|
On March 05 2012 09:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 09:07 darthfoley wrote:On March 05 2012 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:52 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 08:35 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:31 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 08:24 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:18 darthfoley wrote:On March 05 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:07 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
I dunno. It really seemed like the only thing against Huntsman was that he didn't get media attention due to him not saying batshit crazy things. Other than that, he seemed like Romney but without the flip-floppity-ness. It even used rhetoric that wanted to unite the country rather than divide it. Huntsman was the emptiest suit on the stage at every debate. It is rare to see a politician so bereft of substance run for president. Lol, you must be joking. To say Huntsman had less substance than Cain or Bachmann? Stop insulting a reasonable candidate that couldn't win his party's favor because of the extreme conservative base. Cain and Bachman both had substantive platforms that they pushed. Huntsman spoke only in broad platitudes. I love how all you liberals think you know more about why certain republican candidates failed than I do. Just because someone is slightly less conservative then you doesn't mean they're a liberal? And Cain having a substantive platform? Give me a break. I agree Huntsman didn't win because he couldn't really speak to people and didn't have much to go on, but Cain? Haha! Who here is "slightly less conservative" than I am? There has only been a handful of conservative posters in this thread compared to the hordes of liberals, and none are posting right now. And how do you know they're liberals? Because they disagree with Rick Santorum, or because they liked Huntsman? That would make them a moderate-conservative, not a liberal. Or perhaps in the case of those that hate Santorum, they're probably social-liberals, but it doesn't mean they can't still be conservatives/moderates. If it's one thing I can't stand about these labels and their owners is that if you disagree with them just slightly, you're immedietly on the opposite side of the spectrum in their eyes. Oh please. Anyone with half a brain who has followed this thread can tell who the liberals and the conservatives are. Just read the posts. You know, i'm progressive, but there are republican candidates and republicans in general that i can respect. Perhaps i don't agree with their policies on some issues, but i can respect them. To blindly say that i'm some left wing lune who hates everyone that doesn't agree with me is rather stupid. I supremely dislike Santorum because of his social policy, while i respect Huntsman because he didn't randomly pull "facts" out of his ass like Santorum. (Netherlands euthanization comes to mind) I've watched every debate since the race got serious (after pawlenty withdrew etc), so i would say i'm relatively well informed on each candidates platform. flame incoming You are a progressive? Shocking! So can we please stop pretending that it is impossible to determine where posters in here fall along the political spectrum?
Sure.
|
On March 05 2012 09:10 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:52 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 08:35 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:31 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 08:24 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:18 darthfoley wrote:On March 05 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:07 DoubleReed wrote:On March 05 2012 07:57 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Not believing in evolution is not the same as not believing in science. If you think that Huntsman announcing that he believes in evolution is what sunk him, then you are more clueless about republican politics than I thought. I dunno. It really seemed like the only thing against Huntsman was that he didn't get media attention due to him not saying batshit crazy things. Other than that, he seemed like Romney but without the flip-floppity-ness. It even used rhetoric that wanted to unite the country rather than divide it. Huntsman was the emptiest suit on the stage at every debate. It is rare to see a politician so bereft of substance run for president. Lol, you must be joking. To say Huntsman had less substance than Cain or Bachmann? Stop insulting a reasonable candidate that couldn't win his party's favor because of the extreme conservative base. Cain and Bachman both had substantive platforms that they pushed. Huntsman spoke only in broad platitudes. I love how all you liberals think you know more about why certain republican candidates failed than I do. Just because someone is slightly less conservative then you doesn't mean they're a liberal? And Cain having a substantive platform? Give me a break. I agree Huntsman didn't win because he couldn't really speak to people and didn't have much to go on, but Cain? Haha! Who here is "slightly less conservative" than I am? There has only been a handful of conservative posters in this thread compared to the hordes of liberals, and none are posting right now. And how do you know they're liberals? Because they disagree with Rick Santorum, or because they liked Huntsman? That would make them a moderate-conservative, not a liberal. Or perhaps in the case of those that hate Santorum, they're probably social-liberals, but it doesn't mean they can't still be conservatives/moderates. If it's one thing I can't stand about these labels and their owners is that if you disagree with them just slightly, you're immedietly on the opposite side of the spectrum in their eyes. Oh please. Anyone with half a brain who has followed this thread can tell who the liberals and the conservatives are. Just read the posts. On social policies, I would probably agree. I think that is pretty obvious. But overall, or on economic/foreign policies? No, I don't think so... And I don't think being liberal in one and conservative in the another necessarily makes you a liberal or a conservative
I disagree. Democrats/liberals tend to be very uniform in their liberalism-- particularly in this thread. Also, it's pretty easy to determine which ones are not because their posts don't have the knee-jerk libelous comments about republicans or the typical cliched liberal one-liners. Instead, their posts are surprisingly fair.
|
On March 05 2012 09:10 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:52 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 08:35 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:31 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 08:24 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:18 darthfoley wrote:On March 05 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:07 DoubleReed wrote:On March 05 2012 07:57 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Not believing in evolution is not the same as not believing in science. If you think that Huntsman announcing that he believes in evolution is what sunk him, then you are more clueless about republican politics than I thought. I dunno. It really seemed like the only thing against Huntsman was that he didn't get media attention due to him not saying batshit crazy things. Other than that, he seemed like Romney but without the flip-floppity-ness. It even used rhetoric that wanted to unite the country rather than divide it. Huntsman was the emptiest suit on the stage at every debate. It is rare to see a politician so bereft of substance run for president. Lol, you must be joking. To say Huntsman had less substance than Cain or Bachmann? Stop insulting a reasonable candidate that couldn't win his party's favor because of the extreme conservative base. Cain and Bachman both had substantive platforms that they pushed. Huntsman spoke only in broad platitudes. I love how all you liberals think you know more about why certain republican candidates failed than I do. Just because someone is slightly less conservative then you doesn't mean they're a liberal? And Cain having a substantive platform? Give me a break. I agree Huntsman didn't win because he couldn't really speak to people and didn't have much to go on, but Cain? Haha! Who here is "slightly less conservative" than I am? There has only been a handful of conservative posters in this thread compared to the hordes of liberals, and none are posting right now. And how do you know they're liberals? Because they disagree with Rick Santorum, or because they liked Huntsman? That would make them a moderate-conservative, not a liberal. Or perhaps in the case of those that hate Santorum, they're probably social-liberals, but it doesn't mean they can't still be conservatives/moderates. If it's one thing I can't stand about these labels and their owners is that if you disagree with them just slightly, you're immedietly on the opposite side of the spectrum in their eyes. Oh please. Anyone with half a brain who has followed this thread can tell who the liberals and the conservatives are. Just read the posts. On social policies, I would probably agree. I think that is pretty obvious. But overall, or on economic/foreign policies? No, I don't think so... And I don't think being liberal in one and conservative in the another necessarily makes you a liberal or a conservative
I still don't understand in what way liberal/conservative is a dichotomy anyway, considering that a large number of conservatives show preference for liberal economics while US "liberals" tend to give more importance to the social aspects of liberalism. Social liberalism and conservatism are simply insufficient.
No wonder a disproportionate amount of Americans dislike labels, so many people are confused about what said labels even mean.
|
Canada11350 Posts
Huntsman only seemed reasonable because everyone else is so weak. But he was just as weak. I'm not really sure what Huntsman stood for except to be more reasonable. Like it or not the way the primaries are structured, you need some sort of powerful public image/ a feeling a gravitas. (Kennedy vs Nixon)
Nobody really had it for the Republicans, but Huntsman was the weakest of them all in that regard. Cain said dumb stuff, but had a laid back persona that was appealing. Presidential campaigns are littered with boring candidates that could never inspire much. Huntsman might have had good things to say, but he's another Kerry.
Now maybe in a Parliamentary system... well no because he would need to gather the most support from the party and it sounds like he didn't have it. But a parliamentary system is one way that policy wonks with otherwise boring personalities can come to power. Like Stephen Harper. I say that as a Conservative voter.
But Huntsman had none of the above- party backing like Romney, tv personality like Cain, principled and dedicated supporters like Paul, Evangelical backing like Santorum (although that really wouldn't make sense in the Kennedy years as he's also a Catholic.) Really no distinctives. He was just there and he wasn't crazy.
Edit.
That might make a nice political slogan however.
"I'm here and I'm not crazy." Hunstman 2012
|
It really seemed like the only thing against Huntsman was that he didn't get media attention due to him not saying batshit crazy things. Other than that, he seemed like Romney but without the flip-floppity-ness. It even used rhetoric that wanted to unite the country rather than divide it.
Huntsman repeatedly criticized conservatives, not surprising that conservatives didn't vote for him. No one believed him when he said he was a conservative, not surprising conservatives didn't vote for him.
Candidates who talk about uniting the country are either liars (Obama) or fools (Huntsman, Bush II before him). No serious political issue is resolved by "uniting the country" in the let's-all-hold-hands-and-get-along way that is annoyingly pushed down our throats. No domestic problem has been solved by "uniting the country," which is just code talk for "surrender to my eminently sensible ideas without debate or contest."
|
On March 05 2012 09:21 Falling wrote:
Huntsman only seemed reasonable because everyone else is so weak. But he was just as weak. I'm not really sure what Huntsman stood for except to be more reasonable. Like it or not the way the primaries are structured, you need some sort of powerful public image/ a feeling a gravitas. (Kennedy vs Nixon)
Nobody really had it for the Republicans, but Huntsman was the weakest of them all in that regard. Cain said dumb stuff, but had a laid back persona that was appealing. Presidential campaigns are littered with boring candidates that could never inspire much. Huntsman might have had good things to say, but he's another Kerry.
Now maybe in a Parliamentary system... well no because he would need to gather the most support from the party and it sounds like he didn't have it. But a parliamentary system is one way that policy wonks with otherwise boring personalities can come to power. Like Stephen Harper. I say that as a Conservative voter.
But Huntsman had none of the above- party backing like Romney, tv personality like Cain, principled and dedicated supporters like Paul, Evangelical backing like Santorum (although that really wouldn't make sense in the Kennedy years as he's also a Catholic.) Really no distinctives. He was just there and he wasn't crazy.
I understand where you're coming from, and i agree to an extent; but i have to say that even a "Kerry like" Huntsman would make a better president than someone like Cain.
|
On March 05 2012 09:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 09:10 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:52 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 08:35 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:31 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 08:24 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:18 darthfoley wrote:On March 05 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:07 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
I dunno. It really seemed like the only thing against Huntsman was that he didn't get media attention due to him not saying batshit crazy things. Other than that, he seemed like Romney but without the flip-floppity-ness. It even used rhetoric that wanted to unite the country rather than divide it. Huntsman was the emptiest suit on the stage at every debate. It is rare to see a politician so bereft of substance run for president. Lol, you must be joking. To say Huntsman had less substance than Cain or Bachmann? Stop insulting a reasonable candidate that couldn't win his party's favor because of the extreme conservative base. Cain and Bachman both had substantive platforms that they pushed. Huntsman spoke only in broad platitudes. I love how all you liberals think you know more about why certain republican candidates failed than I do. Just because someone is slightly less conservative then you doesn't mean they're a liberal? And Cain having a substantive platform? Give me a break. I agree Huntsman didn't win because he couldn't really speak to people and didn't have much to go on, but Cain? Haha! Who here is "slightly less conservative" than I am? There has only been a handful of conservative posters in this thread compared to the hordes of liberals, and none are posting right now. And how do you know they're liberals? Because they disagree with Rick Santorum, or because they liked Huntsman? That would make them a moderate-conservative, not a liberal. Or perhaps in the case of those that hate Santorum, they're probably social-liberals, but it doesn't mean they can't still be conservatives/moderates. If it's one thing I can't stand about these labels and their owners is that if you disagree with them just slightly, you're immedietly on the opposite side of the spectrum in their eyes. Oh please. Anyone with half a brain who has followed this thread can tell who the liberals and the conservatives are. Just read the posts. On social policies, I would probably agree. I think that is pretty obvious. But overall, or on economic/foreign policies? No, I don't think so... And I don't think being liberal in one and conservative in the another necessarily makes you a liberal or a conservative I disagree. Democrats/liberals tend to be very uniform in their liberalism-- particularly in this thread. Also, it's pretty easy to determine which ones are not because their posts don't have the knee-jerk libelous comments about republicans or the typical cliched liberal one-liners. Instead, their posts are surprisingly fair.
Talking about whats fair now? I don't think it's fair that people get to argue about things with "opinions" (ie faith) on things that really have actual scientific data and empirical evidence behind them. It's literally like trying to talk to Charlie from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.
