On being a moderate Democrat

6 Sep 2017

I've thought about talking about this on the Think Tank, but figured it would devolve quickly, and turn into a shouting match. Let's try it here.

I'm a moderate Democrat. I believe in the idea of moderate politics, that don't swing too far in either direction. I was a big fan of Bill Clinton, Hillary less so, but I thought she'd make an adequate President (Trump I will not budge on, he is a ** Edited by Moderator. POTUS name-calling not allowed.**)

These days, in this politically polarized environment, I find very few people who I agree with politically. Once upon a time I was probably mainstream, but now I get grief from both sides. Those I know who are conservative (mostly relatives) think I'm a flaming liberal. Most of my friends, though, are significantly more liberal than I. So I end up disagreeing with them on several fronts:

- that I voted for Hilary, and still defend my vote
- that Bernie's ideals are great, but fiscally irresponsible (though I am a big believer in single payer health care)
- that I am a pretty big defender of the second amendment (ALL the amendments actually)
- that I don't think the left should be violent in protests (like the antifa), even while protesting Nazi rallies
- (this one has gotten me into the most debates) that I don't think all Confederate statues are automatically racist and should be torn down, but that they be considered case by case. I do think it's a part of our history. I have no problem with adding materials to place them in context, but a wholesale erasure seems like a knee-jerk reaction (the Confederate flag is different, it is a traitorous flag defending slavery, but a statue is a person, with a past and a family and a complex set of beliefs).

Don't yell at me. But discuss, please. Anyone out there in the center feeling left out of political debate today?

6 Sep 2017

Hmm. I'll take a stab at this, while trying my best not to get [s]spanked[/s] gently corrected by and offered warm cookies and milk and possibly a hug from the mods. smile

I think the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" need to be established before this question could be answered. The political spectrum has been [s]muddled[/s] super duper confusing in recent decades to the point where[s] it no longer makes any sense[/s] I find it difficult to wrap my head around it. So let's [s]scrap it and start over[/s] brainstorm some new strategies, peers! idea1

The very far left end of the spectrum: total government control over all facets of our lives, from education to employment to healthcare to personal relations.

The very far right end of the spectrum: total anarchy, where there is no government at all to control any facet of our lives, and we all must survive on our own.

It seems logical that a person's beliefs can lie anywhere on that spectrum, depending on the issue. For example, you may want to be far-right when it comes to abortion, marriage, and religion, but far left when it comes to healthcare and environmental regulations. Or, you may want a strong government in matters of foreign affairs, but little government meddling domestically. You may want a huge, expensive, and powerful government when it comes to education, but little government oversight of business or economics.

It's this [s]muddying of the waters[/s] kerfluffle that [s]causes folks like yourself[/s] may lead to some individuals to feel isolated as "moderates." What is a true moderate to do when holding drastic left- or right-positions on a number of different issues? The answer, IMHO, is to identify which issues are most important to you, and then vote for the person/party that best aligns with your positions on those issues.

No candidate or party will ever perfectly align with you -- nor should they. Not only is every individual unique, but each of us tends to hold different positions on different issues over time. Changing your mind on an issue is a sign of intelligence.

Does that help?

flower

*Edited by moderator. Original post did not align with the nature of The Spa.

6 Sep 2017

Quote by JustSomeJoe

No candidate or party will ever perfectly align with you -- nor should they. Not only is every individual unique, but each of us tends to hold different positions on different issues over time. Changing your mind on an issue is a sign of intelligence.

Does that help?

I agree with what you have said. The last point especially. People can and should change their mind on issues over time. I know I have. Being a teenager I held certain ideas that are now vastly different from my positions on so many things.

When politicians change their minds it is often seen as a weakness or a sign of flip flopping. I admire a politician that can change their position and give a reasoned explanation as to why. They are so afraid of losing voters they take a stance on things and then can not back up their reasoning. The media then piles on as well as their opponents on both sides. Politicians worst fear is not being reelected so they often take whatever position will lead to that end. I have no idea how you change that. I have neither the insight nor intellect to put forth any remedies.

Although I do think campaign finance reform would be a step in the right direction I don't see that happening anytime soon.

I'm a fan of limiting the amount time someone can spend trying to get reelected. Not a huge supporter of term limits but understand why they appeal to some. My state has a one term limit governor. In theory that should make it easier for them to be productive while they are in office. It has not always worked. Some legislator's, if they are in disagreement with the current governor, know they can just keep delaying bills and see who gets elected in the next time

I too try to find a candidate that most aligns with my views. That is not always easy.

I completely agree with Verbal. Being a "moderate" is not always easy, especially at family and work functions. The reasonable discussion gets drowned out and I just disengage at that point. Not a good sign for a healthy democracy.

Now I was going to start talking about what people think of their representatives not fully reading bills they vote on. That's another topic so I'll go start another thread.

