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

[kage69]

It would come down to the individual's details. 3 broad strokes of the brush is a little low res for me. My hate for the two party system aside, they would have to demonstrate that they are knowledgeable about relevant issues and capable of independent and critical thinking. GWBs and Palins need not apply. Knowledgeable and respectable candidates can still be sunk by fervent belief in bullshit (returning back to the gold standard, evolution is satanic lie, etc etc). My over riding need in a politician would be, in a very broad sense, for them to actually take a stand for individuals and not corporate and special interests. Corporate greed and lawyers are ruining this country.

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.

Just curious, which policies in particular are you referring to? I agree with you btw...

 

[werepossum]

Does it matter that the compromise was basically illogical? The amount of abortions performed at the latter stages of pregnancy in the U.S. is astoundingly small. That's why the pro-life movement constantly keeps putting up pressure to move that date forward.

For me, I don't like abortion but I'm unwilling to force my values on this issue. I can foresee numerous circumstances where my wife and I might need to have an abortion, so who am I to judge others. I dislike forcing a woman to have a child even more, especially if its because of "my" values. If we are going to try and be a free society women should be allowed to make this decisions based on their own or in conjunction with their partner if they choose to involve them. If religious folks have a problem with this, they should rest in the knowledge that their god will sort it all out.

If you really want to do something about limiting abortion, rather than trampling on other peoples freedom you could start working towards providing comprehensive sex education, access to birth control, low cost day care, better maternity leave, free pre-natal care, and offering low-cost parenting classes. It wouldn't be a horrible idea to find some additional forms of male based birth control. And while we're at it, let's do something that exists with regards to the discrepancy in earnings that exists between men and women. Raising a child is a tremendous responsibility and burden that our society does not value, at the very least it shouldn't come along with a paycut.

From my stance if society wants to make choices for someone then society has an obligation to help out. Nearly 20% of American children are born into poverty. To me it is equally distasteful to require someone to be born into the world and then leave them to suffer. We can do better, especially given the tremendous amount of resources we piss away on fruitless endeavors.
SNIP

I disagree that the compromise was particularly illogical. Is it illogical to ban the most egregious (i.e. late term) abortions, a relatively small number, rather than try to ban more?

Anyway, this is derailing the thread, so I won't post more.

 

[RisenZealot]

Nope.

Democrats have no clue how to do anything financialy. All they want to do is spend, spend, spend regardless of the fact we have no money.

Socially I would not vote for them either. Sorry but I don't believe in numerous things liberals think are ok. You can say it's because I'm ignorant or just afraid, you can say it's because of whatever reason floats your boat. Frankly, I don't care.

 

[werepossum]

Nope.

Democrats have no clue how to do anything financialy. All they want to do is spend, spend, spend regardless of the fact we have no money.

Socially I would not vote for them either. Sorry but I don't believe in numerous things liberals think are ok. You can say it's because I'm ignorant or just afraid, you can say it's because of whatever reason floats your boat. Frankly, I don't care.

How about a classical social liberal, one not dedicated to implementing socialist policies, but rather to getting government out of people's lives? Would you be willing, for example, to allow gays the freedom to marry in return for the government not mandating that schools teach "gay history"?

 

[RisenZealot]

How about a classical social liberal, one not dedicated to implementing socialist policies, but rather to getting government out of people's lives? Would you be willing, for example, to allow gays the freedom to marry in return for the government not mandating that schools teach "gay history"?

Well if that fairy tale creature you mentioned existed then ya I wouldn't have an actual problem with them. Thing is though I have yet to see any liberal that wanted to get out of peoples lives.

There are really only two issues that Republicans and conservatives wish to get involved in with regard to someones life. That is abortion and gay marriage. Outside of that almost everything they stand for is all based on smaller government.

Truth be told even though I feel as if homosexuality is wrong I do not feel as if I have the right to tell someone they can't do it or that they cannot get married. So yes, I am fine with gay marriage.

Abortion on the other hand I have very strong feelings about and in no way could support. I can honestly say that when it comes to that it is the one thing that I would chose to "involve" myself in when it comes to other peoples lives.

So long story short, if there was someone like you mentioned then yes I am not completely closed minded. I could possibly vote for them. It would of course depend on who the Republicans had running though.

 

[Nebor]

Nope. Don't vote, not gonna vote for anyone.

 

[JS80]

There's a difference between socially liberal and socially libertarian

 

[JS80]

How about a classical social liberal, one not dedicated to implementing socialist policies, but rather to getting government out of people's lives? Would you be willing, for example, to allow gays the freedom to marry in return for the government not mandating that schools teach "gay history"?

How about government getting out of the marriage business altogether? Solves problem from all sides - government takes no position.

 

[Carmen813]

I disagree that the compromise was particularly illogical. Is it illogical to ban the most egregious (i.e. late term) abortions, a relatively small number, rather than try to ban more?

Anyway, this is derailing the thread, so I won't post more.

I suppose my feeling was that the way it was written was just silly. It doesn't make sense to me to put in a special rule on something that accounted for far less than <1% of procedures. At that point I'm left scratching my head, because all it did was open the door for people to start arguing about week x version week y.

