare - for example.

People are individual...no two are exactly alike.
 
DA60 said:
Good point, IMO.

Putting a lean on often just means people pre-judge you without even hearing your side.

Not all Reps don't like welfare and not all Dems like welfare - for example.

People are individual...no two are exactly alike.
Click to expand...
The labels are generalizations- reasonably accurate to a vague point. But people are more complicated that these labels.
 
Unrepresented said:
You don't want increased border protection?
Click to expand...

This country's borders used to be far better secured when the federal government was smaller than it is now. Securing them does not require any expansion of that government. It requires federal agencies that already exist to enforce immigration laws Congress has already enacted. They are not doing that diligently because this President has directed them not to. Mr. Obama has arrogated to himself the power to decide which immigration (and other) laws are faithfully executed, and which are not.
 
JANFU said:
We are not numbers nor can we be pigeon holed. Many try to do that. Way to many. And they are wrong. Not my type of people.
Click to expand...
It's tough to be three dimensional in a world that wants everyone flat.
Jack Fabulous said:
One of the truly great bands from that genre.

I've seen them live on 5 different occasions.
Click to expand...
Steve Harris is one of the few heroes that metal bassists can all unite around.

matchlight said:
This country's borders used to be far better secured when the federal government was smaller than it is now. Securing them does not require any expansion of that government. It requires federal agencies that already exist to enforce immigration laws Congress has already enacted. They are not doing that diligently because this President has directed them not to. Mr. Obama has arrogated to himself the power to decide which immigration (and other) laws are faithfully executed, and which are not.
Click to expand...
It requires expansion of the government performing that task. It requires bigger government in terms of enforcement of borders.
 
Unrepresented said:
It's tough to be three dimensional in a world that wants everyone flat.

Steve Harris is one of the few heroes that metal bassists can all unite around.


It requires expansion of the government performing that task. It requires bigger government in terms of enforcement of borders.
Click to expand...

Far to many pigeon hole as that is the width of mind they can relate to.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
And we have decided to give the government the power to expand.
Click to expand...

If expanding the federal government has been the result of decisions voters have freely made, through their elected representatives, it cannot also be true that "necessity will always dictate" that expansion, as you claimed earlier.

Also, the American people cannot give the federal government any powers, except by amending the Constitution. Unlike the states, the federal government has no inherent, general power to make laws and policies. As the Supreme Court has reiterated, it has only those limited and enumerated powers the states and their people saw fit to give it in the Constitution.
 
Unrepresented said:
It requires expansion of the government performing that task. It requires bigger government in terms of enforcement of borders.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. What it requires is a President who wants to enforce existing immigration laws. Aliens continue to flood into this country illegally because Mr. Obama, for political reasons, wants them to. A few years ago, Arizona tried to enact SB 1070, a very modern, well-designed statute that required state officials to enforce federal immigration laws. Obama sued to prevent Arizona from enforcing them, on the ground his authority to determine immigration policy trumped the state's.
 
matchlight said:
Nonsense. What it requires is a President who wants to enforce existing immigration laws. Aliens continue to flood into this country illegally because Mr. Obama, for political reasons, wants them to. A few years ago, Arizona tried to enact SB 1070, a very modern, well-designed statute that required state officials to enforce federal immigration laws. Obama sued to prevent Arizona from enforcing them, on the ground his authority to determine immigration policy trumped the state's.
Click to expand...
I'm convinced you're missing the nuance of my position.
 
Republican is a party not a "lean". Unless you mean "republican". Just as Democrat is a party and not a lean. But "democrat" (meaning favoring democracy) I guess is...
 
Everybody's a special snowflake. There's not enough options to placate them all, so just leave it as undisclosed and tell us all yourself.
 
DA60 said:
It has been my experience that the VAST majority of people on chat/debate sites are VERY closed minded...they will argue 2+2=3 (if they believe it) forEVER...no matter what evidence you present to the contrary.

I see little reason to waste my time on them.

When I see someone new, I try and give them the benefit of the doubt. But as soon as it is obvious their mind is closed, I tune them out on that issue.

However, I am open to new information...so if someone - anyone - offers links to unbiased, factual information, THAT interests me.

But opinions that are not backed up with facts or common sense mean little to me.
Click to expand...
To a great degree, I agree with you. Sometimes I get the feeling that some people have this deep seated need to win the debate more so than be right.

There's a small handful of people here that I will rarely engage, because I feel their sole purpose for being here is just to push buttons and get others riled up.
 
radcen said:
To a great degree, I agree with you. Sometimes I get the feeling that some people have this deep seated need to win the debate more so than be right.

There's a small handful of people here that I will rarely engage, because I feel their sole purpose for being here is just to push buttons and get others riled up.
Click to expand...

Change 'small handful' to 'large minority of regular posters' and I agree with you completely.

Finding more then a tiny handful of people that actually admit they are wrong on here is like finding a dog who speaks Russian fluently...time consuming and probably impossible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom