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

[Macamus Prime]

Watch the budgets and figures.

Stop watching what people do in their bedroom, how they express love, who serves our country, what someone does with their own fucking body, who they marry, what they do with their lives, etc.

Still have some form of government, law and order. That way, corporations can't sell you crack and get away with it. Or, shitty food / toxic dry wall.

 

[Craig234]

Wow, I thought that Nadel stole his thunder?

Nadel?

 

[BTA]

Where's the option for voting for someone who just isn't a huge piece of shit?

 

[Doltmoopsie]

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

What does fiscally conservative mean?

Are we going to stop shooting people abroad?

Or are we going to stop feeding and housing the poor & old here?

 

[TheSlamma]

Where's the option for voting for someone who just isn't a huge piece of shit?

When it comes to politicians you don't go by "the best" you go by who is "the least worse" So really it would have to be in your terms the smallest piece

 

[piasabird]

No, I believe it is not the function of government to fix social problems. I would say that one of the keys to the downfall of morals is when the government started paying women to have babies. It is like the government had a purposeful plan to destroy families. I believe government is the problem and not the solution. While I am not against helping people, I do not think the government is the best mechanism to accomplish that goal. I would rather tithe 10% of my money to my Church than give it to the government, where 2/3rds of it will be wasted. Even the Red Cross and United Way do a better job than the Government. Volunteers are much better workers and can stretch money much further than the government.

 

[piasabird]

Still have not seen any free government health care.

 

[piasabird]

It was president O-bummer that signed the bill with the tax credit for Corporate Jets. Did you know this? Is he an idiot or what?

 

[werepossum]

Hearing how people define simple terms like 'liberal' and 'conservative' speaks volumes of how and why they think.

To me, economics can be distilled down to how high the tax rate is and how many services the government provides. This, of course, runs the gamut from the most theoretically 'conservative' simple societies where there are no taxes and no services to what are perhaps the most 'liberal' modern societies like Sweden where taxation is extremely high, and the government provides a permanent welfare state. Realistically in the US, a fiscal conservative supports low tax rates and a government that does not provide many services.

Social issues need not be economically relevant. Teaching intelligent design, gay marriage, drug legalization, and abortion are not necessarily tied to money. Some social issues are very economically relevant, like defining the minimally humane provisions for keeping a person alive. It's a pointless exercise if you consider only economically relevant social issues, because as has been stated, you can't be fiscally conservative and socially liberal if your idea of social liberalism requires fiscal liberalism as well.

Most of my friends voiced a belief that our country as it is now is too economically liberal and too socially conservative. That is, taxation rates are too high, the government provides too much, and they think it is unfortunate that gay marriage is mostly illegal, that drugs are mostly illegal, that access to abortions is too frequently threatened, that moves to push religion (in the form of intelligent design) into the public sphere too common and too forceful.

So, to me a fiscally conservative, socially liberal politician would move to decrease tax rates, cut government spending across the board (from the military to corporate subsidies to the welfare system), legalize drugs (especially marijuana), work to preserve abortion access and keep intelligent design out of public schools. Neither party embraces this platform, hence the need for someone with these beliefs to run as a third party candidate.

Well said. My ideal of a social liberal is NOT a progressive who wants the government to be all things to all people and involved in and regulating every aspect of life, but rather someone who maximizes individual liberty.

What you're describing is how dumb college kids with no life experience think about politics. In reality, a "conservative" leans towards maximizing individual freedom, and minimizing government intervention. A "liberal" prefers nanny government to decide what's best for everyone, and equalize the playing field for anyone who feels entitled to preferential treatment.

In theory, but our social conservatives, like our liberals, have fallen in love with using the armed might of government to enforce approved behavior even when it does not materially affect others. My own marriage for instance is not affected by whether my neighbor's spouse is an innie or an outie, yet this issue is core to our social conservative movement. Likewise, forcing the teaching that the Grand Canyon is less than 6,000 years old and caused by the great flood is using the armed might of government to try to control behavior and thought.

Granted, the right wing is arguably not as bad as the left wing, but it's not for lack of trying, and as our society evolves away from our traditional mores and structure, I fully expect the left wing to get better and the right wing to get worse as we move closer to the socialist collectivist left wing ideal and farther from the traditional capitalist individualist right wing ideal.

 

[Atreus21]

No. Abortion is a lynch-pin for me.

 

[Atreus21]

Nadel?

Doggone tennis players.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I'm not really interested in obfuscating economics as they relate to an individual's relationship with the government with basic physics principles.

*sigh* @ norms.

Can't take 1 plus 1 to make 2. No clue as to what underlies anything -- only working with block concepts with non-descriptive labels.

I'll simply say that to me, if I am required to give the government my money, I want to approve of how it's spent, within reason. I would not choose to live in an extremely economically conservative society that has no taxation and does not provide any services like the creation and maintenance of infrastructure, domestic and foreign security, etc. Nor would I choose to live in an extremely liberal society that taxes me at a very high rate so that it can provide services I deem not the responsibility of the government, like maintaining a permanent welfare state (for individuals and corporations).