 

[Carmen813]

How about a classical social liberal, one not dedicated to implementing socialist policies, but rather to getting government out of people's lives? Would you be willing, for example, to allow gays the freedom to marry in return for the government not mandating that schools teach "gay history"?

I think Kucinich is probably the closest we have to that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Dennis_Kucinich

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'm against outlawing abortion but I have a moral objection to this argument.

In the case of an unexpected or unintended pregnancy through consensual sex, how is the female an "involuntary incubator?" She volunteered to have sex which she knows has the potential to make her pregnant. I don't feel the term "involuntary," in cases of pregnancies caused by consensual sex, is appropriate or fitting.

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

You do not automatically consent to every possible outcome of your actions when you are not acting illegally or negligently. If that were the case, you could not sue another person for hitting you with their car, for example. After all, you volunteered to drive on the public motorway, which has the potential to involve you in a traffic collision. You must've consented to be involved in the collision, right?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

A fetus is certainly genetically a person, from day one.

This sentence is incoherent because "person" is not a biological term. It is a legal one. You have made a category error. Persons are born.

At different times and places a man has had the right to kill his wife or his slave; that these acts were legal does not make them any less murder, at least morally.

Slaves and wives are persons. Fetuses are not persons. Persons are born.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

...pro-lifers believe a fetus is no different than a living child.

A premise which is clearly false.

 

[werepossum]

How about government getting out of the marriage business altogether? Solves problem from all sides - government takes no position.

Works for me. However, a lot of people buy into Marx's "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs" thingy, which means that government needs to know if you are married so that it can decide how much of your income you need to keep. So that's probably not an option - although it DOES have the benefit of pissing off both sides, which is often the mark of a reasonable agreement.

I suppose my feeling was that the way it was written was just silly. It doesn't make sense to me to put in a special rule on something that accounted for far less than <1% of procedures. At that point I'm left scratching my head, because all it did was open the door for people to start arguing about week x version week y.

There's some truth in that. However, while partial birth abortions may be rare as a percentage of all abortions, that doesn't mean that punching a hole in a living baby's skull and cutting it up with shears, or pull off its limbs with tongs, isn't something that needs to be banned. Cannibalism is rare, but still needs to be illegal.

I think Kucinich is probably the closest we have to that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Dennis_Kucinich

I do believe that's the first time Dennis Kucinich has ever been mentioned in that light. Here we have a representative who wants to ban for-profit medicine and health insurance in favor of a single-payer government health care system, ban all firearms (and probably all pocket knives) from citizens, and favors making us all vegans with rights on par with animals. You can make a case for a single-payer government health care system being more efficient and/or more fair, but you certainly can't make a case that it gets government out of people's lives. On the contrary, it puts government in control of people's lives, one of it's cost savings being the ability to dictate when someone's life is no longer worth saving. That's about as much involved in one's life as it is possible to be.

 

[classy]

I would need a chart showing where the candidate stood on certain issues.

 

[werepossum]

I would need a chart showing where the candidate stood on certain issues.

Where s/he stands, or where s/he SAYS s/he stands? 'Cause you're usually speaking of two different charts here.

 

[zinfamous]

depends on what you mean by fiscally conservative.

If you mean "like Reagan," then..fuck no--are you insane? THIS is what Reagan gave us. Right now, this is supply side economics. Why would I vote for someone knowing that the same fucked-up economy would be allowed to continue, in perpetuity?



truth is, most democrats of the 20th century gave us a much better economy than the competing republicans. :\

 

[Carmen813]

Works for me. However, a lot of people buy into Marx's "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs" thingy, which means that government needs to know if you are married so that it can decide how much of your income you need to keep. So that's probably not an option - although it DOES have the benefit of pissing off both sides, which is often the mark of a reasonable agreement.


There's some truth in that. However, while partial birth abortions may be rare as a percentage of all abortions, that doesn't mean that punching a hole in a living baby's skull and cutting it up with shears, or pull off its limbs with tongs, isn't something that needs to be banned. Cannibalism is rare, but still needs to be illegal.


I do believe that's the first time Dennis Kucinich has ever been mentioned in that light. Here we have a representative who wants to ban for-profit medicine and health insurance in favor of a single-payer government health care system, ban all firearms (and probably all pocket knives) from citizens, and favors making us all vegans with rights on par with animals. You can make a case for a single-payer government health care system being more efficient and/or more fair, but you certainly can't make a case that it gets government out of people's lives. On the contrary, it puts government in control of people's lives, one of it's cost savings being the ability to dictate when someone's life is no longer worth saving. That's about as much involved in one's life as it is possible to be.

That would be a fairly poorly implemented single payer system. However, decisions about who gets medical care are made everyday b people other than patients. This is not necessarily a bad thing.

Russ Feingold might have been a better example. Think I got him and Kucinich mixed up in my mind since I read your post wrong. I've heard a lot of comparisons between Kucinich and Ron Paul.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Democrat