A little bit of filth to read and/or listen to.
https://www.lushstories.com/stories/erotic-poems/filthy.aspx
https://www.lushstories.com/stories/erotic-poems/a-gift-for-a-very-good-friend.aspx
https://www.lushstories.com/stories/erotic-poems/date-night-1.aspx

6 Sep 2017

Quote by JustSomeJoe
Hmm. I'll take a stab at this, while trying my best not to get [s]spanked[/s] gently corrected by and offered warm cookies and milk and possibly a hug from the mods.

I think the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" need to be established before this question could be answered. The political spectrum has been [s]muddled[/s] super duper confusing in recent decades to the point where[s] it no longer makes any sense[/s] I find it difficult to wrap my head around it. So let's [s]scrap it and start over[/s] brainstorm some new strategies, peers!

The very far left end of the spectrum: total government control over all facets of our lives, from education to employment to healthcare to personal relations.

The very far right end of the spectrum: total anarchy, where there is no government at all to control any facet of our lives, and we all must survive on our own.

It seems logical that a person's beliefs can lie anywhere on that spectrum, depending on the issue. For example, you may want to be far-right when it comes to abortion, marriage, and religion, but far left when it comes to healthcare and environmental regulations. Or, you may want a strong government in matters of foreign affairs, but little government meddling domestically. You may want a huge, expensive, and powerful government when it comes to education, but little government oversight of business or economics.

It's this [s]muddying of the waters[/s] kerfluffle that [s]causes folks like yourself[/s] may lead to some individuals to feel isolated as "moderates." What is a true moderate to do when holding drastic left- or right-positions on a number of different issues? The answer, IMHO, is to identify which issues are most important to you, and then vote for the person/party that best aligns with your positions on those issues.

No candidate or party will ever perfectly align with you -- nor should they. Not only is every individual unique, but each of us tends to hold different positions on different issues over time. Changing your mind on an issue is a sign of intelligence.

Does that help?

*Edited by moderator. Original post did not align with the nature of The Spa.

Yes it does help. What am I trying to say?

It seems like I am all over the map politically, but to me it is all from the same place. None of those positions are radical or extreme. Believing in the Bill of Rights, not believing in violence or rash decisions, wanting fiscal responsibility. It's not that I expect everyone to agree with me, but I am surprised people get so angry discussing them. These are (in my opinion) really mild positions. If there is an argument to be made it is that they are too mild, that I am too centrist.

The issue I am trying to get at, maybe, is that you can rarely really have a political discussion anymore. Things are SO polarized, every issue becomes an "us against them" discussion. I'm not talking about the Think Tank, or even social media, but actual real life!

6 Sep 2017

Quote by Gillianleeeza

Being a "moderate" is not always easy, especially at family and work functions. The reasonable discussion gets drowned out and I just disengage at that point. Not a good sign for a healthy democracy.

Yes, this, exactly.

6 Sep 2017

I hear ya, Verbal. [s]Sadly[/s] However, [s]it has become more and more prevalent to[/s] some individuals link politics and policies with morality. Many folks' [s]seem to believe that their[/s] preferred political positions are informed by their personal morals -- which [s]makes[/s] can sometimes lead these individuals to believe that opposition to those positions is immoral. [s]They[/s] This isn't always the case, but some individuals may then presume that anyone who disagrees with them on any given issue is [s]morally-corrupt, racist, bigoted, homophobic, stupid, crazy, or just plain evil[/s] super duper icky. (And [s]I see this type of[/s] in my personal experience that is uniquely mine, I have observed this personal bias more on one end of the political spectrum than the other.)

The next time some political topic arises, watch [s]the knee-jerk, visceral, reaction of this crowd[/s] the passionate responses of the individuals who feel strongly about their beliefs, and rightly so. They will [s]immediately point their fingers at the "other side"[/s] express how they disagree with a differing opinion and explain why, and unfortunately some will resolve to call them [s]others[/s] all sorts of names, which, while unfortunate, is no reason to take to heart the words strangers say on the internet. They People on both sides of an argument do this with the support and encouragement of [s]their like-minded friends[/s] individuals who agree, whether friends or otherwise. And because [s]they[/s] some people on both sides of these arguments [s]insulate themselves inside of echo chambers where only like-minded friends exist[/s] find comfort and camaraderie with individuals who validate their opinions, they begin to [s]feel emboldened and lash out even more harshly[/s] express their opinions with even more fervor. It's a [s]self-perpetuating cycle[/s] truly empowering experience for some individuals! cheerleader

*Edited by moderator. Original post did not align with the nature of The Spa.

6 Sep 2017

Quote by JustSomeJoe
Hmm. I'll take a stab at this, while trying my best not to get spanked by the mods.

Spanking sounds a little aggressive for the spa. It'd be more like a short time-out and then a gentle discussion over milk and cookies.

Don't believe everything that you read.

6 Sep 2017

Quote by Just_A_Guy_You_Know

Spanking sounds a little aggressive for the spa. It'd be more like a short time-out and then a gentle discussion over milk and cookies.

please stay on topic. thank you.

You can’t truly call yourself peaceful unless you are capable of violence. If you’re not capable of violence, you’re not peaceful. You’re harmless.

6 Sep 2017

Quote by Verbal
I've thought about talking about this on the Think Tank, but figured it would devolve quickly, and turn into a shouting match. Let's try it here.

I'm a moderate Democrat. I believe in the idea of moderate politics, that don't swing too far in either direction. I was a big fan of Bill Clinton, Hillary less so, but I thought she'd make an adequate President (Trump I will not budge on, he is a ** Edited by Moderator. POTUS name-calling not allowed.**)

These days, in this politically polarized environment, I find very few people who I agree with politically. Once upon a time I was probably mainstream, but now I get grief from both sides. Those I know who are conservative (mostly relatives) think I'm a flaming liberal. Most of my friends, though, are significantly more liberal than I. So I end up disagreeing with them on several fronts:

- that I voted for Hilary, and still defend my vote
- that Bernie's ideals are great, but fiscally irresponsible (though I am a big believer in single payer health care)
- that I am a pretty big defender of the second amendment (ALL the amendments actually)
- that I don't think the left should be violent in protests (like the antifa), even while protesting Nazi rallies
- (this one has gotten me into the most debates) that I don't think all Confederate statues are automatically racist and should be torn down, but that they be considered case by case. I do think it's a part of our history. I have no problem with adding materials to place them in context, but a wholesale erasure seems like a knee-jerk reaction (the Confederate flag is different, it is a traitorous flag defending slavery, but a statue is a person, with a past and a family and a complex set of beliefs).

Don't yell at me. But discuss, please. Anyone out there in the center feeling left out of political debate today?

Well, I thought I was a moderate Republican. And here I agree with all you posted. But the Republicans have gone off and left me. All the Tea Party and right wing agenda. That is not my party anymore. And that is why I voted for Hillary Clinton.

Being from the South, historically it was the Republicans that were the progressive party on civil rights and things while being fiscally conservative. The new Republicans are far from fiscally conservative, they've just become far right wing. I can't do that.

On being moderate. That puts you in the majority in the USA. The majority who are increasingly disgruntled because they don't feel they have a political party respresenting their ideals and stands on the issues.

6 Sep 2017

Quote by JustSomeJoe
I hear ya, Verbal. [s]Sadly[/s] However, [s]it has become more and more prevalent to[/s] some individuals link politics and policies with morality. Many folks' [s]seem to believe that their[/s] preferred political positions are informed by their personal morals -- which [s]makes[/s] can sometimes lead these individuals to believe that opposition to those positions is immoral. [s]They[/s] This isn't always the case, but some individuals may then presume that anyone who disagrees with them on any given issue is [s]morally-corrupt, racist, bigoted, homophobic, stupid, crazy, or just plain evil[/s] super duper icky. (And [s]I see this type of[/s] in my personal experience that is uniquely mine, I have observed this personal bias more on one end of the political spectrum than the other.)

The next time some political topic arises, watch [s]the knee-jerk, visceral, reaction of this crowd[/s] the passionate responses of the individuals who feel strongly about their beliefs, and rightly so. They will [s]immediately point their fingers at the "other side"[/s] express how they disagree with a differing opinion and explain why, and unfortunately some will resolve to call them [s]others[/s] all sorts of names, which, while unfortunate, is no reason to take to heart the words strangers say on the internet. They People on both sides of an argument do this with the support and encouragement of [s]their like-minded friends[/s] individuals who agree, whether friends or otherwise. And because [s]they[/s] some people on both sides of these arguments [s]insulate themselves inside of echo chambers where only like-minded friends exist[/s] find comfort and camaraderie with individuals who validate their opinions, they begin to [s]feel emboldened and lash out even more harshly[/s] express their opinions with even more fervor. It's a [s]self-perpetuating cycle[/s] truly empowering experience for some individuals!

*Edited by moderator. Original post did not align with the nature of The Spa.

Another way to say this might help.
I find today that people are more "polarized" which to me means, they have taken a firm stand OPPOSITE the other person(s), and RESOLVE never to change their minds. Positions are permanent.
Now we are human beings after all, and as Plato said, "The only thing permanent is change itself." Even the way we define a human being has changed over the course of history.
That means that people have to be reasonable and compromising when taking points of view.
That is what our politics are about as outlined in our constitution: checks and balances, forming a "body politic."
So if we remain polarized we will never rationally engage each other in a give-and-take.

