So we haven't done this in a while (1 Viewer)

[tom22406]

I identified myself as a moderate . I'm really not but it's the closest.

I thought you considered yourself libertarian.

back when it's primary concerns were free trade, pro-choice, and open immigration. Back when the people who called themselves libertarian studied Ludwig Von Mises, FE Hayek, and Milton Friedman. Today's libertarians are nothing more than conservatives who don't want to call themselves conservatives. They are obsessed with gun rights and the right to drink whatever cup size they want. They believe in conspiracies and tend to be isolationist. And most are anti-immigrant, which I regard as the opposite of traditional libertarian thinking. Nope it's no longer for me.

For anybody that voted Libertarian,does this fit your profile?

 

[dickey moe]

Can we get a definition of what it means to be a liberal, conservative, libertarian, and moderate?

How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go?A classical liberal is a political stance that yearns for freedom and liberty of the individual in the face of governmental power. Americans were for much of our history classical liberals. We still live within that frame though we call it many different things and over the past say 75 years we've slowely allowed, sometimes warranted many times not, the power of the government to grow in the face of those freedoms for security purposes.

An American liberal, in general, is a creature whose base political thought comes out of and in support of the governmental reforms of FDR and LBJ and the increased "rights" movements that the country has seen. This however, again, is changing because the "rights" movements are winning, for lack of a better phrase, and many or slowly being absorbed across the spectrum. There are very few people that actually really beleive that blacks don't deserve the right to vote for example.

Classical conservatism was again, in generalities, a traditionalist theory that held itself in support of classical and time honored traditions that were first truly attacked after the American Revolution and French Revolution. Like classic liberalism, it also stands for freedom and liberty, but it added the traditionalist beliefs in societal function. It changed after these revolutions for the most part though.

American conservatism is almost not a real thing. It's changed so much and classified itself so many different ways that it's hard to pin down. The GOP took the phrase over in the face of the democrats running Congress for what ended up being 40 years, but even then it wasn't pure (though none of these are). I don't even know what a conservative is now. The GOP certainly isn't if it ever really was. The sound bite clips of smaller government, less taxes, more defense, and on and on are both right and wrong. I would say, if you want to have a theory argument, that conservatism is always in flux because of its nature. Anything that clings to tradition moves slow. But America, while clinging to its libertarist history, also moves forward rapidly for the most part. What used to take empires hundreds of years to change we can do it in the span of a few years at this point. We aren't perfect, but the nature of our polity makes pure conservatism tough to maintain.

Libertarians are easy to define - at the end, they believe in true self freedom and liberty and would stand against the power of the government to tell you how to use or abuse your body in any manner so long as your actions do not affect any other freed person. In a nation state of over 300 million people in a world of 7 billion the theory is nice but almost impossible in practice.

Moderates are ***holes. They think they are better than everyone else and think that by saying they are moderate they sound smarter then people who are actually willing to take a stand on something. I hate moderates. And frankly, I think deep down in places they don't talk about at parties, they hate themsevles too.

So for me, I don't fit anywhere. Libertarianism works in theory. But we need a foreign policy that is, frankly, interventionist. We can't afford not to be. So you can't claim to be a libertarian and then use the power of the United States military the way it needs to be used sometimes. I am a classical liberal and a classical conservative. Depending on the policy I am an American liberal and an American Conservative. We have people that will say they are economic conservatives but social liberals and I guess that can work, but not always because if you take social liberalism in America far enough in practice, it's hard not to increase the tax base somehow to make it work. At least with what we have now.

Maybe the easiest way to define the 4 for the purposes of a poll that has no subparts is this:

Liberal - government can and should be used as an agent of change for good.

Conservative - government can't be an agent of change for good but it should be used in a manner that doesn't go as far as the liberal would go.

Libertarian - government can't and shouldn't be used as an agent of change at all and should just get out of the way.

Moderate - use the government when you have to, don't use it when you don't have to, but whatever you do don't make me actually have an adult position on something.

ETA: and before you get the pitchforks.... I'm only half kidding about moderates. I just needed something more humor than history.

Yankee23fan wins the internet again.

 

[Willie Neslon]

You forgot to list independent. We vote based on facts and issues and not a letter.

you're a conservative. you're welcome

Do conservatives believe in legal pot and gay marriage

American or classical?

cheese and music. what?

 

[timschochet]

I identified myself as a moderate . I'm really not but it's the closest.

I thought you considered yourself libertarian.

back when it's primary concerns were free trade, pro-choice, and open immigration. Back when the people who called themselves libertarian studied Ludwig Von Mises, FE Hayek, and Milton Friedman. Today's libertarians are nothing more than conservatives who don't want to call themselves conservatives. They are obsessed with gun rights and the right to drink whatever cup size they want. They believe in conspiracies and tend to be isolationist. And most are anti-immigrant, which I regard as the opposite of traditional libertarian thinking. Nope it's no longer for me.

For anybody that voted Libertarian,does this fit your profile?

A better question to ask is how many of those who call themselves libertarian actually vote Libertarian?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Liberal, and try to stay out of political threads for the most part these days.

 

[tom22406]

I identified myself as a moderate . I'm really not but it's the closest.

I thought you considered yourself libertarian.

back when it's primary concerns were free trade, pro-choice, and open immigration. Back when the people who called themselves libertarian studied Ludwig Von Mises, FE Hayek, and Milton Friedman. Today's libertarians are nothing more than conservatives who don't want to call themselves conservatives. They are obsessed with gun rights and the right to drink whatever cup size they want. They believe in conspiracies and tend to be isolationist. And most are anti-immigrant, which I regard as the opposite of traditional libertarian thinking. Nope it's no longer for me.

For anybody that voted Libertarian,does this fit your profile?

A better question to ask is how many of those who call themselves libertarian actually vote Libertarian?

Well let's stick to your absurd labeling first.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Liberal - government can and should be used as an agent of change for good.

I agree with this.

Conservative - government can't be an agent of change for good ...

I disagree with this.

Conservative - ... but it should be used in a manner that doesn't go as far as the liberal would go.

Depends.

Moderate - use the government when you have to, don't use it when you don't have to, but whatever you do don't make me actually have an adult position on something.

Agree, but take a position, damnit.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

 

[timschochet]

Why is my labeling absurd? Let's go over what I wrote:

gun rights

drinking cup rights

pro-isolationism

anti-immigrant (specifically undocumented immigrants)

I'll leave out the conspiracy theory stuff, since that's pejorative and hard to define. But of the 4 items above, do they not represent the views of most libertarians these days? I think they do.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Why is my labeling absurd? Let's go over what I wrote:

gun rights

drinking cup rights

pro-isolationism

anti-immigrant

I'll leave out the conspiracy theory stuff, since that's pejorative and hard to define. But of the 4 items above, do they not represent the views of most libertarians these days? I think they do.

drinking cup rights

I can just see the ads - you can have my red solo cup when you take it from my cold dead hands - que Toby Keith. Solid work right there.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Why is my labeling absurd? Let's go over what I wrote:

gun rights

drinking cup rights

pro-isolationism

anti-immigrant

I'll leave out the conspiracy theory stuff, since that's pejorative and hard to define. But of the 4 items above, do they not represent the views of most libertarians these days? I think they do.

drinking cup rights

I can just see the ads - you can have my red solo cup when you take it from my cold dead hands - que Toby Keith. Solid work right there.

Sounds like everyone in New Orleans.

This is a fundamental right provided for in the US Constitution.

 

[timschochet]

Why is my labeling absurd? Let's go over what I wrote:

gun rights

drinking cup rights

pro-isolationism

anti-immigrant

I'll leave out the conspiracy theory stuff, since that's pejorative and hard to define. But of the 4 items above, do they not represent the views of most libertarians these days? I think they do.

drinking cup rights

I can just see the ads - you can have my red solo cup when you take it from my cold dead hands - que Toby Keith. Solid work right there.

Go read through that big gulp thread (if you can stomach it). Pages upon pages of people claiming that this is a major libertarian issue, that it signals the onslaught of government tyranny, etc. etc.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I think this board leans social liberal, fiscal conservative.

 

[mquinnjr]

Moderate, have been voting Republican in recent elections. I go with that vote because it aligns most with my fiscal stances, which matters the most to me and drives my vote the most. Almost all other debate topic issues I don't tow the party line at all. Really starting to think about just voting independent in future elections, movement needs to come sooner rather than later. I think enough people out there would want to have a choice that's sort of a hybrid as progressive on social issues, and conservative fiscally. I have to imagine, republican or democrat, there's plenty of voters on either side that are not 100% on board with all of the party that they voted for's stances on XYZ topics, and would love the chance to evaluate a third option, for better or worse.

Generally stay of of political threads unless it's a topic that I click to respond on almost immediately.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Why is my labeling absurd? Let's go over what I wrote:

gun rights

drinking cup rights

pro-isolationism

anti-immigrant

I'll leave out the conspiracy theory stuff, since that's pejorative and hard to define. But of the 4 items above, do they not represent the views of most libertarians these days? I think they do.

drinking cup rights

I can just see the ads - you can have my red solo cup when you take it from my cold dead hands - que Toby Keith. Solid work right there.

Sounds like everyone in New Orleans.

This is a fundamental right provided for in the US Constitution.

This is true, it's just in code:

We the people of the United States, in oRDEr to form a more perfect uniOn, eStabLish justice, insure dOmestic tranqUility, ProvIdE for the Common Defence and pROmote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

R-D-E-O-S-L-O-U-I-E-C-D-R-O

Red Solo Cup or Die!

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Moderate, have been voting Republican in recent elections. I go with that vote because it aligns most with my fiscal stances, which matters the most to me and drives my vote the most. Almost all other debate topic issues I don't tow the party line at all. Really starting to think about just voting independent in future elections, movement needs to come sooner rather than later. I think enough people out there would want to have a choice that's sort of a hybrid as progressive on social issues, and conservative fiscally. I have to imagine, republican or democrat, there's plenty of voters on either side that are not 100% on board with all of the party that they voted for's stances on XYZ topics, and would love the chance to evaluate a third option, for better or worse.

Generally stay of of political threads unless it's a topic that I click to respond on almost immediately.

This is the problem with this discussion - you immediately went to political parties. This isn't a question of political parties and if you define the theories (liberal, conservative, libertarian, moderate) by the two main political parties only you really miss the point of the question.

 

[Fennis]

Can we get a definition of what it means to be a liberal, conservative, libertarian, and moderate?

How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go?

A classical liberal is a political stance that yearns for freedom and liberty of the individual in the face of governmental power. Americans were for much of our history classical liberals. We still live within that frame though we call it many different things and over the past say 75 years we've slowely allowed, sometimes warranted many times not, the power of the government to grow in the face of those freedoms for security purposes.

An American liberal, in general, is a creature whose base political thought comes out of and in support of the governmental reforms of FDR and LBJ and the increased "rights" movements that the country has seen. This however, again, is changing because the "rights" movements are winning, for lack of a better phrase, and many or slowly being absorbed across the spectrum. There are very few people that actually really beleive that blacks don't deserve the right to vote for example.

Classical conservatism was again, in generalities, a traditionalist theory that held itself in support of classical and time honored traditions that were first truly attacked after the American Revolution and French Revolution. Like classic liberalism, it also stands for freedom and liberty, but it added the traditionalist beliefs in societal function. It changed after these revolutions for the most part though.

American conservatism is almost not a real thing. It's changed so much and classified itself so many different ways that it's hard to pin down. The GOP took the phrase over in the face of the democrats running Congress for what ended up being 40 years, but even then it wasn't pure (though none of these are). I don't even know what a conservative is now. The GOP certainly isn't if it ever really was. The sound bite clips of smaller government, less taxes, more defense, and on and on are both right and wrong. I would say, if you want to have a theory argument, that conservatism is always in flux because of its nature. Anything that clings to tradition moves slow. But America, while clinging to its libertarist history, also moves forward rapidly for the most part. What used to take empires hundreds of years to change we can do it in the span of a few years at this point. We aren't perfect, but the nature of our polity makes pure conservatism tough to maintain.

Libertarians are easy to define - at the end, they believe in true self freedom and liberty and would stand against the power of the government to tell you how to use or abuse your body in any manner so long as your actions do not affect any other freed person. In a nation state of over 300 million people in a world of 7 billion the theory is nice but almost impossible in practice.

Moderates are ***holes. They think they are better than everyone else and think that by saying they are moderate they sound smarter then people who are actually willing to take a stand on something. I hate moderates. And frankly, I think deep down in places they don't talk about at parties, they hate themsevles too.

So for me, I don't fit anywhere. Libertarianism works in theory. But we need a foreign policy that is, frankly, interventionist. We can't afford not to be. So you can't claim to be a libertarian and then use the power of the United States military the way it needs to be used sometimes. I am a classical liberal and a classical conservative. Depending on the policy I am an American liberal and an American Conservative. We have people that will say they are economic conservatives but social liberals and I guess that can work, but not always because if you take social liberalism in America far enough in practice, it's hard not to increase the tax base somehow to make it work. At least with what we have now.

Maybe the easiest way to define the 4 for the purposes of a poll that has no subparts is this:

Liberal - government can and should be used as an agent of change for good.

Conservative - government can't be an agent of change for good but it should be used in a manner that doesn't go as far as the liberal would go.

Libertarian - government can't and shouldn't be used as an agent of change at all and should just get out of the way.

Moderate - use the government when you have to, don't use it when you don't have to, but whatever you do don't make me actually have an adult position on something.

ETA: and before you get the pitchforks.... I'm only half kidding about moderates. I just needed something more humor than history.

thanks that helps. confirmed moderate for sure based on the two bolded sections .

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Running 71% to 29% so far. Seems about right.

Liberal = Liberal

Conservative = Republican

Moderate = Mix, but mostly Republicans who don't want to admit it

Libertarians = Republican (v 1.0) who don't want to be mixed in with the current crop

 

[NCCommish]

Moderate, have been voting Republican in recent elections. I go with that vote because it aligns most with my fiscal stances, which matters the most to me and drives my vote the most. Almost all other debate topic issues I don't tow the party line at all. Really starting to think about just voting independent in future elections, movement needs to come sooner rather than later. I think enough people out there would want to have a choice that's sort of a hybrid as progressive on social issues, and conservative fiscally. I have to imagine, republican or democrat, there's plenty of voters on either side that are not 100% on board with all of the party that they voted for's stances on XYZ topics, and would love the chance to evaluate a third option, for better or worse.

Generally stay of of political threads unless it's a topic that I click to respond on almost immediately.

This is the problem with this discussion - you immediately went to political parties. This isn't a question of political parties and if you define the theories (liberal, conservative, libertarian, moderate) by the two main political parties only you really miss the point of the question.

Yep

 

[Fennis]

Running 81% to 19% so far. Seems about right.

90% of the self proclaimed libertarians are conservatives who don't like the republican party

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think this board leans social liberal, fiscal conservative.

Doesn't most of America?

I voted myself moderate. I've seen my state swing from 100% Democratic to almost 100% GOP.

I've seen the GOP governor come in and say he is going to be ethical and end cronyism, do the complete opposite. I've seen the Democratic governor come in and say they will help the people and then steal from the People left right and in between.

**********

Something else about this discussion: everyone is thinking national ideology and politics. Take a look at your local politics. You will see GOP conservatives who clamor for local government action and you will see liberal Democrats who want the city/county to stay out of their affairs.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Andy Dufresne already did the "moderates are cowards" shtick a few years ago.

 

[tom22406]

Why is my labeling absurd? Let's go over what I wrote:

gun rights

drinking cup rights

pro-isolationism

anti-immigrant (specifically undocumented immigrants)

I'll leave out the conspiracy theory stuff, since that's pejorative and hard to define. But of the 4 items above, do they not represent the views of most libertarians these days? I think they do.

Let's see, you start out saying the word obsessed which you tend to use a lot when trying to describe something you feel is extreme.

Drinking cup rights though ,is that your way of trying to say they don't want government involved in making choices for you?Because otherwise I can't imagine any serious candidate ever using that in his speech.

 

[squistion]

Didn't vote, didn't see progressive as an option.

Matter of Principle sir.

As is my abstention.

 

[RCon]

Why is my labeling absurd? Let's go over what I wrote:

gun rights

drinking cup rights

pro-isolationism

anti-immigrant (specifically undocumented immigrants)

I'll leave out the conspiracy theory stuff, since that's pejorative and hard to define. But of the 4 items above, do they not represent the views of most libertarians these days? I think they do.

I consider myself closer to libertarian than anything else on that list.

I believe in gun rights and drinking cup rights, but that's because I'm generally a believer in personal rights of all kinds.

I don't think I'm particularly pro-isolationism.

I'm certainly not anti-immigrant. I am for massive immigration reform, but not when we redefine immigration reform as amnesty.

I notice, of course, that you completely ignored the fact that libertarians are also generally in favor of same-sex marriage and in favor of legalizing drugs and prostitution, among other things; hardly positions that "conservatives that don't want to call themselves conservatives" would take. Your labeling is just another way of you trying to sneak in the "Tea Party / populism is ruining the country" schtick that you like to use.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Something else about this discussion: everyone is thinking national ideology and politics. Take a look at your local politics. You will see GOP conservatives who clamor for local government action and you will see liberal Democrats who want the city/county to stay out of their affairs.

This is another great point when you want to bog the question down into parties. The national party on both sides is not the same as the local party in your town. In many areas the local party in power has been in power for a long time and therefore they don't necessarily fit into right or left save when they have to or want to. Local politics is an entirely different animal sometimes.

 

[NCCommish]

Didn't vote, didn't see progressive as an option.

Matter of Principle sir.

As is my abstention.

Fair enough.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Running 81% to 19% so far. Seems about right.

Don't you mean, seems about left?

 

[Ignoramus]

I'm guessing "Moderate" runs away with this thing, especially among those that constantly post in political threads.

 

[Ignoramus]

Why do people start sentences with the word 'so'?

So that they can fill up empty space.Sorry.

That they can fill up empty space.

 

[mquinnjr]

Moderate, have been voting Republican in recent elections. I go with that vote because it aligns most with my fiscal stances, which matters the most to me and drives my vote the most. Almost all other debate topic issues I don't tow the party line at all. Really starting to think about just voting independent in future elections, movement needs to come sooner rather than later. I think enough people out there would want to have a choice that's sort of a hybrid as progressive on social issues, and conservative fiscally. I have to imagine, republican or democrat, there's plenty of voters on either side that are not 100% on board with all of the party that they voted for's stances on XYZ topics, and would love the chance to evaluate a third option, for better or worse.

Generally stay of of political threads unless it's a topic that I click to respond on almost immediately.

This is the problem with this discussion - you immediately went to political parties. This isn't a question of political parties and if you define the theories (liberal, conservative, libertarian, moderate) by the two main political parties only you really miss the point of the question.

I get what you are saying, but parties drive the vote, for better or worse, right? Isn't that then the problem, how we have 4 ideologies listed, and have only two viable parties to vote for? I'd like to see candidates represent all 4 ideologies, conservative/liberal/moderate/libertarian. With our sample of members voting, that would result in an election with candidates receiving (approximately) 19.05% for Conservatives, 28.57% for Liberals, 22.22% for Libertarians, and 30.16% for Moderates.

That would lead us all closer to a voice for our own specific ideologies, if 4 candidates (male or female) could vie for the individual ideologies of the American voting populace.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Why do people start sentences with the word 'so'?

So that they can fill up empty space.Sorry.

That they can fill up empty space.

So, a needle pulling thread.

 

[Fennis]

Why do people start sentences with the word 'so'?

So that they can fill up empty space.Sorry.

That they can fill up empty space.

So, a needle pulling thread.

So Falls, North Dakota seems like a nice place to visit

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Between the this thread and the yoga pants thing I'm not getting anything done today..... so:

I'm trying to figure out what the best definition is of my political philosophy these days. Gun to my head I probably would be conservative (shocker) but I'm not winning any converts to it given policy specific issues. If I had to list issues and where I stand with what theory they would be defined under....

1. Fair Tax - this probably falls into classical liberal, American conservative and libertarian bents. Party wise - there isn't one though it seems the GOP has more supporters of it than the Dems.

2. Repeal the 17th Amendment - this is classical conservatism

3. massive modification to SSI, SSID, MediCare, MediCaid and ACA into one massive program - this is American Liberal with some classical conservative

4. End the war on drugs and legalize alot of it - this is american liberal, classical liberal and I would argue American conservative at least as it once was

5. Marriage - really don't care what we define for legal marriage so long as the church is not forced to do something that is not in keeping with its practice, so that's American liberal, classical liberal and libertarian

6. Strong national military with an interventionist foreign policy in general - classical conservative,

7. evengellical Christian - could be anyone (yes even liberals)

8. abortion - rather it be illegal from the sense that it shouldn't even be necessary but I'd focus on the causes of unwanted pregnancy and poverty more than a medical procedure at the end of a string of bad choices - American liberal, libertarian.

9. Giving attorneys "00-" license to shoot people in the legal system who really deserve it - this is just common sense so it could be anyone. Except a moderate.

10. taking away the right to vote from anyone who calls in to vote on reality and talent shows on TV - again this is just common sense. Again, except for a moderate.

So, yeah. I am a man without a country these days. Still, could be worse. I could have never seen the yoga pants thread. And that, we can all agree, appeals to any political theory save maybe the classical conservative (at least publically, behind closed doors those guys used hookers like anyone else ever has) so kumbaya and post more pictures in that thread. We'll manage everything else.

 

[Fennis]

Between the this thread and the yoga pants thing I'm not getting anything done today..... so:

I'm trying to figure out what the best definition is of my political philosophy these days. Gun to my head I probably would be conservative (shocker) but I'm not winning any converts to it given policy specific issues. If I had to list issues and where I stand with what theory they would be defined under....

1. Fair Tax - this probably falls into classical liberal, American conservative and libertarian bents. Party wise - there isn't one though it seems the GOP has more supporters of it than the Dems.

