Am I a Republican or a Democrat?

[sixtyandaquarter]

I'm sincerely honest with this one, I have no idea if I lean further to the left or to the right.  A question was asked me, and it's not even like I remember the wording.  It was more the tone of voice, or situation it was asked that made it almost important in oddly a quixotic nature.

Basically put, if it came down to the wire and a definition was needed for some hypothetical - I can't say if it was a forced choice between the two if I'd be Republican or Democrat.  Might be because I never really paid much attention to party affiliation, and more individual and moment specific things.  Always thinking the guy who agreed with me the most was the best candidate, not who their friends were or weren't - problem is I seem to be fairly well cast in shades of gray.  Being a registered non party independent, always seemed a good fit.  But, again like I said, if it was a forced choice between the two, I have no clue what I'd be based on my ideals.

So I thought to ask you guys and find out.  I'm going to suggest if you know me based on my symposium posts or random banter here and there, to let me know your opinion.  And if you don't know me, and/or feel like it - ask me a serious question that would be aimed at figuring out which of the towards one of the two groups.

Completely retarded thread I know, but you have no idea how bad this is bugging me :x

 

[Cruelty]

i dont really read the symposium, but you've always struck me as pretty liberal, which would lean you towards being a leftist.

 

[Nickster]

i dont really read the symposium, but you've always struck me as pretty liberal, which would lean you towards being a leftist.

I would have to agree. I don't go in the symposium much either, it might help people if you posted thoughts on specific issues that you strongly agree/disagree with.

 

[Volrath]

Hmm...well, let's try it this way. Tell us your views on the following issues.

-Government-provided health care
-Oil vs. alternative energy sources
-War in Iraq
-Immigration
-Gay marriage
-Abortion
-Church and state separation
-Tax the rich or no?

Other people might be able to suggest others too. These were just the ones that popped into my head.

 

[Incognitus]

Why do you have you have to find a niche on the arbitrary and entirely artificial two-party split? It's just completely and utterly retarded.

Might be because I never really paid much attention to party affiliation, and more individual and moment specific things.  Always thinking the guy who agreed with me the most was the best candidate, not who their friends were or weren't - problem is I seem to be fairly well cast in shades of gray.  Being a registered non party independent, always seemed a good fit.  But, again like I said, if it was a forced choice between the two, I have no clue what I'd be based on my ideals.

Good. Stay that way. Vote for whoever seems to fit what you think is the right choice at any particular moment. The artificial "Left-Right divide" is manipulated bipartisanly..ish... (ahem)... It is manipulated by both parties to get them into power and keep them there.

Party politics is one of the most utterly disgraceful, bordering on anti-democratic, pieces of crap that has civilisation has ever produced. I'm sorry Volrath; like you and respect you and all that stuff, but that list pretty much sums it up. Some of the greatest conservatives I know would give you answers to all of those questions that would lead most people on here to tick a big box marked "Liberal". The greatest Republicans I know can't stand the fact that, if they state anything "to the left" of Homosexuals Will Return to Your Closets Immediately, or Jehovah Uber Alles - or suggest that actually the GOP is more interesting in having power rather than exercising it responsibly - well then they must be an Anti-American Pinko bent on the destruction of the family.

The same with the above post: Supply-side economics, or Thatcher/Reaganomics was and is hidiously flawed, chiefly by mistaking economic activity for economic achievement (which, to be frank, has been a hallmark of the current economic system since it was instituted sixty years ago, but rapidly mangnified since Greenspan took the Fed in 1987).
When you strip away the rhetoric, it is the equivalent of a farmer with a thousand acres of land which would substain him and his decendants for hundreds of years and a top-of-the line tractor deciding to sell the tractor, and then using the significant rise in his balance compared with the field's natural yield as a validation for an truly absurd decision. A true fiscal conservative would rather that the farmer just got on and farmed his land, year after year.

If I had to state one thing that was destroying America today, it would be party fricking politics.

*breathe, breathe*

Okay, I think my rant about party politics is over. Sorry. I mustn't bottle it up anymore. >_>

Who are you anyway? :\

 

[Ellie]

Aren't there other parties to vote for than just those two?

 

[Untra]

Theres also the communist party and the green party (and others I think.)

 

[kaze950]

Libertarians is the third largest, iirc.

 

[Stardust]

I agree with Incognitus.  It's stupid to define yourself by a set of ideas.  It's the same thing as saying, "Well, I like yada, and since I like that, I must be [insert party here], so I have to like yasa, yafa, yaga, yaha, yaja, etc."  Don't define yourself with a single word.  I personally don't know what the difference between the two parties is, nor do I care.  I see that you're just wondering about it, but it shouldn't be bothering you.

 

[Volrath]

Well shit Igno, I agree with all of that.

Just seemed he wanted to know which of the current party definitions his own politics were closest to. I'm aware that the meaning of the two shifts over time (Democrats were pro-slavery in Lincoln's time), but for right now, opinions on those issues I listed are more or less how it's determined. I don't mean to endorse the two-party system or the importance of any of those issues over others, just wanted to answer his question.

 

[FlippyD]

Libertarians is the third largest, iirc.

Libertarians are usually associated with Republicans. Though they can associate themselves with all kinds of groups (except Democrats.)

 

[Venetia]

I am:

CONSERVATIVE ON:
- The economy (NO to federally funded healthcare, or almost any social program really, YES to taxbreaks for businesses, and NO to taxes on people/businesses in general, where possible)

SEMI-CONSERVATIVE ON:
- The military (I don't want to pull out of Iraq immediately, but a very slow, tiered withdrawal seems the best solution)
- The environment (I think we should try anything possible to reduce oil prices, however I'm for restrictions on emissions and laws against dumping, etc.)
- Government programs (I see the use in SOME of them, like the police or road systems or education, however I don't think that it's the govmt's job to delve into healthcare, welfare, or PAYING PEOPLE TO GET DIGITAL BOXES FOR THEIR TV SETS JESUS CHRIST WTF THERE)

SEMI-LIBERAL ON:
- Womens' rights to abortion (they should be allowed to, however they shouldn't be able to terminate advanced pregnancy unless they have a medical reason, and teens should be required to inform their guardians)

LIBERAL ON:
- Social values (gays should be able to marry, there should be N-O religion in schools or govm't agencies, television should be allowed to air whatever the broadcast companies want to, lax laws on internet business)
- Animal rights (stricter punishments for animal cruelty)


Anyway that mostly makes me a Libertarian, however, a very relaxed libertarian (i.e. I see the point in SOME governmentally-funded things). I position myself mostly to the right, outside of social issues.

It's very important that Americans ask themselves these questions. Being uninformed about politics is like bending over and asking uncle sam to stick it right where it hurts.

Very few people are strictly on one side or the other. Most people who staunchly lean right or left without any forbearance usually have never sat back and thought about the issues very deeply.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

I did kind of mean to ask questions so I'll snap into answers :p, thanks Volrath
They're very broad and I may not sure I'll hit an answer to what you intended, I might take the context wrong.

-Government-provided health care
I'm actually against doing it, but am fully in support of the idea.  I think it could be something great, but I don't think we as a country can deal with that right now.

-Oil vs. alternative energy sources
Alternative energy sources.  Not really for "green" reasons but merely because it's less of a mess, and could effectively cost cheaper in the long run when it really matters to me.
I would love to have a house that runs off wind power, solar power, and recycled vegetable matter.  Less bills to pay, so long as it was efficient.  I definitely back alternative energy sources.
Including cadavers :straightthumb:

-War in Iraq
:x
I think we screwed up worse than if we handed out cake and ice cream.
I honestly think whatever we do is wrong.  There is no right solution.  I'm not anti-war or against reasons behind these wars, but I'm certainly against the practices and means it took to get us here.  I really can't say.  I don't think war is evil, I may agree with some of the ends we've had, but how we got to those ends is completely fucked.  I can't even answer this one honestly.

-Immigration
I love immigration.  It's one of my favorite things in the world, I live in a large city where I absolutely love the culture mix of hundreds of subcultures and peoples.  I think we should support easier and cheaper immigration, though I think our checks should be a little more.  When we check for diseases and things like that, simply because a neighbor was told to go to the doctor and fill out all these papers, never did half of it and walked out of the doctors office - and got his green card anyway.  I'm against keeping immigrants out.  I don't see a reason for it other than racism or some other bigotry.