What has history shown about polarized societies? They very easily turn to violence to FORCE a fight or flight response from the other side. In short, it has led to the thousands of wars in world history, including a great War Between the States here. Because they can not compromise, they have to destroy the other side!
It is no wonder that so many of us feel left out of the debate: there isn't much of a debate going on. Many are verbally fighting and taking one-sided actions.
I am delighted this "Spa" has been initiated.

6 Sep 2017

Tho some consider it as "throwing away my vote" I voted Libertarian.
The major party candidates struck me as each worse than the other

6 Sep 2017

Quote by JustSomeJoe
Hmm. I'll take a stab at this, while trying my best not to get [s]spanked[/s] gently corrected by and offered warm cookies and milk and possibly a hug from the mods.

I think the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" need to be established before this question could be answered. The political spectrum has been [s]muddled[/s] super duper confusing in recent decades to the point where[s] it no longer makes any sense[/s] I find it difficult to wrap my head around it. So let's [s]scrap it and start over[/s] brainstorm some new strategies, peers!

The very far left end of the spectrum: total government control over all facets of our lives, from education to employment to healthcare to personal relations.

The very far right end of the spectrum: total anarchy, where there is no government at all to control any facet of our lives, and we all must survive on our own.

I think your definitions [s]are off[/s] differ from mine, but they are informed by your belief system, so they are valid. Fascism [s]for instance is considered[/s] as I understand it is far right and stands for total government control. Also, it [s]seems[/s] appears to me that it's mostly the far right that want control over what people do (or rather do not do) in the bedroom.

Quote by JustSomeJoe
Many folks' [s]seem to believe that their[/s] preferred political positions are informed by their personal morals -- which [s]makes[/s] can sometimes lead these individuals to believe that opposition to those positions is immoral. [s]They[/s] This isn't always the case, but some individuals may then presume that anyone who disagrees with them on any given issue is [s]morally-corrupt, racist, bigoted, homophobic, stupid, crazy, or just plain evil[/s] super duper icky. (And [s]I see this type of[/s] in my personal experience that is uniquely mine, I have observed this personal bias more on one end of the political spectrum than the other.)

I think it happens on both sides of the spectrum, but we tend to group the other side as one while seeing all the nuance on our own side because it is the side to which we mostly relate.

Quote by Verbal
These days, in this politically polarized environment, I find very few people who I agree with politically. Once upon a time I was probably mainstream, but now I get grief from both sides. Those I know who are conservative (mostly relatives) think I'm a flaming liberal. Most of my friends, though, are significantly more liberal than I. So I end up disagreeing with them on several fronts:

- that I voted for Hilary, and still defend my vote
- that Bernie's ideals are great, but fiscally irresponsible (though I am a big believer in single payer health care)
- that I am a pretty big defender of the second amendment (ALL the amendments actually)
- that I don't think the left should be violent in protests (like the antifa), even while protesting Nazi rallies
- (this one has gotten me into the most debates) that I don't think all Confederate statues are automatically racist and should be torn down, but that they be considered case by case. I do think it's a part of our history. I have no problem with adding materials to place them in context, but a wholesale erasure seems like a knee-jerk reaction (the Confederate flag is different, it is a traitorous flag defending slavery, but a statue is a person, with a past and a family and a complex set of beliefs).

A two party system can only lead to polarization in my mind. Whether the axis runs from left to right, progressive to conservative or liberal to authoritarian, when there are only two parties all positions will be represented by these two parties, including the extreme ones. When you have many parties the extreme positions can be represented by other parties than the more moderate positions and you can have a more-dimensional political landscape where parties may take an extreme position on one axis, but a moderate position on another.

*Edited by moderator. Some parts of the original post did not align with the nature of The Spa.

=== Not ALL LIVES MATTER until BLACK LIVES MATTER ===

6 Sep 2017

Quote by swallows
Tho some consider it as "throwing away my vote" I voted Libertarian.
The major party candidates struck me as each worse than the other

It isn't throwing away your vote. It's voting your conscience.

6 Sep 2017

Quote by Verbal
I've thought about talking about this on the Think Tank, but figured it would devolve quickly, and turn into a shouting match. Let's try it here.

I'm a moderate Democrat. I believe in the idea of moderate politics, that don't swing too far in either direction. I was a big fan of Bill Clinton, Hillary less so, but I thought she'd make an adequate President (Trump I will not budge on, he is a ** Edited by Moderator. POTUS name-calling not allowed.**)

These days, in this politically polarized environment, I find very few people who I agree with politically. Once upon a time I was probably mainstream, but now I get grief from both sides. Those I know who are conservative (mostly relatives) think I'm a flaming liberal. Most of my friends, though, are significantly more liberal than I. So I end up disagreeing with them on several fronts:

- that I voted for Hilary, and still defend my vote
- that Bernie's ideals are great, but fiscally irresponsible (though I am a big believer in single payer health care)
- that I am a pretty big defender of the second amendment (ALL the amendments actually)
- that I don't think the left should be violent in protests (like the antifa), even while protesting Nazi rallies
- (this one has gotten me into the most debates) that I don't think all Confederate statues are automatically racist and should be torn down, but that they be considered case by case. I do think it's a part of our history. I have no problem with adding materials to place them in context, but a wholesale erasure seems like a knee-jerk reaction (the Confederate flag is different, it is a traitorous flag defending slavery, but a statue is a person, with a past and a family and a complex set of beliefs).

Don't yell at me. But discuss, please. Anyone out there in the center feeling left out of political debate today?

I agree with everything you said and I consider myself politically liberal.

But, maybe I should call that socially liberal. For a single payer healthcare system. Pro-choice. Path to citizenship for undocumented workers that are otherwise law-abiding.

I'm also for the Second Amendment. I believe in some regulation there.

The Confederate statue thing is interesting. I don't think they should all come down either. I would be very sad if any of the monuments at Gettysburg, for example, were removed. Confederate or Union. I am also torn as to whether I think this should be a local decision or something driven by federal guidelines.

In my opinion, the litmus test should be if something historical happened on that site. A random Robert E. Lee statue in a park put up during Jim Crow is very different from a Robert E. Lee statue put up on a battlefield where he commanded.

7 Sep 2017

Is there a moderate Democrat?

7 Sep 2017

Quote by Buster1959
Is there a moderate Democrat?

Of course there are. Are there moderate Republicans? I ask the question because I agree with what Buz said about the party moving further and further to the right.

7 Sep 2017

Quote by Verbal
I've thought about talking about this on the Think Tank, but figured it would devolve quickly, and turn into a shouting match. Let's try it here.

I'm a moderate Democrat. I believe in the idea of moderate politics, that don't swing too far in either direction. I was a big fan of Bill Clinton, Hillary less so, but I thought she'd make an adequate President (Trump I will not budge on, he is a ** Edited by Moderator. POTUS name-calling not allowed.**)

These days, in this politically polarized environment, I find very few people who I agree with politically. Once upon a time I was probably mainstream, but now I get grief from both sides. Those I know who are conservative (mostly relatives) think I'm a flaming liberal. Most of my friends, though, are significantly more liberal than I. So I end up disagreeing with them on several fronts:

- that I voted for Hilary, and still defend my vote
- that Bernie's ideals are great, but fiscally irresponsible (though I am a big believer in single payer health care)
- that I am a pretty big defender of the second amendment (ALL the amendments actually)
- that I don't think the left should be violent in protests (like the antifa), even while protesting Nazi rallies
- (this one has gotten me into the most debates) that I don't think all Confederate statues are automatically racist and should be torn down, but that they be considered case by case. I do think it's a part of our history. I have no problem with adding materials to place them in context, but a wholesale erasure seems like a knee-jerk reaction (the Confederate flag is different, it is a traitorous flag defending slavery, but a statue is a person, with a past and a family and a complex set of beliefs).

Don't yell at me. But discuss, please. Anyone out there in the center feeling left out of political debate today?

We are twins in politics, I believe. But, not mirror image. I don't like Trump (I'll hold back so as not to be edited) but I could not vote for Hillary. And yes, there can be a moderate democrat. It's called Libertarian.

I have three famous stories, 2 recommended reads and have come in the top ten in two competitions~ Come in and make yourself at home.

7 Sep 2017

Buz: Let me get this straight. You're a fiscal conservative, so you voted for...Hillary? I understand your frustration with the GOP wing of the Washington establishment, but if you're concerned about spending and taxation, why would you ever vote for Hillary -- or any Democrat?

Principessa: There are many different types of what we call "Republicans." There are "war hawks" like McCain and Graham, and "isolationists" like Rand Paul. Some Republicans are tough on enforcing our immigration laws, and others are lax. Some favor big spending, others favor slashing the budget. On and on down the list of issues, you'll find wide disagreement among Republicans.

On the other hand, it is my perception that Democrats all march in lockstep. [s]You'd be hard-pressed[/s] I, personally, have yet to find a Democrat who believes in small government, low taxes, reduced spending, pro-life, pro-military, pro-Second-Amendment, etc., etc.. That is one of the major differences between the two parties that I, myself, speaking for myself, have observed "Moderate" Democrats who stray from the party's line are very rare in my own personal experience that is uniquely mine. I, speaking for myself and myself only, personally believe that there really is no such thing as a "Moderate Republican", because I personally believe that there is no such thing as a "Republican!"

noll: My definition isn't off, because it's my definition! If you can explain to me how Fascism, which is a cousin of Socialism, which has its philosophical base in Marxism, is in any way, shape, or form "right-wing", then you'll convince me to adopt whatever definition you're using. I personally believe that the political right is all about small government. Fascism is the government seizure of private businesses for state benefit, and the use of violence to achieve those means. It is my own personal opinion that it is as far away from "right-wing" as you can get!

