Jump to content

What is your political alignment, and why?


Joe the Stoic

Politiacl Alignment  

124 members have voted

  1. 1. What is yours?

    • Liberal (Left-wing)
      54
    • Conservative (Right-wing)
      7
    • Libertarian (Upper-wing)
      11
    • Centrist (Center)
      22
    • Something else
      30


Recommended Posts

GhostofRonPaul

Libertarian, because I find that government always fucks things up. I used to be a communist, but I began reading Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman and I started to question my political identity. Furthermore, I started listening to conservative voices on the internet, and it all started to make sense. I was "Red-pilled" for lack of a better word. Now, Libertarianism makes sense to me. The government has no place taking from people the products of their work at gunpoint. Taxation IS theft in my view, and it should almost never occur. Certainly, a small amount of taxation is part of the social contract, and I would prefer a flat tax of 10-15%. Overall, the reason I'm a libertarian is that government really sucks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Centrist.  More than anything, I tend to look at things from a practical standpoint.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Socialist.  I don't much care what others think, so I'm not part of a hivemind.   I do care how others vote, though, and am quite unhappy about our new President.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2016 at 7:24 PM, Joe Parrish said:

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?

Well if you don't like liberals because you think they focus too much on social issues and not enough on helping the poor that doesn't sound like a centrist position, it just sounds like a liberal position with slightly different priorities. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe the Stoic
1 minute ago, m4rble said:

Well if you don't like liberals because you think they focus too much on social issues and not enough on helping the poor that doesn't sound like a centrist position, it just sounds like a liberal position with slightly different priorities. 

Help!  I'm being invalidated!

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Terrible Travis
On 1/22/2017 at 8:29 AM, GhostofRonPaul said:

Taxation IS theft in my view, and it should almost never occur.

In MY view, theft is not inherently wrong and is often times justified.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here come the Weber-ists...

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AcePsycho86 said:

In MY view, theft is not inherently wrong and is often times justified.

So if I steal your house, because I am homeless. Would you get angry? I also don't like trespassing, and I don't like roommates. So I won't share with you after I steal it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leftist, as in Democratic Socialist in the European sense (Bernie Sanders is clearly to the right of me). Also growing more and more explicitly Statist - by US standards, I guess I'm in favor of Big, Big, BIIIIIIIG Government.

 

(Not "huge" though. Would make me sound like El Farto. Has the impeachment started yet? It's been a full week, get to it! :P)

 

 

Now, of course, in a hypothetical universe in which humans were angelically perfect... which we're not and won't ever be, by nature of what makes us human, in the de-facto universe we live in... the theoretical best government, IMO, would be an anarcho-communist direct theocracy. (Yes, I said it. Feel free to think it makes no sense, doesn't change that I'm serious.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The impeachment will be delayed.   Congress will be too busy approving everything Drumpf does, and the media will soon be shut down so we won't know what's happening anyway.       

Link to post
Share on other sites

But Trump and his followers are all for free speech? :o

 

(Unless when it comes to the press).

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

Leftist, as in Democratic Socialist in the European sense (Bernie Sanders is clearly to the right of me). Also growing more and more explicitly Statist - by US standards, I guess I'm in favor of Big, Big, BIIIIIIIG Government.

 

(Not "huge" though. Would make me sound like El Farto. Has the impeachment started yet? It's been a full week, get to it! :P)

 

 

Now, of course, in a hypothetical universe in which humans were angelically perfect... which we're not and won't ever be, by nature of what makes us human, in the de-facto universe we live in... the theoretical best government, IMO, would be an anarcho-communist direct theocracy. (Yes, I said it. Feel free to think it makes no sense, doesn't change that I'm serious.)

MYSTICUUUUUUSSS!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ThaHoward said:

But Trump and his followers are all for free speech? :o

 

(Unless when it comes to the press).

Government has always controlled some of the media, even in USA. It hasn't been free since the Vietman war. Also they are lying sacks of shit to begin with. They are getting what they deserve. Besides, after Trump is out. MSM will go back to being a leftist propaganda machine. If it survives.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Terrible Travis
On 1/26/2017 at 8:25 PM, Tofu God said:

So if I steal your house, because I am homeless. Would you get angry? I also don't like trespassing, and I don't like roommates. So I won't share with you after I steal it.

Yes, Tofu, I would be upset. But notice that I never said ALL theft is justified, just some. The reason this would not be justified is because by stealing my house, you'd be making me homeless and thus severely harming my wellbeing. However if you're a poor person that steals some money from a rich person in order to pay for something you need, that WOULD be justified, since you're not doing any actual harm to that rich person and you need that money to survive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a political alignment means buying into an established package deal of opinions on several unrelated issues. Two things have always bothered me about that. First, if the damned issues are not related, why the hell do I have to have the prescribed opinions about both of them in order to be politically aligned? Second, somebody else created that package deal, and I resent having to inherit someone else's packages when their minds never worked the way mine does.

 

People become politically aligned for the pre-1970s reason and the post-1970s reason. The pre-1970s reason is to be part of a large-enough group to be able to take effective political action. The post-1970s reason is to feel like they belong somewhere, to feel that they have lots of friends, and to be inside an echo chamber. Being inside an echo chamber is of supreme importance to policially-minded people over the past 40 years. That's what leads to an excessive emphasis on shmoozing and social graces inside the Beltway and the creation of government policy on the basis of personal social relationships rather than the principles of good governance.

 

tl;dr I am currently opposed to myself ever having a political alignment, and that won't change unless the nature of political alignments changes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

Somewhere between the middle and the left. I want more jobs but not traditional and feel everyone is equal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Social Democrat here. I believe that there are certain things that are a good in a society and that everyone should contribute to the society. Otherwise, what is the point of forming one? Roads and bridges and infrastructure like water and electricity are good things that I would pay taxes for. A social safety net for food and health care would be good things for a society and I would pay taxes for. Education so I don't have to grow old in a nation of dumb asses would be a good thing and I would pay taxes for that. I do not approve or like paying taxes to enrich the corporations that drive our current US war machine. That one has been in place too long to change, though, I supppose. Eisenhower warned us of that one. What I wish some bright politician would do is over haul the tax code so we can all check off what we want our particular taxes to be earmarked for. That way I could pay for my things and someone else who wants war can pay for that. That would actually give us- the "people"- direct control of our government, elections be damned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On December 29, 2016 at 5:33 PM, 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.) 

 

if there was such a thing as paradise would have to march on it to burn it to the ground lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2017 at 2:53 AM, ThaHoward said:

But Trump and his followers are all for free speech? :o

 

(Unless when it comes to the press).

And federal judges.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Sally said:

And federal judges.  

@ThaHoward

 

You two need to understand the difference between a political dispute and FoS. The federal judge that opposed Trump essentially claimed it would not enforce the law. That could be taken as treason. This isn't a good thing. Nothing to do with FoS. The judge is suppose to do its job. Then due process in a disagreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Tofu God said:

The federal judge that opposed Trump essentially claimed it would not enforce the law. That could be taken as treason. This isn't a good thing. 

 

Things like this are why comparisons to fascism keep coming up around Trump. 

 

The judicial branch doing its job is not treason. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Terrible Travis
24 minutes ago, Tofu God said:

The federal judge that opposed Trump essentially claimed it would not enforce the law. That could be taken as treason. This isn't a good thing. Nothing to do with FoS. The judge is suppose to do its job. Then due process in a disagreement.

The judge's job to make sure the constitution is followed, not to enforce whatever random bullshit laws Trump pulls out of his ass.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a filthy AnCom.

So far-left, and an Anarchist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My political alignment?  Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Tofu God said:

@ThaHoward

 

You two need to understand the difference between a political dispute and FoS. The federal judge that opposed Trump essentially claimed it would not enforce the law. That could be taken as treason. This isn't a good thing. Nothing to do with FoS. The judge is suppose to do its job. Then due process in a disagreement.

Upholding the law is not treason. To do their job and be political neutral is not treason, it is following the law and doing their job. It will be unfortunate if Trump start to abuse his power and make politics out of the law, then the check and balances are threatened.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2016 at 9:24 PM, Joe Parrish said:

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?

I am fiscally conservative but socially liberal.  Still I presently believe that the government is spending my money on things I have no interest in.  One glaring example is being policeman and benefactor to the world.

 

If the government were not heavily taxing my income and then again taxing my savings, I, and many who share my beliefs, would NOT feel the way I do about the failed Obama administration and far left liberal agenda.

 

I was listed in my voting district as a democrat. I am actually an independent.  I switched my party to Republican to qualify to vote in the primaries in my voting district. 

 

In the past, I have voted for both both Democrats and Republicans, depending on whom I feel with best represent and serve the interests of the larger segment of the working USA population.

 

I support many things of interest to far left liberals such as concern about the climate, but only concerns about proven climate concerns, not politically motivated or influenced concerns.

 

I am a vegetarian, I donate heavily to various charities.  I believe in helping others. However, I presently think that the government, particularly when run by the democrats was not listening to the voice of the people and their concerns.

 

 I also feel the far left liberals do, without a doubt, engage in fake news.  It's not that the news they report is completely fake.  It is more that they distort the facts.  Typically there is a kernel of truth that is spun heavily against anyone who does not support the liberal democrat agenda.

 

As a former journalist, who worked with a Pulitizer prize winning newpaper, I can say without a doubt that journalists, both then and now, must follow a liberal agenda to keep their jobs.

 

IMO, many journalists do not agree with far left principles, but, both then and now, would go along to get along.

 

When, I worked a journalist, however, there was at least a pretense of ethical journalism in that the STRAIGHT news reports HAD to present a balance view.  We were instructed to present both view points of the right and the left in equal measures thus enabling the reader to draw their own conclusions.   As a straight news journalist, I was not allowed to present my view point or a one sided view point.  That was left to the editorial writers.  There was at one time a clear delineation.

 

That is no longer true.  The main stream media obviously TODAY supports and promotes liberal views in a lopsided manner and by presenting the liberal politicians is a more favorable light.

 

IMO, this backfired on the liberals in this election. 

 

I also feel it will continue to backfire on liberals as people are more and more distrustful of news presented by the main stream media. 

 

The lopsided reporting is so rampant that it has become amusing.

 

The citizens of the USA left England because of taxation without representation.  The Dems however are presently all about taxation without representation.

 

They tax and spend on policies that mean nothing to a majority of Americans.

 

Also, the liberal Dems failed to believe that a silent majority actually exists.  It does.  That is why they lost this last election.

 

For years, the silent majority was so disgusted that they failed to vote.  This election they did vote.

 

In addition, the reason why the polls were so far off is that most people comprising the so named silent majority such as Republicans and independents do not bother to share their opinions with pollster.  The silent majority are the type who prefer not to let it all hang out.

 

Lastly, the Hollywood and music industry crowd is a joke to most working Americans, who actually contribute to society by working and paying high taxes.

 

Most of those Hollywood and music industry types who spoke out against the present Administration are Has been singers or actors.  They most likely spoke out as a way to shine the spotlight on themselves and revive their waning career.

 

There is a saying in show business and it goes....."any publicity is better than no publicity."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2017 at 11:29 AM, GhostofRonPaul said:

Certainly, a small amount of taxation is part of the social contract, and I would prefer a flat tax of 10-15%. Overall, the reason I'm a libertarian is that government really sucks. 

Well, IMO, a consumption tax would be most fair.

 

Right now people who are paid in cash are not taxed fairly, and sometimes they pay NO TAX. They are getting away with it.

 

People, like hookers and Johns and drug dealers and anyone else who does not declare their income, does not get taxed.

 

A consumption tax would effect all those people, whenever they use their income to buy something.

 

An income tax is very unfair and taxing savings is also unfair.   It is a great disinsentive to both work harder and to save because the higher your income, the more taxes one pays.

 

In the USA it used to be that anyone who did not pay taxes prior to retirement was not allowed to vote.

 

IMO, I think if they continue to tax income and saving that rule should be reinstated. 

 

Why should someone who never paid a tax be able to vote for anything that dictates what our taxed income is being used for ?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...