• 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!

Lefties, Righties, Who's Who?

KevinKohler said:
Forcing myself to agree with an ideology because the holders of that ideology are going to be in power is completely retarded.
Click to expand...

I don't want to argue with you too much because I too hate the two party system and the two parties themselves. Hell, I didn't even vote for Hillary or Trump. Another viable party (a true centrist party) needs to work at the grassroots, maybe all the way down to the state levels, and then work up to congressman and Senators, and then try for the White House. At some point we need to change the number of electoral votes needed to win the presidency from 270 for two candidates down to a majority if there are more than two candidates. Keeping it at 270 only assures that no third party will ever win.
 
Stealth political compass thread? K.

chart
 
Moderate Right said:
I don't want to argue with you too much because I too hate the two party system and the two parties themselves. Hell, I didn't even vote for Hillary or Trump. Another viable party (a true centrist party) needs to work at the grassroots, maybe all the way down to the state levels, and then work up to congressman and Senators, and then try for the White House. At some point we need to change the number of electoral votes needed to win the presidency from 270 for two candidates down to a majority if there are more than two candidates. Keeping it at 270 only assures that no third party will ever win.
Click to expand...

I agree. I just have very little hope of that happening. People are too set in their ways.
 
JayDubya said:
This is a meaningless distinction. You said you were "pro-choice," which means you're a pro-abort.

Now you say you haven't personally killed any kids. Congrats. You're still a pro-abort.
Click to expand...

I knew that would cause confusion and the error was mine. That is why I bothered to come back and re-post, afterward, my clarification. It was too late to "edit." :3oops:

But, perhaps you are right and it was a Freudian slip, as they say.

Whereas I meant to initially type in "pro-life," in the initial post, somehow "pro-choice" came out instead. :confused:

But, just to further clarify, as I mentioned, I have lived my life "pro-life." In social conversation, and even here at DP, I have made my point of view known about "convenience abortions," and my personal viewpoints regarding the sanctity of life, without being judgmental or overbearing about it.

I have said in the past that with all the means of preventing pregnancies in this day and age, truly a person has a "choice" and if they end up pregnant, they have made their choice. I try not to judge, but to kill an unborn child, simply because someone had "one too many" and had sex irresponsibly without taking proper precautions, well, that's just unacceptable in my opinion. I could never settle my conscience with doing that myself.

But, it's also none of my business. You won't see me standing in the picket line down at the abortion clinic. And, not having walked a mile in the other person's shoes, you won't see me trying to degrade someone who has chosen the abortion alternative. I think they might already feel bad enough about doing that. Why would I want to bring them down any further?

I'm just saying that my wife and I would NEVER consider having an abortion for convenience sake. Never.

So, I guess I'm not really sure if that makes me pro-life or pro-choice. You may be right. I don't know.

Happy New Year. :peace
 
Last edited:
ashurbanipal said:
So, rather than arrive at your political positions by good epistemic practice, reasoned and careful evaluation of the evidence, consideration of the wisdom traditions of the world, and faithfulness to moral intuition, you seek to arrive at your political positions by making sure you're farther right than anyone else?

I find that pretty obviously absurd.
Click to expand...

The mistake you made here was when you assumed in the form of a question that I just staked my claim here, simply because I wanted to be king of the hill. What you did not take into consideration, is that I may in fact own it. Your question suggested that I staked my claim in lieu of using the methods that you listed, but all you really did was craft a textbook compilation of all three modes of Aristotle's three modes of persuasion to suggest that I don't have the epistemic credentials to be where i am. This was just another arbitrary dart being thrown from the lefty collective as a means to marginalize my position, but I have become accustomed to warding these off. Yes alpha males are back, but that is not the only credential that I use to stake my claim.
 
Captain America said:
I knew that would cause confusion and the error was mine. That is why I bothered to come back and re-post, afterward, my clarification. It was too late to "edit." :3oops:

But, perhaps you are right and it was a Freudian slip, as they say.

Whereas I meant to initially type in "pro-life," in the initial post, somehow "pro-choice" came out instead. :confused:

But, just to further clarify, as I mentioned, I have lived my life "pro-life." In social conversation, and even here at DP, I have made my point of view known about "convenience abortions," and my personal viewpoints regarding the sanctity of life, without being judgmental or overbearing about it.