[s]No one[/s] I don't know of anyone on the "far right" cares what people do in the bedroom, but I understand if that is not your experience. [s]When you force people to change[/s]Interpretations of the definition of ancient words like "marriage" are constantly changing, and [s]then force people[/s] some individuals are left to feel as if they have to perform services that violate their religious beliefs, that's when [s]the[/s] some individuals who identify as being on the "far right" [s]takes issue[/s] get like super duper bombed out. [s]The leftists have been very effective in skewing that argument[/s] Some individuals on the left have gotten others to see these things in their favor -- [s]with the help of their friends in the media[/s] I believe the media has played a large part in that, of course. But changing views make the world go round. angel7

*Edited by moderator. Original post did not align with the nature of The Spa.

7 Sep 2017

Quote by JustSomeJoe
Buz: Let me get this straight. You're a fiscal conservative, so you voted for...Hillary? I understand your frustration with the GOP wing of the Washington establishment, but if you're concerned about spending and taxation, why would you ever vote for Hillary -- or any Democrat??

Because under no circumstances could I vote for a Trump or a Ted Cruz. And besides, Republican fiscal conservatism no longer exists. You can look up the spending under the last 2 Bushes, and the pork barrel spending sought by so-called conservative GOP senators and congressman. Their image is a facade.

I would have happily supported John Kasich for president, I'd even vote for Jeb Bush, but no way on the likes of Trump and will not if he runs for re-election.

7 Sep 2017

@Buz: I understand the distaste for Trump, and I get that you're frustrated that the GOP hasn't balanced the budget as they promised they would if only they achieved a majority of congress and the White House. I get all of that, and I share your frustration. But [s]you can't seriously[/s] do you believe the Democrats are more fiscally-conservative? It's totally fine if you do, because your opinions are rooted in your experience, and they are totally valid.
In my personal opinion that is uniquely mine, nothing in their lengthy record indicates that they would ever reduce spending or taxes or reduce the debt.

(And [s]before someone jumps on that with the old "Bill Clinton balanced the budget" argument[/s] I'm sure lots of my peers are of a mind that Bill Clinton balanced the budget. no, he didn't. Congress controls spending, However, I believe that the GOP congress led by Newt Gingrich balanced the budget. And I also believe that the only reason they were able to do so was the "perfect storm" of the Internet and cellphone markets both exploding during the exact same eight-year window. Federal economic policies had very little to do with the economic boom of the 1990's, in my personal opinion that is uniquely mine because it is formed by my own experiences, which applies to anyone else and their personal opinions and unique perspectives.)

angel7

*Edited by moderator. Original post did not align with the nature of The Spa.

7 Sep 2017

I consider myself a moderate Independent. I cannot relate to either the Democratic or the Republican party. And I definitely cannot relate to the far left or the far right. Both of their ideals are just bizarre to me. I believe in government being there to help the people that need it. I believe government should be there to protect the rights of everyone. I believe in our constitution and hate violence from any side that tries to use it to squelch the other side. That is pretty basic but it really is that simple to me. I feel like both sides have been taken over by small but very loud minorities and its getting worse. I hope some day everyone comes to their senses and both sides migrate back towards the middle and learn to work together to solve real problems.

7 Sep 2017

Quote by JustSomeJoe

(And before someone jumps on that with the old "Bill Clinton balanced the budget" argument I'm sure lots of my peers are of a mind that Bill Clinton balanced the budget. no, he didn't. Congress controls spending, However, I believe that the GOP congress led by Newt Gingrich balanced the budget. And I also believe that the only reason they were able to do so was the "perfect storm" of the Internet and cellphone markets both exploding during the exact same eight-year window. Federal economic policies had very little to do with the economic boom of the 1990's, in my personal opinion that is uniquely mine because it is formed by my own experiences, which applies to anyone else and their personal opinions and unique perspectives.)

I agree that Clinton lucked into some very lucky economic times, and it made the economy soar without much work on his part. i would argue, though, that he didn't piss it away on tax cuts, let alone those bizarre "rebate" checks everyone got when George W became President (which wasted God knows how much money to even be calculated and distributed).

When the Republican Party became the party of nation building overseas, in Iraq and Afghanistan, is when they lost the right to call themselves fiscally conservative. True Republicanism (as I'm sure you know) believes in a small government footprint, both domestically and overseas. If the Republican party went back to the ideals they had during, say, Eisenhower, they'd have a good shot at winning my vote (I suppose you could argue Eisenhower was nation building in Korea, but that is a topic for another day).