"I burned the trash in the basement, thats how we're totally green now"
"THATS THE OPPOSITE OF GREEN CHARLIE"
"No it isn't, burns up the trash, gives the room the nice smokey smell, you guys love the smokey smell!"
edit: Which also happens to be what every single republican candidate has done, and continues to do with the exception of Huntsman and maybe Cain?
|
On March 05 2012 09:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 09:10 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:52 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 08:35 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:31 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 08:24 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:18 darthfoley wrote:On March 05 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:07 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
I dunno. It really seemed like the only thing against Huntsman was that he didn't get media attention due to him not saying batshit crazy things. Other than that, he seemed like Romney but without the flip-floppity-ness. It even used rhetoric that wanted to unite the country rather than divide it. Huntsman was the emptiest suit on the stage at every debate. It is rare to see a politician so bereft of substance run for president. Lol, you must be joking. To say Huntsman had less substance than Cain or Bachmann? Stop insulting a reasonable candidate that couldn't win his party's favor because of the extreme conservative base. Cain and Bachman both had substantive platforms that they pushed. Huntsman spoke only in broad platitudes. I love how all you liberals think you know more about why certain republican candidates failed than I do. Just because someone is slightly less conservative then you doesn't mean they're a liberal? And Cain having a substantive platform? Give me a break. I agree Huntsman didn't win because he couldn't really speak to people and didn't have much to go on, but Cain? Haha! Who here is "slightly less conservative" than I am? There has only been a handful of conservative posters in this thread compared to the hordes of liberals, and none are posting right now. And how do you know they're liberals? Because they disagree with Rick Santorum, or because they liked Huntsman? That would make them a moderate-conservative, not a liberal. Or perhaps in the case of those that hate Santorum, they're probably social-liberals, but it doesn't mean they can't still be conservatives/moderates. If it's one thing I can't stand about these labels and their owners is that if you disagree with them just slightly, you're immedietly on the opposite side of the spectrum in their eyes. Oh please. Anyone with half a brain who has followed this thread can tell who the liberals and the conservatives are. Just read the posts. On social policies, I would probably agree. I think that is pretty obvious. But overall, or on economic/foreign policies? No, I don't think so... And I don't think being liberal in one and conservative in the another necessarily makes you a liberal or a conservative I disagree. Democrats/liberals tend to be very uniform in their liberalism-- particularly in this thread. Also, it's pretty easy to determine which ones are not because their posts don't have the knee-jerk libelous comments about republicans or the typical cliched liberal one-liners. Instead, their posts are surprisingly fair.
Oh come on, really? You're complaining about them insulting Republicans and they you just go ahead and make a broad statement about all the Liberals.
Yeah some of them might have such comments, but some people actually rationalize their arguements, and it's not fair to lump them together. Once more, most of these arguements have already been used a dozen times over in this thread, so it's not suprising people don't want to repeat themselves.
On March 05 2012 09:20 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 09:10 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:52 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 08:35 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:31 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 08:24 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:18 darthfoley wrote:On March 05 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:07 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
I dunno. It really seemed like the only thing against Huntsman was that he didn't get media attention due to him not saying batshit crazy things. Other than that, he seemed like Romney but without the flip-floppity-ness. It even used rhetoric that wanted to unite the country rather than divide it. Huntsman was the emptiest suit on the stage at every debate. It is rare to see a politician so bereft of substance run for president. Lol, you must be joking. To say Huntsman had less substance than Cain or Bachmann? Stop insulting a reasonable candidate that couldn't win his party's favor because of the extreme conservative base. Cain and Bachman both had substantive platforms that they pushed. Huntsman spoke only in broad platitudes. I love how all you liberals think you know more about why certain republican candidates failed than I do. Just because someone is slightly less conservative then you doesn't mean they're a liberal? And Cain having a substantive platform? Give me a break. I agree Huntsman didn't win because he couldn't really speak to people and didn't have much to go on, but Cain? Haha! Who here is "slightly less conservative" than I am? There has only been a handful of conservative posters in this thread compared to the hordes of liberals, and none are posting right now. And how do you know they're liberals? Because they disagree with Rick Santorum, or because they liked Huntsman? That would make them a moderate-conservative, not a liberal. Or perhaps in the case of those that hate Santorum, they're probably social-liberals, but it doesn't mean they can't still be conservatives/moderates. If it's one thing I can't stand about these labels and their owners is that if you disagree with them just slightly, you're immedietly on the opposite side of the spectrum in their eyes. Oh please. Anyone with half a brain who has followed this thread can tell who the liberals and the conservatives are. Just read the posts. On social policies, I would probably agree. I think that is pretty obvious. But overall, or on economic/foreign policies? No, I don't think so... And I don't think being liberal in one and conservative in the another necessarily makes you a liberal or a conservative I still don't understand in what way liberal/conservative is a dichotomy anyway, considering that a large number of conservatives show preference for liberal economics while US "liberals" tend to give more importance to the social aspects of liberalism. Social liberalism and conservatism are simply insufficient. No wonder a disproportionate amount of Americans dislike labels, so many people are confused about what said labels even mean.
No no, I agree. That's why I'm saying, just picking out whether someone is "liberal" or "conservative" based on their posts isn't really something you can do, unless they actually say "I am a liberal..."
|
I wasn't disagreeing with you btw =P
|
Canada11350 Posts
On March 05 2012 09:25 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +It really seemed like the only thing against Huntsman was that he didn't get media attention due to him not saying batshit crazy things. Other than that, he seemed like Romney but without the flip-floppity-ness. It even used rhetoric that wanted to unite the country rather than divide it. Huntsman repeatedly criticized conservatives, not surprising that conservatives didn't vote for him. No one believed him when he said he was a conservative, not surprising conservatives didn't vote for him. Candidates who talk about uniting the country are either liars (Obama) or fools (Huntsman, Bush II before him). No serious political issue is resolved by "uniting the country" in the let's-all-hold-hands-and-get-along way that is annoyingly pushed down our throats. No domestic problem has been solved by "uniting the country," which is just code talk for "surrender to my eminently sensible ideas without debate or contest."
Is that a result of a two party system? Because a centrist position is the only way to get elected in Canada. The centre might push left or right depending. But if you watch the rise of Reform to Alliance to Conservative party they slowly shed the more extreme right wing elements and grabbed the centre vote. Liberals traditionally hold left and centre, but the NDP gained momentum by encroaching their territory on left and pushing into centre leaving the Liberals with not much left.
But it is always a shift not in the sense of 'let's hold hands and sing kumbya' but the need to appeal to the majority of voters who are generally not in the far reaches of the left or the right.
On March 05 2012 09:26 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 09:21 Falling wrote:
Huntsman only seemed reasonable because everyone else is so weak. But he was just as weak. I'm not really sure what Huntsman stood for except to be more reasonable. Like it or not the way the primaries are structured, you need some sort of powerful public image/ a feeling a gravitas. (Kennedy vs Nixon)
Nobody really had it for the Republicans, but Huntsman was the weakest of them all in that regard. Cain said dumb stuff, but had a laid back persona that was appealing. Presidential campaigns are littered with boring candidates that could never inspire much. Huntsman might have had good things to say, but he's another Kerry.
Now maybe in a Parliamentary system... well no because he would need to gather the most support from the party and it sounds like he didn't have it. But a parliamentary system is one way that policy wonks with otherwise boring personalities can come to power. Like Stephen Harper. I say that as a Conservative voter.
But Huntsman had none of the above- party backing like Romney, tv personality like Cain, principled and dedicated supporters like Paul, Evangelical backing like Santorum (although that really wouldn't make sense in the Kennedy years as he's also a Catholic.) Really no distinctives. He was just there and he wasn't crazy. I understand where you're coming from, and i agree to an extent; but i have to say that even a "Kerry like" Huntsman would make a better president than someone like Cain.
Oh hands down, Huntsman would be better than Cain. Cain was a goof. But the problem is getting the presidency and Huntsman didn't have it any way you look at it. Dynamic personality, party insider, crusading outsider, kingmaker or power behind the throne in a previous administration... or general. You guys have elected a lot of presidents that have either been full on generals or else ramped up their military credentials for whatever reason. I guess it started with Washington and went on down the line.