I have said in the past that with all the means of preventing pregnancies in this day and age, truly a person has a "choice" and if they end up pregnant, they have made their choice. I try not to judge, but to kill an unborn child, simply because someone had "one too many" and had sex irresponsibly without taking proper precautions, well, that's just unacceptable in my opinion. I could never settle my conscience with doing that myself.

But, it's also none of my business. You won't see me standing in the picket line down at the abortion clinic. And, not having walked a mile in the other person's shoes, you won't see me trying to degrade someone who has chosen the abortion alternative. I think they might already feel bad enough about doing that. Why would I want to bring them down any further?

I'm just saying that my wife and I would NEVER consider having an abortion for convenience sake. Never.

So, I guess I'm not really sure if that makes me pro-life or pro-choice. You may be right. I don't know.

Happy New Year. :peace
Click to expand...

I recognize you as a political opponent to my left, but your posts continue to appeal to me. Weird.
 
EvMetro said:
The mistake you made here was when you assumed in the form of a question that I just staked my claim here, simply because I wanted to be king of the hill. What you did not take into consideration, is that I may in fact own it. Your question suggested that I staked my claim in lieu of using the methods that you listed, but all you really did was craft a textbook compilation of all three modes of Aristotle's three modes of persuasion to suggest that I don't have the epistemic credentials to be where i am. This was just another arbitrary dart being thrown from the lefty collective as a means to marginalize my position, but I have become accustomed to warding these off. Yes alpha males are back, but that is not the only credential that I use to stake my claim.
Click to expand...

Alpha males are only back when they are given my permission to be. :mrgreen:

Kiss the ring............. :lamo
 
EvMetro said:
I recognize you as a political opponent to my left, but your posts continue to appeal to me. Weird.
Click to expand...

I know, right?!?! I have noticed the same with your's.

Perhaps between the two of us we can get this place back in line.
 
EVMetro said:
The mistake you made here was when you assumed in the form of a question that I just staked my claim here, simply because I wanted to be king of the hill. What you did not take into consideration, is that I may in fact own it. Your question suggested that I staked my claim in lieu of using the methods that you listed, but all you really did was craft a textbook compilation of all three modes of Aristotle's three modes of persuasion to suggest that I don't have the epistemic credentials to be where i am. This was just another arbitrary dart being thrown from the lefty collective as a means to marginalize my position, but I have become accustomed to warding these off. Yes alpha males are back, but that is not the only credential that I use to stake my claim.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what any of that has to do with anything I wrote, and I'm not sure what any of it has to do with Aristotle's modes of persuasion, or being king of the hill, you owning anything, or Alpha maleness. The methods I named are the ones that have shown themselves reliable time and again. Your method, on the other hand, has no recognizable merit. If you can argue for it, I'd be quite interested to hear such an argument.
 
ashurbanipal said:
I have no idea what any of that has to do with anything I wrote, and I'm not sure what any of it has to do with Aristotle's modes of persuasion, or being king of the hill, you owning anything, or Alpha maleness. The methods I named are the ones that have shown themselves reliable time and again. Your method, on the other hand, has no recognizable merit. If you can argue for it, I'd be quite interested to hear such an argument.
Click to expand...

I sat behind Aristotle in the 3rd grade.

God it's hard to be humble.

It ain't easy being Captain America.
 
ashurbanipal said:
I have no idea what any of that has to do with anything I wrote, and I'm not sure what any of it has to do with Aristotle's modes of persuasion, or being king of the hill, you owning anything, or Alpha maleness. The methods I named are the ones that have shown themselves reliable time and again. Your method, on the other hand, has no recognizable merit. If you can argue for it, I'd be quite interested to hear such an argument.
Click to expand...

Upgrading your previous suggestion to an assertion won't do much. I have noticed that when I move a rock to see what is under it, it is very common to find that the lefty who I have just uncovered is not only squinting from the light, but they always seem confused.
 
EvMetro said:
It is a breath of fresh air to encounter somebody who gets it.
Click to expand...

I picked up on that on your first post. That is why I went out of my way to welcome you and to follow your posts. Typically, to my own fault, my social graces aren't as fine tuned as they should be but every once and a while, someone comes along that deserves my recognition.

You're as good at this as I am. I HAD to say something! LOL!
 