7 Sep 2017

Quote by SammiTS
I consider myself a moderate Independent. I cannot relate to either the Democratic or the Republican party. And I definitely cannot relate to the far left or the far right. Both of their ideals are just bizarre to me. I believe in government being there to help the people that need it. I believe government should be there to protect the rights of everyone. I believe in our constitution and hate violence from any side that tries to use it to squelch the other side. That is pretty basic but it really is that simple to me. I feel like both sides have been taken over by small but very loud minorities and its getting worse. I hope some day everyone comes to their senses and both sides migrate back towards the middle and learn to work together to solve real problems.

I think this puts things very well. Simple is good.

7 Sep 2017

Both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars shared broad bipartisan support in congress, so I'm not sure that "Republicanism" can be blamed for either war. Hillary was every bit as enthusiastic about invading Iraq as Bush was. It's something [s]we seem to have forgotten[/s] that many may have forgotten,[s] as the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) have rewritten history[/s] and many different factors may contribute to that, as there's no definitive proof that it was just one thing.

What I personally believe you are describing, Verbal, is Libertarianism -- which I perceive is more closely aligned with the Republican Party. I believe that libertarians are fiscal conservatives, socially-liberal, and tend toward an isolationist foreign policy. I consider myself to be a Libertarian (mostly) when it comes to domestic policy, but disagree with the isolationist mentality.

Ideally, I believe people should be left alone as much as possible, and should have the right to do whatever they choose, so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's rights to do the same. The purpose of government is to protect our rights, secure our freedom, enforce our laws, and provide the infrastructure we need to prosper. I completely disagree with this notion of government as nanny-state overseers of every facet of our lives from cradle-to-grave.

*Edited by moderator. Some parts of the original post did not align with the nature of The Spa.

7 Sep 2017

Quote by JustSomeJoe
My definition isn't off, because it's my definition! If you can explain to me how Fascism, which is a cousin of Socialism, which has its philosophical base in Marxism, is in any way, shape, or form "right-wing", then you'll convince me to adopt whatever definition you're using. I personally believe that the political right is all about small government. Fascism is the government seizure of private businesses for state benefit, and the use of violence to achieve those means. It is my own personal opinion that it is as far away from "right-wing" as you can get!

[s]Ehm, nope.[/s] I understand that your view is informed by your opinions, but my view is different. I know that the US has a rather two dimensional political spectrum, having only two parties that really matter, but in most other places the spectrum is multidimensional (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum). Fascism and Communism may seem close relatives on the libertarian vs authoritarian scale ([s]spoiler:[/s] This source indicates that they're both hanging out at the authoritarian end), but on the capitalism vs socialism scale they're on opposite ends.

Quote by Wikipedia article on Fascism
Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Politicalquad_en.svg/500px-Politicalquad_en.svg.png

*Edited by moderator. Parts of the original post did not align with the nature of The Spa.

=== Not ALL LIVES MATTER until BLACK LIVES MATTER ===

8 Sep 2017

Sorry, but [s]are we now using[/s] I don't perceive Wikipedia as an unquestionable source of information. Again, my definition of the political spectrum is my own, formed by my own experiences. I'm happy to adopt yours if you can adequately persuade me. [s]Wikipedia's spectrum seems sorely lacking[/s] I do not believe Wikipedia is reliable, and although I'm aware that it cites several reputable sources, I elect to reject Wikipedia's information. It is my opinion that true Capitalism requires a free market, and I firmly believe that Fascism is antithetical to free-market capitalism. I also believe that Fascism requires the state to mandate supply and pricing. I personally don't believe that is Capitalism. And I certainly don't believe it's close to "small government" or "right-wing."

The Nazis were Fascist. The word "Nazi" is an acronym (in German, obviously) for National Socialist Workers Party. How on earth can Socialists be "right-wing?"

Regardless of how you define the political spectrum, if you use my definition, Fascists are as left-wing as Socialists. I'm not saying this makes your definition less valid than mine, but I can only speak to my own perspective, and no one else's. Nazi Germany is responsible for six million murders of innocent civilians. I firmly believe that Socialism and Communism are responsible for over 200 million senseless murders. (And that doesn't count the murders committed by the North Koreans, North Vietnamese, Cubans, Venezuelans, or Cambodians.) It is my personal opinion that Socialism is the [s]greatest evil[/s] ickiest thing ever conceived by man, and I believe it's not even a close contest. I also firmly believe that free-market capitalism has lifted billions of people out of poverty in the last century alone, as my personal experience has shown me that much.

*Edited by moderator. Original post does not align with the nature of The Spa.

8 Sep 2017

Quote by JustSomeJoe
Both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars shared broad bipartisan support in congress, so I'm not sure that "Republicanism" can be blamed for either war. Hillary was every bit as enthusiastic about invading Iraq as Bush was. It's something we seem to have forgotten, as the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) have rewritten history.

