Would you vote for a fiscally conservative, socially liberal 3rd party candidate?

[Gigantopithecus]

Friends and I had a lengthy discussion about this last night. What say you?

 

[woolfe9999]

If what you're describing is a pure libertarian ideologue, then the answer for me is "no." If by fiscally conservative, you mean someone who places a high priority on balancing the budget, but is a moderate on the question of small versus big government, then probably yes. Also, I'd like to know the candidate's view on the third major issue category: foreign policy.

 

[Tristicus]

No. Liberal in pretty much any sense is a no go for me.

 

[fskimospy]

No, I'm fiscally liberal.

 

[JTsyo]

I kind of wish we could freeze the social issues like they are right now and concentrate on the economy for 2 or 3 years. Of course there are going to be some that are linked to the economy.

 

[Munky]

What you're describing doesn't make sense. Fiscally conservative means cutting government spending on entitlements, handouts and other bloat, which wouldn't sit well with the socially liberal welfare state and nanny government. Give me a fiscal conservative, who'd actually let reckless banks fail, and I'd vote for him.

 

[Jaskalas]

Fiscally conservative, socially liberal.

Liberal has two meanings these days. The classic and true definition of a person advocating freedom, while the other meaning is conservative slang for government zealots.

If you were speaking of the true definition of the word, then of course I would vote for someone like myself. For you are speaking about what, IMO, a true conservative should be.

 

[BoomerD]

Maybe. There are too many variables to be addressed with your simple scenario...BUT, for the first time in my life, I did not vote for the Democratic candidate for President of the US of A.

I have NEVER voted for any candidate with the (R) attached to his/her name.

 

[Mursilis]

A fiscally-conservative, socially-liberal candidate sounds very libertarian. I'd probably vote for him/her.

 

[PrinceofWands]

There are more than two issues to consider when picking a candidate. Also, you'd need to define both as YOU mean them, since both terms can be defined differently by different people.

 

[Murloc]

fiscally conservative as in "let's not make changes", or opposed to fiscally liberal as in "more taxes on everyone and big government"?

the american political blubber twisted the true meaning of liberal and conservative. It makes them look like insults.

 

[Texashiker]

I always vote third party

The only time I do not vote third party, is if there is not a third party candidate.

After bill clinton did a flip flop on nafta, I gave up on the 2 party system.

 

[Lithium381]

sure, balanced budget w/o raping me for taxes....whlie providing for the poor, great!

 

[thraashman]

Nope. I feel that conservative fiscal policies created the current economic mess we're in so I wouldn't dare vote for a fiscal conservative. Socially liberal is the only right way to be as far as social goes. In truth most Republican voters I know tend to fall under the fiscal conservative but socially liberal umbrella, such as my parents.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Yes if they had a hope of winning or if the election result was a foregone conclusion so my vote didn't matter.

Otherwise, I don't agree with the agendas of either Rs or Ds, so I try to pick the lesser evil at both the state and federal levels.

 

[JD50]

Yes, I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

 

[JD50]

Nope. I feel that conservative fiscal policies created the current economic mess we're in so I wouldn't dare vote for a fiscal conservative. Socially liberal is the only right way to be as far as social goes. In truth most Republican voters I know tend to fall under the fiscal conservative but socially liberal umbrella, such as my parents.

What part of our fiscal policies have been conservative?

 

[Schadenfroh]

I would vote for a socially libertarian, fiscal center-right conservative.

 

[mcmilljb]

fiscally conservative as in "let's not make changes", or opposed to fiscally liberal as in "more taxes on everyone and big government"?

the american political blubber twisted the true meaning of liberal and conservative. It makes them look like insults.

If by "lets's not make changes" you mean cut spending for what you don't like so you can spend more on what you do like, then yes that is a "conservative."

I want real moderates. People who understand they need to make real arguments for the best course of action. Not "because I said so" or "I feel this way." I don't give a shit how you feel, I give a shit about what's being done. If a program is not acheiving it's goal, cut it off. If the program is useful and meets its objective, then keep it. Plus everything can probably be improved if they sit down and discuss it like rational people. You have to give and take, not always take. However it's always what's best for their donors and their constituents. That's a problem because people forget each state is different. Each state has it's own unique history, population, and interests. It's been a problem since our independence, and it will be one for the foreseeable future.

 

[werepossum]

I would vote for a socially libertarian, fiscal center-right conservative.

Pretty much this. I usually vote Libertarian, even though I despise their positions on the border/illegal immigration and foreign policy - although I'm definitely leaning toward their view of isolationism. I voted "Yes", but meaning socially liberal by the traditional freedom-loving libertarian meaning, NOT a big government social progressive. But I'll never have a significant candidate that mirrors my own liberal environmental/libertarian social/conservative fiscal/ultra-conservative military viewpoint, so socially liberal/libertarian and fiscally conservative is as close as I'll ever get.

 

[Doboji]

Friends and I had a lengthy discussion about this last night. What say you?

In a fucking heartbeat

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes.

 

[senseamp]

No, but I would recommend him to Republicans.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Yeah, you're gonna have to define what you mean.

A conservative has religious responses based on fear and ignorance. So, someone with an unreasoned dogmatic insistence on small government is a conservative. Someone who sticks their head in the sand to avoid being faced with balancing the budget is also a conservative. Someone who is afraid of anything different in the social landscape than to what he has become accustomed is a conservative. Someone who wants massive change to a theocracy where we're burning witches and lynching blacks is also a conservative.

"Conservative" describes the person, it does not define a proposition that comes from him. Liberalism is defined as having the freedom to take the most intelligent position, so you cannot deny the Liberal a position just because a conservative also holds it. Just because a conservative has reached a position in an utterly retarded way doesn't mean he is necessarily wrong, so all "conservative" positions are possible liberal ones.

 

[Anarchist420]

I voted yes, but I'm not socially liberal, because I don't support forcing my values on other people, I don't support Amnesty, I'm anti-hate crime legislation, and I'm pro-life, and I have a hard time seeing how life could come from non-life.

While you could describe me as an Antifederalist theocon, you could also describe me as paleolibertarian, which is a theologically conservative anti-materialistic anarchocapitalist.