EvMetro said:
I am still pretty new, but I have successfully stirred the pot in the few threads that I have posted here. I am familiar with some of the lefties who have debated with me in my few threads, but was hoping to get a who's who picture of what everybody stands for politically. Are you a lefty, righty, Democrat, establishment Repub, anti establishment Repub, commie, progressive, liberal, conservative, etc?

My aim is to be known as the furthest right point on the line, where the left most dot says "far left", and the far right dot says "EvMetro". I voted for Trump and I identify as anti establishment Repub, conservative, and primarily as a "righty".

How about the rest of you? I would love to get a better idea of who is who, and maybe pick a few arguments. What political term(s) do you identify with, and how did you vote?
Click to expand...

I'm a Conservative. Basically, don't **** with me and I won't **** with you. Stop trying to take my money, take my guns and trying to tell me what to believe and how to raise my kids. When I do pay taxes, don't piss it away on dumb ****.
 
EvMetro said:
Ash: I have no idea what any of that has to do with anything I wrote, and I'm not sure what any of it has to do with Aristotle's modes of persuasion, or being king of the hill, you owning anything, or Alpha maleness. The methods I named are the ones that have shown themselves reliable time and again. Your method, on the other hand, has no recognizable merit. If you can argue for it, I'd be quite interested to hear such an argument.

EvMetro: Upgrading your previous suggestion to an assertion won't do much. I have noticed that when I move a rock to see what is under it, it is very common to find that the lefty who I have just uncovered is not only squinting from the light, but they always seem confused.
Click to expand...

As I thought--you have no argument.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I consider libertarian defined as economic conservative/social liberal to be more Libertarian with a capital "L".

Libertarian (little "L") also known as "classical liberal" does believe the central government should be fiscally responsible at all times, and derive its authority from the people instead of the other way around. It should have sufficient power and funding to provide the common defense and promote (not provide) the general welfare. Whatever social services it provides should be extremely limited and by the consent of those who pay the bills--the rest should be strictly limited to the states and/or local communities who will organize their business and societies according to how they wish to organize their societies and live.

And as for the socially liberal part, to be liberal or conservative, unorthodox or traditional, good or bad, should be left up to each individual conscience. In other words every person and family should be able to be who they choose to be, live as they choose to live, and believe, think, and express what they choose to believe, think, and express without interference from anybody else - at least up to the point where they interfere with other people's legal and/or inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The narrow minded, judgmental, punitive little theocracies that existed at the time the Constitution was signed were entirely legal and were not interfered with. And by the end of that century, they all had voluntarily dissolved themselves. And lawless towns like Deadwood, vulgar, violent, rowdy, mean, and dangerous were also entirely legal and were not interfered with. And they also dissolved and/or reformed themselves and became more civilized and people friendly.

People will always use trial and error and make mistakes while they figure things out, but in an environment of freedom to choose who and what they will be, they generally figure out what is best or right.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. I'm using the term "socially liberal" to mean acceptance of other's choices to live their lives as they see fit even if I personally don't agree with those choices - essentially a synonym for "individual liberty." That's probably a poor use of language on my part.

A free society, as you very clearly understand, must be tolerant of all viewpoints, even - especially - ones that the majority find repugnant. And over time those who hold those views will either convince the majority of their rightness or those views will eventually die out.
 
Gaius46 said:
I agree completely. I'm using the term "socially liberal" to mean acceptance of other's choices to live their lives as they see fit even if I personally don't agree with those choices - essentially a synonym for "individual liberty." That's probably a poor use of language on my part.

A free society, as you very clearly understand, must be tolerant of all viewpoints, even - especially - ones that the majority find repugnant. And over time those who hold those views will either convince the majority of their rightness or those views will eventually die out.
Click to expand...

Kudos. We are definitely on the same page.

There is a HUGE difference between such things as say believing abortion on demand should be legal at any time and demanding that everybody everywhere implement that point of view. Or forbidding somebody to have that point of view. There is a HUGE difference between believing in a 6,000 year-old-Earth and demanding that everybody everywhere teach that. Or forbidding anybody from having that point of view.

Liberty to me means that we allow everybody to be who and what they are and live as they choose to live--and that includes social contract in which a group of people decide that together, however repugnant that might be the the large majority. But my liberty or my community's liberty stops at the point that it interferes with somebody else's right to be who and what they are and live as they choose to live.

We got away from that concept in America quite some time ago, most especially when political correctness became the measuring stick for who would be left alone and who would be punished. And I think we are the poorer for it.
 
