What is your political alignment, and why?

[Joe the Stoic]

I am a centrist.  I used to be more liberal because I did not like the social and economic regressivism of conservatives, who tend to be more racist, sexist, and homophobic.  They also tend to help the rich while crushing the poor.

 

But later on, I began to see that liberals had their own faults.  Often they can be similarly prejudiced toward groups.  Often they favor minor social battles over matters in greater need for reform.  This caused me to shift to the center.  I think a balanced approach to life is best.  It always seems the most flexible.  It does not require you to adhere to strict dogma.  It borrows from the strengths of liberals and conservatives.

 

What about you?

[Randomchaos]

I chose something else because I fluctuate between Libertarianism and anarchy (basically when I fluctuate from nothing matters, to, it would be funny to see the world burn.) 

 

[Guest]

totalitarian anarchist 

[Guest And Peggy]

I'm a slightly-left-of-center Democrat.

[Joe the Stoic]

8 minutes ago, Randomchaos said:

I chose something else because I fluctuate between Libertarianism and anarchy (basically when I fluctuate from nothing matters, to, it would be funny to see the world burn.) 

 

Those are basically the same thing.  Anarchy is like libertarianism at its most extreme.

[Yatogami]

I am a Centrist, but I lean far more right than Joe does.  I fall into Libertarian viewpoints more than I do Liberal. 

 

Why? Because I prefer efficiency over feeling. Hard work, over entitlement. As Kennedy said "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" What is good for the whole nation, not so much the individual. Law must be objective, not situational.

 

I do not feel that you can help everyone, no matter how hard you try. And when you start sacrificing the livelihood of others, just so you can "help" people, your society will eventually collapse. It is an unsustainable system of government. I feel everyone has the right to do as they want with their life and no one should judge how they live. Whether they be a billionair, or a nomad, no one has the right to take that away from them. Don't blame the more fortunate for your misfortune. Blaming anyone gets you nowhere. All I care about is the system working. There is no such thing as "equality" because people will always be different and variant. One thing doesn't work for everyone. The best you can do is equal opportunity. I feel no sympathy, for those who refuse to make their lives better when it is in their power. I feel no sympathy for those who feel entitled and deserving for anything. Nothing in life is free, and there is always someone paying for it. It is so easy to be entitled when it is someone else's money.

 

The government is not your caretaker. The government is not your hand holder. It should remain as simply your guardian from the outside world that attempts to encroach on your safety. That is it. 

 

(Please don't try to debate me on this lol. I am just stating my random thoughts on this. I don't feel I articulated it well.)

 

[Toothlesss]

I voted centrist. For me, both sides in US politics are more oligarchic than actual representative of the country. Then again- I'm biased because I grew up in a predominantly blue state. When I was younger I leaned pretty far right, and when I got older it turned left leaning centrist. 

[Randomchaos]

13 minutes ago, Tofu God said:

And when you start sacrificing the livelihood of others, just so you can "help" people, your society will eventually collapse

And people wonder why I would laugh if the world burned? 

(Not debating just commenting  )

[Guest]

I describe myself as "internationalist" and "socialist"

I don't think a political party in any country that isn't too "conservative" for my views exists.

[-1=e^ipi]

Classical liberal; i.e. actual liberalism. What passes as liberal in North America is not liberalism, it is an aberration of it. True liberalism has core principles, such as freedom of speech, egalitarianism, secularism, etc. Yet we see so called 'liberals' in North America silence speech they disagree with, support discrimination on the basis of race and/or sex, fail to support egalitarian efforts like banning circumcision without consent, etc. With respect to economic policy, Millian Preference Utilitarianism makes the most sense (i.e. we should explicitly define a social welfare function and maximize it), and the social welfare function should be justified using empirical observations to infer the preferences of individuals within society. The approach of most people to economic policy is wrong because they don't use empirical observations be it on the supply elasticity of labour demand, the real riskless rate of return or the coefficient of relative risk aversion in order to determine optimal taxation policy. As such, I am not on the political spectrum.

[Joe the Stoic]

@-1=e^ipi, I think classical liberalism was more embraced by the left-wing in previous political periods of American history.  Recently, though, the American left has become more regressive and abandoned the mantle of classical liberalism.  I would agree with you there.

[Cimmerian]

Libertarian because of my preference for smaller government (which neither side has done a good job of providing in recent history) because to me government is there for the things the states or the individuals do not have the power to do--- trade with other nations, foreign relations, protect against invasion, and handle immigration. I found that value both conservative and liberal aspects that focus on giving individuals the most control of their own lives and that are the least likely to impose other group's choices on everyone but that neither party had all the stances that I consider important. I liked a lot of the individual freedom values and some economic stances from conservatives but I disliked the religious focus I saw in the group and the tendency to use religion as a basis for laws or the attempt of imposing one's own moral values on others in matters of individual choice. From the liberal side I like the pro-choice and marriage equality stances and, from some older classical liberal ideology, the concept of secularism in government and the idea of not treating any religion more highly (or protecting one more than others).

[Guest 222]

I am in the bunny party. We believe that the human race does not deserve to be the dominant race and that instead, we should be the dominant race of Earth. We petition and plan to make the Humans into our pets one day so that we have something to sit on or hop over.

[Skycaptain]

I'm an empty convert to whatever is most advantageous to me 

[Yatogami]

@-1=e^ipi

 

Whats "Classic liberal" is kinda what Centrist is in USA. Our left went so extream that even Democrats can be considered right wing (Blue dog democrats). Same thing with Liberals. 

[Phantasmal Fingers]

I'm apolitical.

 

How so?

 

Just as someone like the militant atheist Richard Dawkins has views on religion (and plenty of them!) rather than religious views, so I have views on politics rather than political views.

 

Of course, from a certain standpoint atheism can be seen as a religion (there is now an atheist church, if you didn't already know) and I suppose apoliticism could also be seen as political. 

 

Depends on your viewpoint...  

 

I'm an empty convert to whatever is most advantageous to me    

 

I sympathise, Skycaptain. But don't you find a certain amount of altruism is also possible from this standpoint?

[Yatogami]

@Modern Jazz Hands

 

While I understand the aversion with politics, don't you feel at all they are important to follow?

 

I mean, politics affects everything in your life. Its not like atheism in the slightest. You don't "believe" in politics, because they actually exist in reality. They dictate the flow of humanity. Following politics is like watching a chess board with hundreds of players, and you root for your side to win. Sure its complicated and sometimes depressing, but knowing what is going to happen can help with desicions along your path in life.

[Phantasmal Fingers]

While I understand the aversion with politics, don't you feel at all they are important to follow?

 

But it's completely superficial. And I get the distinct impression that even most of the politicians I most dislike know this deep down when they're 'just' being human. I think most politicians, in their saner and more lucid non-political intervals, know perfectly well that the rules of the game are a childish oversimplification of the way the world works, even on the socio-political level. This gets worse and worse the closer politicians get to power. When they're in power they're always a disaster.

 

To take just one example, this is why Churchill appeals to people in GB. (He's just replaced a prison reformer on the back of the £5 note btw.) The alternative disaster (Hitler) was so catastrophically worse that choosing Churchill almost looks wise. In that sense it's as clear cut a choice as most people kid themselves they can make every time they open a daily paper. But look at the world we have entered in order to do this. If no-one bought into politics in the way that they generally do neither Hitler nor Churchill would've amounted to anything. And then there is all the endless analysis of what happened and why - Bullock, Kershaw, Churchill himself and so on and so on. But to me Jung's Wotan is much closer to the mark. Politicians are symptoms of the problem, not the solution.

 

If you want a wise, nuanced, well-informed and fair minded assessment of a situation (from whatever viewpoint might be possible) don't ask a politician.  

 

[Yatogami]

15 minutes ago, Modern Jazz Hands said:

While I understand the aversion with politics, don't you feel at all they are important to follow?

 

But it's completely superficial. And I get the distinct impression that even most of the politicians I most dislike know this deep down when they're 'just' being human. I think most politicians, in their saner and more lucid non-political intervals, know perfectly well that the rules of the game are a childish oversimplification of the way the world works, even on the socio-political level. This gets worse and worse the closer politicians get to power. When they're in power they're always a disaster.

 

To take just one example, this is why Churchill appeals to people in GB. (He's just replaced a prison reformer on the back of the £5 note btw.) The alternative disaster (Hitler) was so catastrophically worse that choosing Churchill almost looks wise. In that sense it's as clear cut a choice as most people kid themselves they can make every time they open a daily paper. But look at the world we have entered in order to do this. If no-one bought into politics in the way that they generally do neither Hitler nor Churchill would've amounted to anything. And then there is all the endless analysis of what happened and why - Bullock, Kershaw, Churchill himself and so on and so on. But to me Jung's Wotan is much closer to the mark. Politicians are symptoms of the problem, not the solution.

 

If you want a wise, nuanced, well-informed and fair minded assessment of a situation (from whatever viewpoint might be possible) don't ask a politician.  

 

I didn't mention follow politicians/like them. I'm talking about observing actions in a general sense. Politics is more than elections and government. Literally everything is politics. Knowing whats going on around you and why is important. If you are aware that all politicians are terrible, then you know voting for them is a terrible idea. I might be missing your point though. All I can really say though, is that you learn A LOT about why if you follow politics. Though I recommend never following the news apart from getting the gist of things.

[Guest 222]

I agree. Your aversion to politics is why the Humans still believe themselves to be a race above other animals

[Phantasmal Fingers]

All I can really say though, is that you learn A LOT about why if you follow politics.

 

I did that for 10, 20 years? Enough is enough. 

 

Though I recommend never following the news apart from getting the gist of things.

 

What I've learned about the media from having lived in many different parts of the world is that what doesn't appear in the media puts a different spin on the gist. The main problem with the media is not the inaccuracy of what is reported, it's what is not reported.

 

[Tanwen]

US politics is a complete mystery to me - how would you choose between a donkey and an elephant...really...are they really the best you could come up with????  

[Mychemicalqpr]

I guess centrist/other because I don't completely agree with anything else?  I seem to disagree with other people who call themselves centrist though.  Interesting how relative this can be.  To me there are some "reasonable/middle-grounded/free thinking" people who seem pretty conservative, and they probably see me as being "politically correct".  I seem to get labeled as a democrat just because I am vocal (as much as an anxious introvert can be) about gender/race/orientation/religious/etc equality, even though economically I see some right-wing ideas as more practical and support the right to bear arms. I suspect though that a lot of people have a bias toward wanting to see wherever they are as the golden median, and who can say for sure who is right about themselves when we're all biased humans?  

 

 

[Lost247365]

Left Libertarian- or in other words, a typical American style Liberal.

[deltaX]

Libertarian if I'm choosing a party, but really I consider myself an independent.  To me no party can perfectly capture what I stand for, and I think it's important to consider the issues themselves rather than political parties.

[NerotheReaper]

In my senior government class in high school, my teacher gave us this test with A, B, and C she read a statement and you would write your answer. If you had more A's at the end you were 'X' or if you had more 'C's you were on the other side of the spectrum.

 

I ended up being a Centrist slightly leaning into the left wing. I see both sides of an argument (even though the argument may be stupid), economics and how a business runs varies. How much assistance the government should give to the people, those type of questions were asked. Plus for the most part with politics I usually think "you are all stupid." or "I hate all of you." I don't like politics for the main reason of all the deception that goes on. This recent election was probably the most brutal one in history (I may be wrong though). It brought up the worst in people on both sides, didn't Abraham Lincoln say "A house divided against itself cannot stand". And here we are, while we are busy bickering with each other, while we could be doing so much more. 

 

I do believe in equal rights (marriage and equal pay), because it is no one's business who someone has sex with in the privacy of their own home. Long as everyone is a consenting adult go for it. Equal pay is important, plus come on it is 2017. I don't agree with all the left wing beliefs, they have their issues too. Plus not to mention the very loud and angry SJWs who instead of help their cause they hurt it. 

[ChillaKilla]

My purpose in life is to be so far left that the ghost of Pinochet takes one look at me and throws himself from a helicopter screaming "¡AY, DIOS MIO!"

 

 

[Joe the Stoic]

On 12/29/2016 at 9:46 PM, Tofu God said:

I am a Centrist, but I lean far more right than Joe does.  I fall into Libertarian viewpoints more than I do Liberal.

If you lean far more right from a centrist, then guess what you are.

[Yatogami]

27 minutes ago, Joe Parrish said:

If you lean far more right from a centrist, then guess what you are.

Still a centrist. I said more right then you. Not right of centrist. The only difference is what side of the y-axis im on. Let me see your political compass.

[Joe the Stoic]

I consider myself dead center, so.