|
On March 05 2012 09:27 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 09:20 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 09:10 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:52 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 08:35 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:31 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 08:24 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:18 darthfoley wrote:On March 05 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Huntsman was the emptiest suit on the stage at every debate. It is rare to see a politician so bereft of substance run for president. Lol, you must be joking. To say Huntsman had less substance than Cain or Bachmann? Stop insulting a reasonable candidate that couldn't win his party's favor because of the extreme conservative base. Cain and Bachman both had substantive platforms that they pushed. Huntsman spoke only in broad platitudes. I love how all you liberals think you know more about why certain republican candidates failed than I do. Just because someone is slightly less conservative then you doesn't mean they're a liberal? And Cain having a substantive platform? Give me a break. I agree Huntsman didn't win because he couldn't really speak to people and didn't have much to go on, but Cain? Haha! Who here is "slightly less conservative" than I am? There has only been a handful of conservative posters in this thread compared to the hordes of liberals, and none are posting right now. And how do you know they're liberals? Because they disagree with Rick Santorum, or because they liked Huntsman? That would make them a moderate-conservative, not a liberal. Or perhaps in the case of those that hate Santorum, they're probably social-liberals, but it doesn't mean they can't still be conservatives/moderates. If it's one thing I can't stand about these labels and their owners is that if you disagree with them just slightly, you're immedietly on the opposite side of the spectrum in their eyes. Oh please. Anyone with half a brain who has followed this thread can tell who the liberals and the conservatives are. Just read the posts. On social policies, I would probably agree. I think that is pretty obvious. But overall, or on economic/foreign policies? No, I don't think so... And I don't think being liberal in one and conservative in the another necessarily makes you a liberal or a conservative I disagree. Democrats/liberals tend to be very uniform in their liberalism-- particularly in this thread. Also, it's pretty easy to determine which ones are not because their posts don't have the knee-jerk libelous comments about republicans or the typical cliched liberal one-liners. Instead, their posts are surprisingly fair. Oh come on, really? You're complaining about them insulting Republicans and they you just go ahead and make a broad statement about all the Liberals. Yeah some of them might have such comments, but some people actually rationalize their arguements, and it's not fair to lump them together. Once more, most of these arguements have already been used a dozen times over in this thread, so it's not suprising people don't want to repeat themselves. Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 09:20 Djzapz wrote:On March 05 2012 09:10 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:52 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 08:35 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:31 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 08:24 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:18 darthfoley wrote:On March 05 2012 08:13 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Huntsman was the emptiest suit on the stage at every debate. It is rare to see a politician so bereft of substance run for president. Lol, you must be joking. To say Huntsman had less substance than Cain or Bachmann? Stop insulting a reasonable candidate that couldn't win his party's favor because of the extreme conservative base. Cain and Bachman both had substantive platforms that they pushed. Huntsman spoke only in broad platitudes. I love how all you liberals think you know more about why certain republican candidates failed than I do. Just because someone is slightly less conservative then you doesn't mean they're a liberal? And Cain having a substantive platform? Give me a break. I agree Huntsman didn't win because he couldn't really speak to people and didn't have much to go on, but Cain? Haha! Who here is "slightly less conservative" than I am? There has only been a handful of conservative posters in this thread compared to the hordes of liberals, and none are posting right now. And how do you know they're liberals? Because they disagree with Rick Santorum, or because they liked Huntsman? That would make them a moderate-conservative, not a liberal. Or perhaps in the case of those that hate Santorum, they're probably social-liberals, but it doesn't mean they can't still be conservatives/moderates. If it's one thing I can't stand about these labels and their owners is that if you disagree with them just slightly, you're immedietly on the opposite side of the spectrum in their eyes. Oh please. Anyone with half a brain who has followed this thread can tell who the liberals and the conservatives are. Just read the posts. On social policies, I would probably agree. I think that is pretty obvious. But overall, or on economic/foreign policies? No, I don't think so... And I don't think being liberal in one and conservative in the another necessarily makes you a liberal or a conservative I still don't understand in what way liberal/conservative is a dichotomy anyway, considering that a large number of conservatives show preference for liberal economics while US "liberals" tend to give more importance to the social aspects of liberalism. Social liberalism and conservatism are simply insufficient. No wonder a disproportionate amount of Americans dislike labels, so many people are confused about what said labels even mean. No no, I agree. That's why I'm saying, just picking out whether someone is "liberal" or "conservative" based on their posts isn't really something you can do, unless they actually say "I am a liberal..."
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... There's a reason why stereotypes tend to work.
Let's go through the same exercise with you. Based on what I have seen of your posts, I feel pretty comfortable concluding that you are fairly universally liberal (ie you're a solid democrat). Am I wrong? On what issues do you consider yourself conservative and why?
|
Falling, it's not that different in the US. Both parties have to lean to the center to get elected (or re-elected), especially in the Presidential election. House members mostly have "safe" districts due to gerrymandering so they can usually afford to take more extreme positions. Senators are elected by their whole state, but once elected they're usually pretty safe unless something drastic happens.
|
On March 05 2012 09:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 09:27 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 09:20 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 09:10 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:52 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 08:35 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:31 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 08:24 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:18 darthfoley wrote:
[quote]
Lol, you must be joking. To say Huntsman had less substance than Cain or Bachmann? Stop insulting a reasonable candidate that couldn't win his party's favor because of the extreme conservative base. Cain and Bachman both had substantive platforms that they pushed. Huntsman spoke only in broad platitudes. I love how all you liberals think you know more about why certain republican candidates failed than I do. Just because someone is slightly less conservative then you doesn't mean they're a liberal? And Cain having a substantive platform? Give me a break. I agree Huntsman didn't win because he couldn't really speak to people and didn't have much to go on, but Cain? Haha! Who here is "slightly less conservative" than I am? There has only been a handful of conservative posters in this thread compared to the hordes of liberals, and none are posting right now. And how do you know they're liberals? Because they disagree with Rick Santorum, or because they liked Huntsman? That would make them a moderate-conservative, not a liberal. Or perhaps in the case of those that hate Santorum, they're probably social-liberals, but it doesn't mean they can't still be conservatives/moderates. If it's one thing I can't stand about these labels and their owners is that if you disagree with them just slightly, you're immedietly on the opposite side of the spectrum in their eyes. Oh please. Anyone with half a brain who has followed this thread can tell who the liberals and the conservatives are. Just read the posts. On social policies, I would probably agree. I think that is pretty obvious. But overall, or on economic/foreign policies? No, I don't think so... And I don't think being liberal in one and conservative in the another necessarily makes you a liberal or a conservative I disagree. Democrats/liberals tend to be very uniform in their liberalism-- particularly in this thread. Also, it's pretty easy to determine which ones are not because their posts don't have the knee-jerk libelous comments about republicans or the typical cliched liberal one-liners. Instead, their posts are surprisingly fair. Oh come on, really? You're complaining about them insulting Republicans and they you just go ahead and make a broad statement about all the Liberals. Yeah some of them might have such comments, but some people actually rationalize their arguements, and it's not fair to lump them together. Once more, most of these arguements have already been used a dozen times over in this thread, so it's not suprising people don't want to repeat themselves. On March 05 2012 09:20 Djzapz wrote:On March 05 2012 09:10 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:52 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 08:35 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:31 1Eris1 wrote:On March 05 2012 08:24 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 08:18 darthfoley wrote:
[quote]
Lol, you must be joking. To say Huntsman had less substance than Cain or Bachmann? Stop insulting a reasonable candidate that couldn't win his party's favor because of the extreme conservative base. Cain and Bachman both had substantive platforms that they pushed. Huntsman spoke only in broad platitudes. I love how all you liberals think you know more about why certain republican candidates failed than I do. Just because someone is slightly less conservative then you doesn't mean they're a liberal? And Cain having a substantive platform? Give me a break. I agree Huntsman didn't win because he couldn't really speak to people and didn't have much to go on, but Cain? Haha! Who here is "slightly less conservative" than I am? There has only been a handful of conservative posters in this thread compared to the hordes of liberals, and none are posting right now. And how do you know they're liberals? Because they disagree with Rick Santorum, or because they liked Huntsman? That would make them a moderate-conservative, not a liberal. Or perhaps in the case of those that hate Santorum, they're probably social-liberals, but it doesn't mean they can't still be conservatives/moderates. If it's one thing I can't stand about these labels and their owners is that if you disagree with them just slightly, you're immedietly on the opposite side of the spectrum in their eyes. Oh please. Anyone with half a brain who has followed this thread can tell who the liberals and the conservatives are. Just read the posts. On social policies, I would probably agree. I think that is pretty obvious. But overall, or on economic/foreign policies? No, I don't think so... And I don't think being liberal in one and conservative in the another necessarily makes you a liberal or a conservative I still don't understand in what way liberal/conservative is a dichotomy anyway, considering that a large number of conservatives show preference for liberal economics while US "liberals" tend to give more importance to the social aspects of liberalism. Social liberalism and conservatism are simply insufficient. No wonder a disproportionate amount of Americans dislike labels, so many people are confused about what said labels even mean. No no, I agree. That's why I'm saying, just picking out whether someone is "liberal" or "conservative" based on their posts isn't really something you can do, unless they actually say "I am a liberal..." If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... There's a reason why stereotypes tend to work. Let's go through the same exercise with you. Based on what I have seen of your posts, I feel pretty comfortable concluding that you are fairly universally liberal (ie you're a solid democrat). Am I wrong? On what issues do you consider yourself conservative and why?
Socially, yes, but it's not that big a deciding factor with me, unless the candidate in question has outragous policies/beliefs.
Fiscally, it depends. I am an advocate of the free market system, but I don't like when people try to use it as a blanket fix to issues of poverty and the like. I absolutely abhor communism and any socialism close to that, but I also hate supply-side economics.
As for foreign policy/other stuff, I haven't really been too impressed by either parties, so I honestly could not say.
That probably puts me more left of center than right, but I wouldn't consider myself a "liberal".
edit: At the beginning of this election-process, I was probably leaning more right, but obviously not so much now. We'll see what happens when everyone jumps center.
|
*takes a quick glance at wikipedia*
Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and the free exercise of religion.[3][4][5][6][7]
...employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property.
Good enough for me. I'm a liberal.
|
On March 05 2012 09:57 liberal wrote:*takes a quick glance at wikipedia* Show nested quote +Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and the free exercise of religion.[3][4][5][6][7]
...employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property. Good enough for me. I'm a liberal.
but it's wikipedia, it must be wrong!!!11!
|
On March 05 2012 09:58 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 09:57 liberal wrote:*takes a quick glance at wikipedia* Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and the free exercise of religion.[3][4][5][6][7]
...employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property. Good enough for me. I'm a liberal. but it's wikipedia, it must be wrong!!!11!
The first few lines are not necessarily wrong in this case, but the definition is obviously (extremely) incomplete.
Also when Americans refer to liberalism, it's pretty much always about social liberalism, as I said earlier. The wiki page on "liberalism" simply isn't the right one, with is baffling, I thought xDaunt would know that.
|
|
|
On March 05 2012 10:02 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 09:58 darthfoley wrote:On March 05 2012 09:57 liberal wrote:*takes a quick glance at wikipedia* Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and the free exercise of religion.[3][4][5][6][7]
...employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property. Good enough for me. I'm a liberal. but it's wikipedia, it must be wrong!!!11! The first few lines are not necessarily wrong in this case, but the definition is obviously (extremely) incomplete. Also when Americans refer to liberalism, it's pretty much always about social liberalism, as I said earlier. The wiki page on "liberalism" simply isn't the right one, with is baffling, I thought xDaunt would know that.
No, liberalism in the context of American politics refers to the political left.
|
On March 05 2012 10:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 10:02 Djzapz wrote:On March 05 2012 09:58 darthfoley wrote:On March 05 2012 09:57 liberal wrote:*takes a quick glance at wikipedia* Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and the free exercise of religion.[3][4][5][6][7]
...employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property. Good enough for me. I'm a liberal. but it's wikipedia, it must be wrong!!!11! The first few lines are not necessarily wrong in this case, but the definition is obviously (extremely) incomplete. Also when Americans refer to liberalism, it's pretty much always about social liberalism, as I said earlier. The wiki page on "liberalism" simply isn't the right one, with is baffling, I thought xDaunt would know that. No, liberalism in the context of American politics refers to the political left.
No, wtf, it refers to social liberalism, which is part of the political left. If the "political left" is according to you completely engulfed in the term "liberalism", then that's not just the regular American misnomer, but a misnomer within a misnomer.
|
On March 05 2012 10:18 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 10:14 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 10:02 Djzapz wrote:On March 05 2012 09:58 darthfoley wrote:On March 05 2012 09:57 liberal wrote:*takes a quick glance at wikipedia* Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and the free exercise of religion.[3][4][5][6][7]
...employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property. Good enough for me. I'm a liberal. but it's wikipedia, it must be wrong!!!11! The first few lines are not necessarily wrong in this case, but the definition is obviously (extremely) incomplete. Also when Americans refer to liberalism, it's pretty much always about social liberalism, as I said earlier. The wiki page on "liberalism" simply isn't the right one, with is baffling, I thought xDaunt would know that. No, liberalism in the context of American politics refers to the political left. No, wtf, it refers to social liberalism, which is part of the political left. If the "political left" is according to you completely engulfed in the term "liberalism", then that's not just the regular American misnomer, but a misnomer within a misnomer.
Yeah, that's the point. Liberalism refers to the entire political left, and it is a misnomer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