I am socially liberal (but traditional in terms of social etiquette). I am pro-choice but not very passionate about it. I just think that its an issue the government has no business being involved in. I support legal recognition of same sex marriages. I am pro-gun. I am a strong proponent of the separation of church and state and never believe that the state should be used as a vehicle to endorse, promote, or compel adherence to religious beliefs.

Fiscally, I am a pragmatist. I think that taxes should be as low as possible to fund the fiscal obligations that we have placed in the public sector, but I think they should be at least moderately progressive. For example, I don't think we should be doing nothing but "making the rich pay their fair share", but I also don't think that a single mother working 2 jobs should be paying the same income tax rate that I am. I think many programs should be modernized or partially privatized like the VA and disability. I don't think that defense spending should be substantially cut, but I also don't think it should be substantially increased. I am open to some of the solutions being proposed by some Republicans in regards to health care (such as more HSAs and HSA compatible plans).

On the issue of education, I am in favor of conservative proposals for vouchers in failing school districts, particularly in inner city areas. I am against the notion that we should be offering vouchers in districts with good schools as I don't believe that taxpayers should be subsidizing someone's kids going to a fundamentalist school simply because the parents don't want their kids taught evolution in school. If that is what you want for your kids, then fine, but pay for it yourself. I do think that in a failing school district, a voucher could make all the difference for a kid's success in life by allowing them to get out of a failing district and into a good private school.

On the environment, I am pro-natural gas, pro-renewables, pro-nuclear, and very anti-coal. I am for fracking as its not perfect, but its far better than blowing mountains up to get to coal. Moreover, it has resulted in a lot of cheap and abundant clean burning natural gas as well as helping us become more energy independent in regards to oil. I am perfectly fine with CAFE standards. When you consider that much of our defense budget and many of the conflicts we fight are devoted to protecting access to oil, I think the least we can do is to have incentives in place for vehicle manufacturers to build and sell more efficient vehicles. I am also an avid outdoorsman. Thus I am very, very strong proponent of national parks, national forests, federal wilderness and public lands in general.

So that is me, you can label me what you like on the basis of that.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I am socially liberal (but traditional in terms of social etiquette). I am pro-choice but not very passionate about it. I just think that its an issue the government has no business being involved in. I support legal recognition of same sex marriages. I am pro-gun. I am a strong proponent of the separation of church and state and never believe that the state should be used as a vehicle to endorse, promote, or compel adherence to religious beliefs.

Fiscally, I am a pragmatist. I think that taxes should be as low as possible to fund the fiscal obligations that we have placed in the public sector, but I think they should be at least moderately progressive. For example, I don't think we should be doing nothing but "making the rich pay their fair share", but I also don't think that a single mother working 2 jobs should be paying the same income tax rate that I am. I think many programs should be modernized or partially privatized like the VA and disability. I don't think that defense spending should be substantially cut, but I also don't think it should be substantially increased. I am open to some of the solutions being proposed by some Republicans in regards to health care (such as more HSAs and HSA compatible plans).

On the issue of education, I am in favor of conservative proposals for vouchers in failing school districts, particularly in inner city areas. I am against the notion that we should be offering vouchers in districts with good schools as I don't believe that taxpayers should be subsidizing someone's kids going to a fundamentalist school simply because the parents don't want their kids taught evolution in school. If that is what you want for your kids, then fine, but pay for it yourself. I do think that in a failing school district, a voucher could make all the difference for a kid's success in life by allowing them to get out of a failing district and into a good private school.

On the environment, I am pro-natural gas, pro-renewables, pro-nuclear, and very anti-coal. I am for fracking as its not perfect, but its far better than blowing mountains up to get to coal. Moreover, it has resulted in a lot of cheap and abundant clean burning natural gas as well as helping us become more energy independent in regards to oil. I am perfectly fine with CAFE standards. When you consider that much of our defense budget and many of the conflicts we fight are devoted to protecting access to oil, I think the least we can do is to have incentives in place for vehicle manufacturers to build and sell more efficient vehicles. I am also an avid outdoorsman. Thus I am very, very strong proponent of national parks, national forests, federal wilderness and public lands in general.

So that is me, you can label me what you like on the basis of that.
Click to expand...

Greetings, SouthernDemocrat. :2wave:

:thumbs: I label you this way - :applaud - and I sincerely mean it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom