I am getting confused as of late of the political structure of the D&D. Posters who I thought were liberal aren't, and vice-versa. You shouldn't use this information to bash people either.
I'm a flaming red meat independent. I dislike both parties very strongly because they are hostage to pressure groups. Some issues I'm on the right, some on the left, a few I take the middle road. The fun thing is, my right-wing Republican friends think I'm a closet Democrat and my lefty friends think I'm a closet Republican (except when I blast Bush). In reality, I truly don't lean either way. Never will be in either party. To me, it's not about taking a side (Dem or GOP) and sticking with it. It's about maintaining integrity by admitting both parties are corrupt to the core and identifying with neither. To me, people who vote straight ticket all the time are robotics droids.
Fully agree. I consider myself also an independent, no loyalty to either parties here. I tend to be a conservative on most issues.
One thing more. I'm NOT a moderate. One most issues I tend to take a strong stand on one side or the other; on others it's the "middle ground". I say this because a right wing buddy of mine (my best friend) told me that moderates were worthless because they felt no passion about issues. He was parroting Rush Windbag. I'm as passionate as anyone about issues. I just refuse to be pressed into the traditional mold of a Democrat or Republican. Independent (completely free of party affiliation or identification) does not equal moderate (middle of the road).
I believe that the American system is inherently flawed in its operation and implementation, and that it's too late to attempt to restore it to the ideals it's based upon (most of which were never realized in the first place). I don't usually support a candidate in an election, and if I vote I vote for the one I find least odious, meaning, I've never voted for, only against. (This isn't to say that I believe government has never accomplished anything worthwhile, or to say that government - in some form - is unecessary). Accepting either Republican, Democrat, or "Independent" (meaning neither Democrat nor Republican), implies a belief that the American system is good, but just needs a little tweaking and a little more adherence to its ideals in order to work well - and I don't believe that. I don't really buy into the liberal/conservative thing, and I find the terms are vague in practice but function as a sort of shorthand description of one's beliefs. The times when such labels are valid comes from people accepting a particular ideology whole-hog and then identifying themselves with it in minute detail - in which case it's more about following a particular group instead of actually believing in something - the beliefs are only adopted as a standard of membership. I suppose I come closer to a liberal bias than a conservative one socially - but that's more from a "mind your own damn business" perspective than from a "we're all equal" viewpoint. I'd consider myself an elitist, but my standards for "elite" are not based on capital. I believe capital actually obscures proper standards for assigning rank in society (sometimes wholly obliterates those standards to the point of establishing the lesser as the greater, an inversion that allows those who are least capable of handling power responsibly to assume the visible symbols and sometimes the actual influence associated with high rank). What's more, I think this obfuscation (created from measuring status according to the accumulation of capital) is, on many levels, intentional. That being said, I can't figure out a way to implement a meritocracy, and have trouble defining a system that would qualify as one. And since this post could get impossibly long, I'm just going to stop here and say "other."
ditto for me on everything you said. i would also add that although i consider myself an independent - moderate, conservatives will find me liberal and liberals will find me conservative. to me, this is the sign of true moderation. i walk the line
Too bad the poll wasn't made public. Kind of curious for who voted for what. Me: Moderate Conservative.
I voted for independent liberal. I have belonged to the scoialist party, and identify mostly with their ideals. Their practice leaves a lot to be desired, and they are guilty of the same kind of propoganda as the far right. So I don't subscribe to their publications anymore. But I might vote for their candidates in the next elections.
"You are neither hot nor cold, so I vomited you out of my mouth. That's what I say about moderates." - Jerry Brown I voted liberal democrat. Almost voted liberal independent, since I'm not at all a straight ticket guy and have only voted Democrat in two of the five presidential elections I was eligible to vote in. I've been sorely disappointed with the Democratic party my entire adult life, but I am a Democrat by philosophy. I've resolved to try and help change the party for the better rather than abandon it. And there are more Democrats I could get behind right now than, I think, any time in my adult life. I'd be passing proud to cast a vote for Feingold, Gore, Obama, Dean or Clark for president. I need to learn more about Warner but he probably belongs on that list as well. Maybe Richardson too. And I could be happy with an Edwards nomination also. I would have been happy with a Kerry presidency even though I think he's about as bad a candidate as the party's ever fielded. Clinton, Biden, Bayh and Lieberman can get bent as far as I'm concerned, but it's a great time to be a Democrat.
This is an interesting poll, moreso for being a public one. I think it would be even better though if it defined the nature of conservative as fiscal or social. There are people who identify now as conservative Republicans that don't care about big spending or busted budgets but care very much about issues like abortion or gay rights. Likewise there are more traditionally conservative Republicans in the Libertarian mold that believe government should stay out of our lives altogether, preferring low taxes and spending but a laissez-faire approach to social issues. The only thing they have in common is party ID, so the "conservative Republican" label is no longer especially instructive.
You see that one vote by langal for liberal Republican, representing 3.7% of the sample? That's Giuliani's base once GOP voters learn his stance on social issues. In each of Giuliani's runs for NYC mayor, he was represented on the Republican and Liberal party tickets.
I'd have to say Independent Liberal. Could of voted for Clinton easily in 1992 or 1996 if I could of voted. Would of voted for Bush again in 2000 and would vote for McCain if he ran in 2008. Although I'm proud to say I'm not supportive of the parties that don't count for anything and have no voice in American politics at all such as the following groups that no one pays attention to: (in order of their gayness) Communists Green Party Libertarian Peace Party Reform Party Socialists.
Guiliani's base also includes libertarian Republicans. As you pointed out in your previous post, there are social and libertarian conservatives. I am definitely am more of a libertarian Republican rather than a social conservative and hope Guiliani runs (and beats McCain). Guiliani is also excellent on crime and national security which may sway social conservatives.