I don't agree with how we deal with immigrants await deportation, simply because it fails - you go to a holding area and they let you go and tell you to come back... and you don't because your actually the smarter on this one.

I don't think illegal immigrants should be given drivers licenses, or... this is tough because I want to say funded healthcare, but I would never turn someone away from medical treatment... Things like this, the "rights" of illegals is so damn touchy even I can't find a standing point on when to say "I don't know".

-Gay marriage
Pro Gay Marriage.  I think "civil unions" even with the full rights of marriage is retarded.  It's rude.  It's a marriage, you can get married in court without god's presence so I don't see the religious argument there.  I'm very gay rights.

-Abortion
Pro-Choice.  I'd love to say I'm prolife in a perfect world, but in the really real world I'm 100% behind pro-choice.  I also think sex ed should cover abortion as well as contraceptives and should be mandatory if it mattered.  As to when the pregnancy can be called off... eek... I personally don't think life can be considered started until you can survive on your own.  I'm not saying perfectly healthy, but if there is within reason a chance that if labor was somehow induced, if that fetus once birthed could live successfully - that's too late.  When that starts... I don't know.  Third trimester?  Sure, I'm fine there.  It's not hurting my view, and makes sense I suppose.
If it'll kill the mother and the baby, or seems like it most likely will - I can say have an abortion if you want with a clean conscience.

I don't think teens should be mandatory to inform their guardians when an HIV test can be completely confidential to have.  I don't think adoption is any better or worse than abortion.  If they were both confidential or mandatory - fine.  Either or, I honestly don't have an opinion other than if one is allowed, the other should.  They both to me are in the same tree - actually the same branch just split down somewhere closer to the trunk.

-Church and state separation
100% behind the separation beyond most anyone I know.  I'm adamant about this to a near rabid point.

I get pissed off at when people say "you can't pray in schools anymore but they let those Muslims pray" - which there is a line there.  You can pray, any student can pray - just the school can't tell you to pray, totally different.  Particularly when even when I went to school in the 80's for Lent Fridays hot lunch was almost always some degree of meatless.  Because Lent, Fridays you don't eat meat - so how the hell is that okay, but allowing someone to pray (instead of telling them to) wrong.  Things like that.

I'm very against religion use and iconography on a universal measure.  "In God we trust" for example.  I wouldn't care if they had a dollar without it, along with it.  As well as "In Kali we trust" or whatever.  I wouldn't care if every other denomination was involved - it would be too much though to be reasonable, but I'd actually prefer that as opposed to having "In God we trust", but I'd rather see the whole thing gone.

This includes "One nation under God".

-Tax the rich or no?
I hate this because I don't know.
I think tax breaks for business are a good idea, do I think it's actually best?  No clue.  Economics is not my strong suit.  I do believe though that individuals should not be given a break simply because they have more.  Nor do I see why someone with less should have more taken.  I'm very poor, and my paycheck would be cut down so much that I couldn't afford rent in this neighborhood if I had a legal job.  But I work under the counter, so I keep it all - tax and everything.  I can get buy if I really needed (if I had to support myself with this money alone).

What's your opinion on Reagonomics?

Like communism, it's a great idea on paper.
It fails when you practice it.  It did do well for spots, but I honestly think it hurt over all.  Though I still think it's in a way partially in the right direction.

Anything else?
Death Penalty: For it as opposed to keeping someone in a jail for decades without the possibility of parole, when you can in the eyes of the court say "this person can not be healed, and will always be a danger to those around them".  And honestly, I wouldn't believe that can happen that much.

Pulling the plug/mercy killings: If it's in the will, go for it.  If the majority of family are for it, go for it.  If you can have some way to convince a doctor this is what a person who is now brain dead would have wanted, with more than just your words and display of emotion, go for it.
What was that case in Florida with the coma lady, where Bush (the brother) got involved even?  That was embarrassing.

Aren't there other parties to vote for than just those two?