What you are describing, Verbal, is Libertarianism -- which is more closely aligned with the Republican Party. Libertarians are fiscal conservatives, socially-liberal, and tend toward an isolationist foreign policy. I consider myself to be a Libertarian (mostly) when it comes to domestic policy, but disagree with the isolationist mentality.

Ideally, I believe people should be left alone as much as possible, and should have the right to do whatever they choose, so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's rights to do the same. The purpose of government is to protect our rights, secure our freedom, enforce our laws, and provide the infrastructure we need to prosper. I completely disagree with this notion of government as nanny-state overseers of every facet of our lives from cradle-to-grave.

Hilary [s]pissed me the fuck off[/s] caused me to be very upset when she voted for that war. It still makes me angry.

Yeah, I agree that the Republican Party is supposed to be libertarian leaning, and if they genuinely were, they just might get my vote. We need a safety net (e.g. good healthcare for all), and we need to regulate the [s]more greedy and rapacious[/s] super icky actions of business, particularly by mega-corporations. But other than that, I'm a pretty libertarian guy.

*Edited by moderator. Original post did not align with the nature of The Spa.

8 Sep 2017

Quote by Verbal

Hilary [s]pissed me the fuck off[/s] caused me to be very upset when she voted for that war. It still makes me angry.

Yeah, I agree that the Republican Party is supposed to be libertarian leaning, and if they genuinely were, they just might get my vote. We need a safety net (e.g. good healthcare for all), and we need to regulate the [s]more greedy and rapacious[/s] super icky actions of business, particularly by mega-corporations. But other than that, I'm a pretty libertarian guy.

*Edited by moderator. Original post did not align with the nature of The Spa.

Super icky? smile

I think a mod is attempting to have some fun with me.

My sincere apologies for not aligning with the nature of The Spa[s] fascists[/s] . I will try to be more civil in the future (really).

*Edited by moderator. Mod bashing does not align with the nature of The Spa.

8 Sep 2017

Quote by JustSomeJoe
Sorry, but are we now using Wikipedia as the unquestionable source of information? Again, my definition of the political spectrum is my own. I'm happy to adopt yours if you can adequately persuade me. Wikipedia's spectrum seems sorely lacking. True Capitalism requires a free market, and Fascism is antithetical to free-market capitalism. Fascism requires the state to mandate supply and pricing. That isn't Capitalism. It certainly isn't close to "small government" or "right-wing."

The Nazis were Fascist. The word "Nazi" is an acronym (in German, obviously) for National Socialist Workers Party. How on earth can Socialists be "right-wing?"

Regardless of how you define the political spectrum, if you use my definition, Fascists are as left-wing as Socialists. Nazi Germany is responsible for six million murders of innocent civilians. Socialism and Communism are responsible for over 200 million senseless murders. (And that doesn't count the murders committed by the North Koreans, North Vietnamese, Cubans, Venezuelans, or Cambodians.) Socialism is the greatest evil ever conceived by man, and it's not even a close contest. Free-market capitalism has lifted billions of people out of poverty in the last century alone.

I respect your opinion, but I personally believe that you are confusing economic systems with political ideologies. Capitalism is an economic system, fascism is an ideology. I believe they go hand in hand very well, and I think Nazi Germany has proven that.

My view is that the term National Socialism refers to an economic system where everyone's works for the benefit of the state, as opposed to real socialism where everyone works for the benefit of the community and the people. It is my belief that the National(ist) part is what it was about, and I also believe that the term "Socialist" was added because it appealed to the working class, but it is my belief that it was in fact only propaganda.

The terms right and left originate from post-revolution France. Although they are often associated with capitalism vs socialism, they actually define conservatism vs progressiveness. In French parliament after the revolution; members who opposed change and the speed at which it was happening were seated on the right of the president, members who wanted change sat on his left side.

*Edited by moderator. Original post did not align with the nature of The Spa.

A little kindness can be so valuable, yet costs almost nothing

In many countries being gay is a crime, and even in modern societies, politicians try to legalise discrimination. Your voice can make a difference. Have a look at All Out to find out how.

Hey... pssst.... that's an l (as in luscious) at the end of my name, not an i

8 Sep 2017

Wow. I understand the purpose of the "Spa", and if the mods here [s]were so offended by[/s] believed that what I wrote did not align with the nature of The Spa, then of course it's perfectly within their right to [s]delete[/s] adjust what I've written. But I don't [s]appreciate having words put in my mouth[/s] like having my words changed to those that are less inflammatory than what I originally wrote. I believe that [s]Censorship[/s] removing a post entirely is more acceptable than [s]distortion[/s] editing them. Although I'd like to continue this conversation, I won't be visiting the "Spa" again.

hello2

*Edited by moderator. Original post did not align with the nature of The Spa.