- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Disagree. How strong an issue's importance is impacts how much one will spend time addressing or advocating for that issue.
Also, when voting for someone, if a candidate's position on that one important issue, opposes one's position, that might prevent that individual from voting for that candidate. I know it would for me.
For example, Jerry... if there was a candidate who was mildly for most of the things you support, but STRONGLY for abortion on demand, would you vote for him?
I agree.
Now, about independent. Give me a minute, please, a look at my explaination alone. Forget what other independents have used for excuses up till now, for the sake of this minute.
Passionately, in order of importance:
Militant (DemPeaceTheory).
Green (not AGW).
Pro-gay (Regarding SSM, the abolition of marriage and civil union is my fundamental stance, but I'll support 'unions for everyone' for transitional equal rights purposes).
Pro-life (few reservations).
The rest is pretty much disinterested libertarian.
What's my lean?
Anyone else, feel free to jump in and let me know if there is a better option than independent. I'm pretty sure that being most passionate about militant and green largely screws the pooch from the git-go.
Thanks
I have no idea what DemPeaceTheory is, never heard of it, but if by "green" you mean cliamat change then as all of that is a hoax like the world ending on May21st, flat-earth theory and young-earth creationism then your lean is "kook".
I took it as "no justice, no peace" based on the "militant" part.
Dems are the party who stood with fire hose in hand to oppose desegregation, and are the party with the most, by far, connections to the KKK, La'Raza, Planned Parenthood and other openly racist organizations, so it would be wise not to leave it for me to guess what DemPeaceTheory means...the term smacks of a 'final solution'....
Democratic Peace Theory is the (naive) idea that democracies won't fight with each other. I'd guess that being militant about it means he supports the neo-conservative viewpoint about spreading democracy through war.
For the most part... democracies haven't fought each other. There's been peace throughout Europe since the spread of democracy. All of the monarchies have gone or at least become constitutional, totalitarian regimes like the Nazis or Soviets are gone, and Germany and Russia are now at peace with other democratic nations. Even the middle eastern nations were more peaceful when they were democratic, or at least moving towards democracy.
As for the OP... I listed independent because there's no option for socialist. And because I think that the mainstream liberalism is too pro-business.
I think it's more accurate to say that trading partners don't fight with each other.
How do you feel about the progressive label, in place of socialist? (Or is that even an option?)
For the most part... democracies haven't fought each other. There's been peace throughout Europe since the spread of democracy. All of the monarchies have gone or at least become constitutional, totalitarian regimes like the Nazis or Soviets are gone, and Germany and Russia are now at peace with other democratic nations. Even the middle eastern nations were more peaceful when they were democratic, or at least moving towards democracy.
As for the OP... I listed independent because there's no option for socialist. And because I think that the mainstream liberalism is too pro-business.
I'd guess that being militant about it means he supports the neo-conservative viewpoint about spreading democracy through war.
I think it's more accurate to say that trading partners don't fight with each other.
I have been thinking about this. I am quite conservative in my outlook, though I define what it means for myself and I am not affiliated with the GOP. However, due to my conservative lean, some mistakenly ascribe that to myself (and others who are like me.) Thus, should DP add 'independent conservative' and 'independent liberal' to the political affiliation options.
Yes, I think that indie liberal/conservative should be added because when one sees "liberal" or "conservative" they usually think that the user is either a Dem or a Repub, which may not always be the case. For example, I am a liberal, yet I am not a fan of the Democratic party in the least bit.
Yes, I think that indie liberal/conservative should be added because when one sees "liberal" or "conservative" they usually think that the user is either a Dem or a Repub, which may not always be the case. For example, I am a liberal, yet I am not a fan of the Democratic party in the least bit.
No one belongs to nothing, which is what you would have to be as an independent or unaffiliated, etc. You have to be truly neutral on every conceivable issue.
So what's the deal, Jerry?
Lucky says I'm a pro-life liberal. Unfortunately for him, this was a snap judgement and probably ignored the libertarian base. I'm right wing economically. And then he found out I'm a neocon on foreign policy (Cheney might be my favorite VP ever). I don't think he wants me in the liberal group anymore.
You don't mind a pro-gay marriage, pro-legalization, anti-death penalty, green (not AGW), rabid-hawk (money is no object) conservative on the team, right? I'm in, right?
darkslategray said:You said everyone must be one or the other, and I don't think the libs want me.
darkslategray said:What are we gonna do?
I think it's more accurate to say that trading partners don't fight with each other.
How do you feel about the progressive label, in place of socialist? (Or is that even an option?)
So what's the deal, Jerry?
Lucky says I'm a pro-life liberal. Unfortunately for him, this was a snap judgement and probably ignored the libertarian base. I'm right wing economically. And then he found out I'm a neocon on foreign policy (Cheney might be my favorite VP ever). I don't think he wants me in the liberal group anymore.
You don't mind a pro-gay marriage, pro-legalization, anti-death penalty, green (not AGW), rabid-hawk (money is no object) conservative on the team, right? I'm in, right?
You said everyone must be one or the other, and I don't think the libs want me.
What are we gonna do? You could claim I'm stupid or that my philosophy is inconsistent, but I think that would be a mistake.
You're right, that might be a more accurate way to put it. Financial interdependence is a good way to ensure peace. The other way is sex (usually in the form of intermarriage).
I would add both. They're not the same thing. Though I might have difficulty choosing which one I felt closer to. Maybe I just don't have a good understanding of what "progressive" really means.
Why not just remove the selection all together and let people type in what they want?
There are more leans than there are options and clearly people have different ideas about what their lean should be. So why not give them the freedom to fill in the blank?
Good idea. At the very least we need more options. I was a little dismayed that I had to pick the ambiguous 'Other.'
Okay, then, how about small L libertarian? I think of that as being fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
Good idea. At the very least we need more options. I was a little dismayed that I had to pick the ambiguous 'Other.'
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?