General Political Thread

[Sir Stewart]

Here, I'm fairly conservative, other place I get pretty liberal.

"Other place" = real life?

[LouieB]

What does liberal mean?

 

LouieB

[bleedorange]

bleedorange you can give me a break smart boy. you probably like the roundabout on The Five.

 

 

The what?  Are you saying the highest-rated shows are not indicative of what the mass public would rather watch?  It goes beyond politics, too.  It's why ESPN has been unwatchable for me for the past decade.  It's been reduced to talking heads arguing over the stupidest things just for the sake of the argument.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

What does liberal mean?

 

LouieB

 

I looked up liberal and conservative on dictionary.com just for fun. Here is what I found:

con·serv·a·tive   

adjective

1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.

3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.

4. (often initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.

5. (initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.

 

 

lib·er·al   

adjective

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.

4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

Pretty good definitions in my book, and definitely relevant to today's political landscape. I consider myself much more liberal than conservative, particularly because I favor progress. Seems like conservatives are generally concerned with keeping things status quo (or even going back to the "good ol' days")...except when it comes to the environment, of course. Who cares about conserving land if you can create jobs...however destructive they might be to the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat...

[lost highway]

The most fascinating thing about our pointlessly binary political system is the irony that conservatives are supposedly for individual freedoms yet have moved to constrict them when they don't suit their religious superstitions.  Liberals in hopes of guaranteeing prosperity for their fellow citizens are more willing to require them to give up some of their income for the purpose of prosperity.  Being more or less a liberal it's easier for me to think around the second irony than the first.

[Guest Jules]

What about the non-religious conservatives?

 

[uncool2pillow]

Or the religiously liberal / fisacally conservative?

[uncool2pillow]

"Other place" = real life?

oops "places".  If I'm around conservatives, I become more liberal.  If I'm around liberals, become more conservative.  I guess I take up for the other side.  My views are pretty consistent, actually, just left on some (social mostly) and right on others (fiscal mostly).  But I'm not likely to contribute to a political conversation solely to agree.

[KevinG]

You know I have never understood those people who call themselves fiscally conservative/socially liberal (supporting of gay rights etc) and still vote GOP. Basically you are saying that your money is more important then someone else's rights.

 

[Winston Legthigh]

You know I have never understood those people who call themselves fiscally conservative/socially liberal (supporting of gay rights etc) and still vote GOP. Basically you are saying that your money is more important then someone else's rights.

 

I have friends who fit your description, and basically yes, that's what they are saying. They think that legal freedoms are on an unchanging path upwards - the rights of the repressed are improving steadily as time marches forward. They are not moving backwards. Nationwide gay marriage rights is going to happen. But a bad fiscal policy could set us back and ruin the viability of the country. 

 

I don't think you'll find many voters who would knowingly vote for something that harms themselves, but benefits others. 

[bleedorange]

You know I have never understood those people who call themselves fiscally conservative/socially liberal (supporting of gay rights etc) and still vote GOP. Basically you are saying that your money is more important then someone else's rights.

 

That's pretty reductive. As if a voting decision comes down to that simple choice.

 

You've got to balance it out.  It also depends on what you're voting for.  On the federal level, fiscal policy and foreign policy take precedence over social issues because those issues are actually handled at that level.  The state and local level requires more thought and really depends on the individual candidate.  Here in Texas, the main races have been the Republican primaries, where more sensible Republicans run against crazy Tea Partiers (I know the widespread thought here is that every Republican and Conservative is the same, but it really isn't true).  You've got to elect the right one.  It doesn't happen all the time, unfortunately (see Ted Cruz).

[ih8music]

That's pretty reductive. As if a voting decision comes down to that simple choice.

 

You've got to balance it out.  It also depends on what you're voting for.  On the federal level, fiscal policy and foreign policy take precedence over social issues because those issues are actually handled at that level.  The state and local level requires more thought and really depends on the individual candidate.  Here in Texas, the main races have been the Republican primaries, where more sensible Republicans run against crazy Tea Partiers (I know the widespread thought here is that every Republican and Conservative is the same, but it really isn't true).  You've got to elect the right one.  It doesn't happen all the time, unfortunately (see Ted Cruz).

 

Not sure if I agree with this statement.  Most battles around social rights are being waged in the courts, so it's vital who's in the White House picking the next SC justice(s).

[bleedorange]

Not sure if I agree with this statement.  Most battles around social rights are being waged in the courts, so it's vital who's in the White House picking the next SC justice(s).

 

That's a part of it, sure.  But it's a smaller part of an overall platform.  And it's a crapshoot whether the justices will be any good.  I think most presidents average 2-3 Supreme Court appointments during their presidency.  Reagan's three appointments produced three great justices (Kennedy has improved a lot).  George H.W. Bush went 0-for-2 (Souter and Thomas).  Clinton didn't fare too well either (Ginsburg and Breyer).

 

Beyond that, the courts will only tackle those statutes passed by state legislatures that might infringe on constitutional rights.  Not only is it a slow process to handle it that way, but it's a narrow way to actually effect change.  Tackling these issues at the source is more effective and more in line with the way these things should be done.  The country is slowly turning and it's just a matter of time.  Some states will take longer than others.

 

Than you get to school board elections, where I vote for the most liberal person on the ballot.

[KevinG]

That's pretty reductive. As if a voting decision comes down to that simple choice.

 

It does for me.  I simply cannot vote for person who does not hold the view that all people have the same rights regardless of who they love.  It may be simplistic, but it is what I feel. 

[bleedorange]

Case in point:

 

What could the federal government or courts do about this?

 

Texas Judge Blocks Woman from Living with Lesbian Partner at Ex-Husband's Request

[bleedorange]

It does for me.  I simply cannot vote for person who does not hold the view that all people have the same rights regardless of who they love.  It may be simplistic, but it is what I feel. 

 

That's fine.  I can respect that.  But for others, there are other issues that come into play.  And while they may feel strongly about that issue, they may feel more strongly about other issues.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

The what?  Are you saying the highest-rated shows are not indicative of what the mass public would rather watch?  It goes beyond politics, too.  It's why ESPN has been unwatchable for me for the past decade.  It's been reduced to talking heads arguing over the stupidest things just for the sake of the argument.

If you didn't quote him, those of us who have him blocked for his blockheadedness wouldn't have to read his posts.

[Guest Jules]

I love gays and money equally.

[Hixter]

Two Islamist terrorists shot and beheaded a British soldier in broad daylight in the middle of London today and it took 20 minutes for police to arrive because they were waiting for armed officers. 

 

They even had time to give a blood-soaked interview before the cops arrived and shot them. It's a good thing they didn't decide to start hacking up all the bystanders in the meantime.

[ih8music]

Terrible.  Not sure why it's in this thread, though, unless someone is going to argue in favor of the terrorists.

[Hixter]

Terrible.  Not sure why it's in this thread, though, unless someone is going to argue in favor of the terrorists.

I was too lazy to find the gun control thread.

[KevinG]

Terrible.  Not sure why it's in this thread, though, unless someone is going to argue in favor of the terrorists.

 

It was a passive aggressive statement against the pro gun control crowd, I think.  

[Hixter]

It was a passive aggressive statement against the pro gun control crowd, I think.  

More passive than aggressive, but it points out what happens when the bad guys have guns and the good guys (including the cops) don't. It's outrageous that it took 20 minutes for the cops to arrive in the middle of the day in the middle of London, but it's nice to see that ordinary citizens weren't afraid to confront the murderers and attempt to aid the victim. The cops should take some pointers from them.

 

I was too lazy to find the gun control thread.

It looks like this was the gun control thread (I think there were more than one) so strike that bit about me being lazy. 

[LouieB]

It's still a mystery to me why people who want guns want anyone to have them without any kind of accountability.  But it's okay.  When the carnage gets bad enough things will change.  Enough people just  haven't died yet.

 

LouieB

[Hixter]

It's still a mystery to me why people who want guns want anyone to have them without any kind of accountability.

It's a mystery to me why you make such claims despite the fact that I don't think anyone has ever said such a thing -- here or anywhere else.

 

But it's okay.  When the carnage gets bad enough things will change.  Enough people just  haven't died yet.

Gun homicides are down greatly over the last 20 years -- even as Americans are buying firearms at a record pace, but anti-gun politicians don't want anyone to know it.