2. Repeal the 17th Amendment - this is classical conservatism

3. massive modification to SSI, SSID, MediCare, MediCaid and ACA into one massive program - this is American Liberal with some classical conservative

4. End the war on drugs and legalize alot of it - this is american liberal, classical liberal and I would argue American conservative at least as it once was

5. Marriage - really don't care what we define for legal marriage so long as the church is not forced to do something that is not in keeping with its practice, so that's American liberal, classical liberal and libertarian

6. Strong national military with an interventionist foreign policy in general - classical conservative,

7. evengellical Christian - could be anyone (yes even liberals)

8. abortion - rather it be illegal from the sense that it shouldn't even be necessary but I'd focus on the causes of unwanted pregnancy and poverty more than a medical procedure at the end of a string of bad choices - American liberal, libertarian.

9. Giving attorneys "00-" license to shoot people in the legal system who really deserve it - this is just common sense so it could be anyone. Except a moderate.

10. taking away the right to vote from anyone who calls in to vote on reality and talent shows on TV - again this is just common sense. Again, except for a moderate.

So, yeah. I am a man without a country these days. Still, could be worse. I could have never seen the yoga pants thread. And that, we can all agree, appeals to any political theory save maybe the classical conservative (at least publically, behind closed doors those guys used hookers like anyone else ever has) so kumbaya and post more pictures in that thread. We'll manage everything else.

hey everyone check out the lib

 

[tom22406]

Yankee,You Forgot The Drinking Cups!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[timschochet]

Why is my labeling absurd? Let's go over what I wrote:

gun rights

drinking cup rights

pro-isolationism

anti-immigrant (specifically undocumented immigrants)

I'll leave out the conspiracy theory stuff, since that's pejorative and hard to define. But of the 4 items above, do they not represent the views of most libertarians these days? I think they do.

I consider myself closer to libertarian than anything else on that list.

I believe in gun rights and drinking cup rights, but that's because I'm generally a believer in personal rights of all kinds.

I don't think I'm particularly pro-isolationism.

I'm certainly not anti-immigrant. I am for massive immigration reform, but not when we redefine immigration reform as amnesty.

I notice, of course, that you completely ignored the fact that libertarians are also generally in favor of same-sex marriage and in favor of legalizing drugs and prostitution, among other things; hardly positions that "conservatives that don't want to call themselves conservatives" would take. Your labeling is just another way of you trying to sneak in the "Tea Party / populism is ruining the country" schtick that you like to use.

I didn't ignore it. These are good things that I generally agree with libertarians on (although personally I hesitate on legalizing some of the more addictive, dangerous drugs like PCP or heroin- I'm more comfortable with legalizing weed and then seeing how it goes.)

I think a majority of conservatives are somewhat socially progressive and becoming more so. The social conservatives are louder, but becoming less relevant. So I stand by my statement. I do NOT regard libertarians as populist, or as the Tea Party. That's a different group altogether, which as you know I find to be dangerous. I don't regard libertarians as dangerous at all. In fact, I tend to admire them. It's just that they emphasize certain "freedoms" that I wouldn't.

As for you Rich, I certainly don't regard you as populist. All of your views are well thought out, none are emotionally based (that I know of, anyhow) which is the opposite of populism. I think your definition of immigration is not mine- but I know you know that already. Unless you're for amnesty for illegals, you're not pro-immigrant in my book.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Moderate, have been voting Republican in recent elections. I go with that vote because it aligns most with my fiscal stances, which matters the most to me and drives my vote the most. Almost all other debate topic issues I don't tow the party line at all. Really starting to think about just voting independent in future elections, movement needs to come sooner rather than later. I think enough people out there would want to have a choice that's sort of a hybrid as progressive on social issues, and conservative fiscally. I have to imagine, republican or democrat, there's plenty of voters on either side that are not 100% on board with all of the party that they voted for's stances on XYZ topics, and would love the chance to evaluate a third option, for better or worse.

Generally stay of of political threads unless it's a topic that I click to respond on almost immediately.

This is the problem with this discussion - you immediately went to political parties. This isn't a question of political parties and if you define the theories (liberal, conservative, libertarian, moderate) by the two main political parties only you really miss the point of the question.

I get what you are saying, but parties drive the vote, for better or worse, right? Isn't that then the problem, how we have 4 ideologies listed, and have only two viable parties to vote for? I'd like to see candidates represent all 4 ideologies, conservative/liberal/moderate/libertarian. With our sample of members voting, that would result in an election with candidates receiving (approximately) 19.05% for Conservatives, 28.57% for Liberals, 22.22% for Libertarians, and 30.16% for Moderates.

That would lead us all closer to a voice for our own specific ideologies, if 4 candidates (male or female) could vie for the individual ideologies of the American voting populace.

THANK YOU. I love this topic.

The theory is stand alone without party. What a political party is is nothing more than a group of like minded people either collectively or per issue using their collective voice to take part in politics. At its core, that's what it is. But let's leave that aside. I really hate the "only two viable parties" to vote for thing. The fact of the matter is that that is a self fulfilling prophecy. The only reason "third party" candidates don't get that far is because you/we believe that they can't get far and as a result don't do anything to help them. And the focus is always on national level politics.

We have a ton of choices on almost every ballot. We choose not to entertain the choices that don't have a D or R next to their name - even the people that claim that the letter doesn't matter. It does - because what we demand might not be a specific singular letter, but we do demand one of two of them - it has to be either a D or R or we don't pay them the time they deserve. To be sure there are nutjobs, but many of them aren't. So we become the very thing we say we don't want - people that only look at one of the parties instead of listening to other voices. Those voices are out there - and now more than ever. If you are, at this point in media technology, ignorant of all the different people that run for office in the different parties whatever they may be - that's on you. The information is there. And solely grading those other parties on their ability to get someone elected to Congress, the Senate or the Office of PResident misses the point so much its striking.

The GOP was a third party. People seem to forget that. In a time where information barely flowed at all, in the midst of drastic and important domestic policy that would lead to a civil war a third party emerged and managed to take over the entire government in the span of just 10 years. We have serious domestic issues now and the ability to share information instantly. It's our fault that other parties don't have any voice - because we don't give them a voice. We don't want to vote for a loser and we assume they will lose and then they do and we prove our own point. It's ridiculous.

If you want to vote for the Green Party do it. If you want the Constitution Party to have a more active voice, give it to them. If you really have that principle act on it. Sure, you might be one of few for awhile. But you might not. 1 can turn to 2 can turn to 4 can turn to 10,000 rather quickly in today's age. You can absolutely get a non D or R elected as governor of a state. You can create a local party that has enough power and force behind to change state legislatures. And when you do that and the tide starts moving you will get national elections that have to face that fact. And then you can focus your energy on the Office of President and stand up with everyone that sees and knows how corrupt and vile the League of Women Voters and the PResidental Debate Commission have become and start attacking them for what they do on the national level.

The tired old refrain that 3rd parties will never get anywhere is true solely because of the people that say it and believe it. We don't need a British parliment to have a viable alternative to the R's and D's - we need people to stop being pansies and actually act the way they say they want everyone else to act. Do that - and you will have a viable third or fourth or fifth party to contend with. Or you might even shatter one of the main parties into restructuring into more of a new party that you can live with. But to sit back and whine about it and not do anything is your own fault. It's our fault. We are our own worse enemy.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Yankee,You Forgot The Drinking Cups!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

find me a picture of a chick in yoga pants holding one and I'll show you....... wait,

 

[tom22406]

Yankee,You Forgot The Drinking Cups!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

find me a picture of a chick in yoga pants holding one and I'll show you....... wait,

Too late-http://i.imgur.com/opPCG45.jpg

 

[Fennis]

Yankee,You Forgot The Drinking Cups!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

find me a picture of a chick in yoga pants holding one and I'll show you....... wait,

Too late-http://i.imgur.com/opPCG45.jpg

she's clearly a moderate. id recognize those crazy eyes anywhere

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Yankee,You Forgot The Drinking Cups!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

find me a picture of a chick in yoga pants holding one and I'll show you....... wait,

Too late-http://i.imgur.com/opPCG45.jpg

she's clearly a moderate. id recognize those crazy eyes anywhere

Not a red solo cup but really, who cares? And if she is a moderate............ I can make an exception. Once. For like 7 1/2 seconds.

 

[mcintyre1]

I identified myself as a moderate . I'm really not but it's the closest.

I thought you considered yourself libertarian.

back when it's primary concerns were free trade, pro-choice, and open immigration. Back when the people who called themselves libertarian studied Ludwig Von Mises, FE Hayek, and Milton Friedman. Today's libertarians are nothing more than conservatives who don't want to call themselves conservatives. They are obsessed with gun rights and the right to drink whatever cup size they want. They believe in conspiracies and tend to be isolationist. And most are anti-immigrant, which I regard as the opposite of traditional libertarian thinking. Nope it's no longer for me.

Tim's spot on with what "Libertarian" has come to mean. Its the refuge for GOP'ers that don't want to associate themselves with the GOP, thus the similar numbers in Conservatives and Libertarians.

 

[mquinnjr]

Excellent post, Yankee23Fan. I feel the same way, and couldn't have said that any better.

 

[dozer]

I just want to play online poker again. Who should I vote for?

 

[RCon]

I just want to play online poker again. Who should I vote for?

Chris Christie, apparently.

 

[mcintyre1]

For the record (because I know you all care SO much what that annoying young liberal has to say), I would have picked "Progressive" or "Socialist" if either option was available. Bernie Sanders is my homeboy.

 

[Zow]

Can we get a definition of what it means to be a liberal, conservative, libertarian, and moderate?

How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go?

A classical liberal is a political stance that yearns for freedom and liberty of the individual in the face of governmental power. Americans were for much of our history classical liberals. We still live within that frame though we call it many different things and over the past say 75 years we've slowely allowed, sometimes warranted many times not, the power of the government to grow in the face of those freedoms for security purposes.

An American liberal, in general, is a creature whose base political thought comes out of and in support of the governmental reforms of FDR and LBJ and the increased "rights" movements that the country has seen. This however, again, is changing because the "rights" movements are winning, for lack of a better phrase, and many or slowly being absorbed across the spectrum. There are very few people that actually really beleive that blacks don't deserve the right to vote for example.

Classical conservatism was again, in generalities, a traditionalist theory that held itself in support of classical and time honored traditions that were first truly attacked after the American Revolution and French Revolution. Like classic liberalism, it also stands for freedom and liberty, but it added the traditionalist beliefs in societal function. It changed after these revolutions for the most part though.

American conservatism is almost not a real thing. It's changed so much and classified itself so many different ways that it's hard to pin down. The GOP took the phrase over in the face of the democrats running Congress for what ended up being 40 years, but even then it wasn't pure (though none of these are). I don't even know what a conservative is now. The GOP certainly isn't if it ever really was. The sound bite clips of smaller government, less taxes, more defense, and on and on are both right and wrong. I would say, if you want to have a theory argument, that conservatism is always in flux because of its nature. Anything that clings to tradition moves slow. But America, while clinging to its libertarist history, also moves forward rapidly for the most part. What used to take empires hundreds of years to change we can do it in the span of a few years at this point. We aren't perfect, but the nature of our polity makes pure conservatism tough to maintain.

Libertarians are easy to define - at the end, they believe in true self freedom and liberty and would stand against the power of the government to tell you how to use or abuse your body in any manner so long as your actions do not affect any other freed person. In a nation state of over 300 million people in a world of 7 billion the theory is nice but almost impossible in practice.

Moderates are ***holes. They think they are better than everyone else and think that by saying they are moderate they sound smarter then people who are actually willing to take a stand on something. I hate moderates. And frankly, I think deep down in places they don't talk about at parties, they hate themsevles too.

So for me, I don't fit anywhere. Libertarianism works in theory. But we need a foreign policy that is, frankly, interventionist. We can't afford not to be. So you can't claim to be a libertarian and then use the power of the United States military the way it needs to be used sometimes. I am a classical liberal and a classical conservative. Depending on the policy I am an American liberal and an American Conservative. We have people that will say they are economic conservatives but social liberals and I guess that can work, but not always because if you take social liberalism in America far enough in practice, it's hard not to increase the tax base somehow to make it work. At least with what we have now.

Maybe the easiest way to define the 4 for the purposes of a poll that has no subparts is this:

Liberal - government can and should be used as an agent of change for good.

Conservative - government can't be an agent of change for good but it should be used in a manner that doesn't go as far as the liberal would go.

Libertarian - government can't and shouldn't be used as an agent of change at all and should just get out of the way.

Moderate - use the government when you have to, don't use it when you don't have to, but whatever you do don't make me actually have an adult position on something.

ETA: and before you get the pitchforks.... I'm only half kidding about moderates. I just needed something more humor than history.

Slow day at the office?

 

[Todd Andrews]

Independent sephardic legalizeitall gunowning cherokee warloving libertarian here.

 

[John Bender]

Moderate

I used to love politics; I was very into it.

This board ruined it to me. About 9 or 10 guys on both sides of the coin who literally make me want to punch myself in the face because they can't think rationally about an issue and create their own unbiased "take" or stance. Instead they define themselves as either a Conservative or Liberal and back into a rationalization that matches the way they categorize themselves from there. I have no interest in debating with nudnicks like that, and we have lots of them.