I am talking about the thing. You are talking about mere surface features.
"Blah blah blah these are the block patterns I use."
This is supposed to be interesting to me?

Is that really the best you can do? An opinion based on block beliefs that are immovable as you have no concept as to what underlies them, which you merely position yourself against?
How is that mental process at all interesting? And if the process isn't interesting, what on Earth makes you think the result is?

Nobody needs 6 billion examples of banal humanity. So why are you bothering to throw +1 onto everyone's total in that direction?

I have no disagreement with your position, there's just nothing of intellectual interest within it. You're using a simple algorithm with very limited use. If faced with a paradigm shift it would have to shatter.
I prefer mental models that are finer grained so that they can closer follow what reality shows. Working the intricacies of those models is mentally stimulating. You, OTOH, are giving me nothing.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Noise

I hold multiple master's degrees in biological sciences, am an ABD PhD candidate in evolutionary anthropology, have published peer-reviewed scientific research, and make a lot of money performing scientific analyses for the federal government. Who, pray tell, are you, to talk down to me?

The foundation of a democracy is that everyone's opinion is to be considered. The purpose of a public forum is to share opinions. That's why I toss my two cents into the ring.

You can either attempt to explain your position better or post more pictures of cartoon ponies. If you can't explain it to me, it's not because I'm too stupid to understand.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

No. Abortion is a lynch-pin for me.

Hooray for "small government" conservative hypocrites! :thumbsup:

 

[JD50]

Hooray for "small government" conservative hypocrites! :thumbsup:

That only makes sense if you don't understand the core issue of the abortion debate.

 

[JD50]

I hold multiple master's degrees in biological sciences, am an ABD PhD candidate in evolutionary anthropology, have published peer-reviewed scientific research, and make a lot of money performing scientific analyses for the federal government. Who, pray tell, are you, to talk down to me?

The foundation of a democracy is that everyone's opinion is to be considered. The purpose of a public forum is to share opinions. That's why I toss my two cents into the ring.

You can either attempt to explain your position better or post more pictures of cartoon ponies. If you can't explain it to me, it's not because I'm too stupid to understand.

Pony boy has a bigger ego than Craig, you'd be better off ignoring him.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

That only makes sense if you don't understand the core issue of the abortion debate.

I'd wager that I understand all of the core issues in the abortion debate better than he and you.

 

[JD50]

I'd wager that I understand all of the core issues in the abortion debate better than he and you.

Then you wouldn't find anything hypocritical about a small government conservative being pro life.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I hold multiple master's degrees in biological sciences, am an ABD PhD candidate in evolutionary anthropology, have published peer-reviewed scientific research, and make a lot of money performing scientific analyses for the federal government. Who, pray tell, are you, to talk down to me?

Until you reach my level, I am your better.

Your work is of no matter on the philosophical plane. Your ability to perform narrow functions relevant in a narrow field do not speak of your ability to range far and wide through the realm of ideas.
I also have talent in my field, but to buckle down and perform the tasks is not to meta-analyze.

The foundation of a democracy is that everyone's opinion is to be considered.

Your opinion is considered in your vote. There is no need for you to speak it.

The purpose of a public forum is to share opinions.

Here's one for you: http://www.youtube.com/
Go through it and share your opinions in the form of thumbs.

Do you thumb this up or down? Why should I care either way?
I don't. Unless you have a special reason for your opinion, the datum isn't interesting.

There are over 6 billion people on Earth, each capable of having billions of discrete positions. I do not need to hear them all. They are not of interest merely because they exist.

You can either attempt to explain your position better or post more pictures of cartoon ponies. If you can't explain it to me, it's not because I'm too stupid to understand.

My position is that your thinking is boring. I am not nostalgic about my thinking as a teen, so I don't need to see similar patterns coming from you.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Then you wouldn't find anything hypocritical about a small government conservative being pro life.

False, and direct evidence to support my wager.

 

[JD50]

False, and direct evidence to support my wager.

Pro-lifers think abortion is murder.

There's nothing hypocritical about a small government conservative wanting murder to be illegal.

FWIW I am pro-choice.

 

[Atreus21]

Hooray for "small government" conservative hypocrites! :thumbsup:

Yeah. It's totally against the principle of small-government that murder should be, I don't know, looked down upon.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Pro-lifers think abortion is murder.

This is an error in fact on their parts.

There's nothing hypocritical about a small government conservative wanting murder to be illegal.

But abortion is not murder. It is rather a fact that a prohibition of abortion would amount to the reduction of individual rights and an overstepping of the government. That pro-lifers are too ignorant to realize this does not make them less hypocritical.

FWIW I am pro-choice.

Cool story, bro.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Yeah. It's totally against the principle of small-government that murder should be, I don't know, looked down upon.

We're talking about abortion, not murder.

 

[Atreus21]

I'd wager that I understand all of the core issues in the abortion debate better than he and you.

You're the guy who says that sex doesn't cause pregnancy. What's worse, when asked what does cause pregnancy, IIRC, in response you ask the question, "Is anything ever truly caused?"

I wouldn't call that a smart appraisal of the issue.