It's called a hypothetical.
I did say I'm a registered non party independent, and that in this hypothetical situation if forced to chose between the two I don't know what would be the choice.  Consider it futile curiosity in an attempt to understand where I stand.  The worse judge of someone is always the mirror.
My dad thinks he's a conservative, and he votes Republican - but everything he stands for is very liberal, which is so god damn funny.  But he's completely blind to it.

Why do you have you have to find a niche on the arbitrary and entirely artificial two-party split? It's just completely and utterly retarded.

I agree, but for curious reasons I want to know where I lean.  I'm 100% sincere when I say I just don't know.  I've said I'm more conservative, I've said I'm more liberal - but I couldn't say which.  I'm not really trying to find a niche so much as I'm trying to figure out where I happen to be, simply because a definition would stop some foolish curiosity popping up in the back of my head.

Also, I'm formerly "sixtyandaquarter", "sixty", "60.25" etc.
I'm the guy with the avatar of a brownish and greenish amphibian named Toadie if that helps, since he tends to be more known than me :toadie:.
Des changed my name along with others

 

[Untra]

Your position on soft drugs such as cannabis, ketamine, psilocybin and LSD?

Your position on tobacco and alcohol use?

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q98/ ... sil/60.png[/img]

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

cannabis, ketamine, psilocybin and LSD?
I used to be a HUGE drug addict.  I make no attempt to say these things are good or bad, merely that I took them in bad ways.  I have a skewed perception, naturally.
I have no problem with legalizing cannabis, though an old debate in the symposium was around before the hack where few were arguing against it, so I did.

Ketamine is something that I could say can remain illegal.  Mainly for the possability of an OD.  You can get alcohol poisoning, effectively ODing, so that's a double standard since I wouldn't dillegalize those beverages.  At worse I'd say keep it where it is, and at best make it like alcohol.  With all the laws and limitations to it.  Including how you can get in trouble for public drinking, or driving while drunk, etc - something similar to that effect, although Ketamine is a lot stronger than your average shot.  A legal limit like with alcohol.
Shrooms should be treated the same as ketamine, either stay where it is or keep it under laws based on alcohol limits.  Psilocybin levels?! :x

I'm against LSD because it's fucked too many people I know, so I'm being hypocritical there when there's really not much difference.

Any of these types of drugs that impair judgment and reflexes should be, if legalized, dealt with on a mature level.  Their quantity and amount in the system, etc, should be cause for arrests as if you were drinking alcohol.  It would be too difficult I admit, and wouldn't really change much really.  It's not like it would change anything.

As for smokes, I'm for and against what's happened here in NYC with smoke free bars and restaurants.  I think it's fine, and good.  I think bar owners and restaurant owners should decide for themselves, however.  Possibly setting it up as a sort of reimbursement for "lost business" based on size of the place would allow some places to go smoke free, while others can remain.

I wouldn't illegalize smoking, and I find the hefty taxes ridiculous.  Sometimes in some places it's nearly $9 or even $10 for a pack.  That's just insane.

Drinking I'm fine with the way it is, but maybe carrier heavier punishments for those who have repeatedly caused problems, or escalated.  Spousal abuse and a DWI should add up and stack a bit more successfully when they occur separately.

 

[Incognitus]

Well shit Igno, I agree with all of that.

Just seemed he wanted to know which of the current party definitions his own politics were closest to. I'm aware that the meaning of the two shifts over time (Democrats were pro-slavery in Lincoln's time), but for right now, opinions on those issues I listed are more or less how it's determined. I don't mean to endorse the two-party system or the importance of any of those issues over others, just wanted to answer his question.

Sorry... Yeah. I sort of knew that you'd probably be agreeing with everything I said as I was writing but, you know... mid-rant and all that. :P

This sort of thing makes me angry because I get pissed off at being labelled everything between Communist and Neo-Nazi.

 

[Untra]

Oops, Ketamine is not actually a soft drug. My bad...
Your individual look at each drug leans you in both directions... Not sure what to say.

 

[Neverplayd]

From looking at your posts here generally, you seem pretty liberal, but it would be impossible to figure out from just that. You could always take a political party test, like The Political Compass, but those online tests tend to ask shallow questions (though this one seems more professional than most).

 

[FlippyD]

I'd say you're pretty much a liberal.

I can smell it on ya  :brow:

 

[sixtyandaquarter]