Are you more left or right when it comes to things political, etc?

Just out of curiosity.
We have all seen the threads that deteriorate into fighting and/or “pissing contests” that bore the shit out of others.
I think it would be cool to know (similarly to the old “where are you from” thread) how folks feel, while keeping it friendly and open. If you want to include your sex and sexual preference, feel free.
We already know two things:
We share interests in a fetish that is probably looked upon as “weird” by “normal” folks (you know, the foot fetishers, etc :stuck_out_tongue: )
We come from all walks of life and all over the world.

NO ARGUING. Just speak to your own feelings.

Centrist and not a fan of party politics. I like the idea of a democratically elected coalition government rather than the 2 or 3 party systems we see in most of Europe and North America. That way politicians don’t necessarily benefit from stoking division and starting culture wars. Rather, they would need to get over their ideologies and work together to find solutions to a country’s problems.

Second point, wouldn’t it be nice if heads of government were required to be experts in their field? How does a political science degree or 10 years working for a hedge fund qualify a person to be in charge of public health etc?

1 Like

Well, let’s just say that if I see a person with a prominently displayed (R) or (D) after their name, I am VERY suspicious of their motives. I think both the (R)'s and the (D)'s are beholden just to their donors and really have no time for the “little people” who don’t give them thousands and millions of dollars both above board and under the table…like these PAC’s and their soft money. I think that both the (R)'s and the (D)'s are two sides of the same rotten coin.

@Dickinson looks to have a great set of ideas on the subject. I wish the USA could go with that approach. But sadly, we’re so entrenched with what we have, and what we have is self-serving politicians looking to line their own pocket. TROW DOS BUMS ALL INTA DA DUMPSTA, I SAY!!!


I consider myself centrist as well, and also sick of party politics.
Big supporter of Term Limits. I doubt very seriously that being a “Representative of The People” was ever meant to be a full time career spanning a lifetime.

I’m a straight male who would have no problem attending/supporting a Pride parade.

1 Like

I think the human race has to deal with a serious extinction threat in the coming decades. I’m seeing nothing but dumb denialism from the center to the right. I’m seeing dumb optimism on the left, with a few people who seem to understand just how nasty things are about to get.

That informs my decisions


I’m pretty conservative (in the traditional sense) toward myself, but very left liberal toward society as a whole. It’s sort of like that saying, “Your right to express yourself ends where the other man’s nose begins.” It’s none of my business if two men or women want to get married, and none of my business if someone wants to go as “they” or “them” instead of he or she.

In what might be going against the norm, I’ve found myself becoming more and more liberal as I’ve gotten older.

1 Like

You sound a LOT like me. I’m conservative concerning things like national defense and second amendment. More and more liberal towards society, including the example you mentioned. One of my wife’s coworkers is a lesbian and her and her partner are two of the nicest people you’d ever meet. We love them both.
You sound like a nice guy, even if you’re an Eagles fan lol.

1 Like

I guess we all have our flaws :smiley:

1 Like

Just a few things about me:

Pro choice/reproductive rights
Pro gun ownership rights
Legalize most drugs
Generally support police but there are way too many laws on the books to allow bad apples to take advantage of people
Generally dislike the Democratic Party but not as much as I dislike the Republican Party
Our U.S. two party system causes division and tribalism and doesn’t serve the majority of most Americans

1 Like

I tend to fall near artibus and Klaatu. With some disagreements on specific policies I tend to align more with the libertarians than most others. Generally my philosophy is: You do you and I’ll stay over here doing my thing. I tend to agree with gigin that any ‘professional’ politician probably has their hand in the cookie jar.

1 Like

Roger that about the cookie jar!

“Show me a man that gets rich by being a politician, and I’ll show you a crook.”
― Harry Truman

After testing a few other options on the way, I ended up as a conservatively progressive internationalist free-market socialist in favour of limited democracy.

Now, ‘what the fuck does that mean?’, you might ask. Well, first of all, the internationalist part:

I see nations/countries as a temporarily necessary evil. Contrary to the communists of the past I don’t think it’s possible to form a single human society - at least not in the foreseeable future. However, I think people should keep uniting and removing at least the most staggering inequalities and the most pointless suffering - think food and meds for the poorest parts of Africa and the like. It’s kind of horrible when you realise how many lives you could save or better with the equivalent of a takeout pizza value. Also, I think preservation of environment stands above economic success of any country - because you need a place to live in before you go on to considering how affluent of a life this will be. As a result, I’m extremely against any forms of nationalism and skeptical towards any sort of patriotism.

Next, the free market socialist. I believe that free market with safeguards in place is the best solution for a lot of things, but fundamental social needs should be excluded from that. Most people prefer stuff like law enforcement and justice system to be like that. Many include health care and education in that too. Me, I’d start thinking whether some areas should be excluded like that but due to environment care - food production, power generation, waste management. And because nowadays there is no option to live outside of the society as there are nations and private lands everywhere on one hand and on the other the ability of the rich to stay rich or get richer depends heavily on mere existence of people to be supplied with goods and services - and also that the “worth” of each such person (also as an employee) is increased through public services like health care and education, the rich should pay higher tax and additionally they should pay unavoidable taxes on property owned (more important than income taxes really). And overall I’m for progressive taxation, but the prerequisite for that to work properly is doing away with tax havens.

Now, conservatively-progressive… I am for most of the stuff the left fights for, but I do not share their tendency to want to make major social changes within a decade. Things take time. People are born and raised in certain ways and sometimes turning things heads down might make more wrong than good - especially when the gains are not as immediate or groundbreaking as in the case of, say, abolishing slavery or giving women the right to vote. I’m mostly referring to how people nowadays believe that it is possible within a lifetime not only to make people accept same sex relationships, but also the fact that instead of 2 sexes there are many genders, that its ok for chicks to have dicks and for guys not to have dicks and that a XY person looking like your average guy can simply identify as a female and everyone should go along with that. I don’t say these things are wrong, but they can’t be done quick and trying to do so might actually take things the other way, as readiness for such changes is strongly asymmetrical around the world and even within single countries. Also, I recognise the value of family not because religion told me to but because it’s basically the most basic and natural form of organisation, as it relies on what biology prepared us to do and feel. I get that some people are not born in line with this model and they should never be made to comply with it and should alternative forms of living, but a family is beneficial for society - also when it consists of two gay guys and their adopted son who thinks he will fare better as a girl. So, in short, my attitude is: do not rush some things, and people should live the way the feel the most comfortable (within their freedom not infringing the freedom of others), and it is also a good thing to keep some things cherished, especially when they got us through millions of years of evolutions as species while our culture is only about 10k years old.

And lastly - in favour of limited democracy. Well, this comes from my conviction that democracy as we know it no longer meet the purposes it was designed for. I mean, what is your vote worth if your opinion can be skewed and manipulated in thousand ways and you simply have no idea what really is happening to be able to check it, or simply the matter is too complicated for anyone but the most intelligent of us to grasp fully? (and even these people need all info to process which is not always the case). In my opinion democratic voting should become layered and decisions should be made by people who are closer to what happens and how it happens. So, say, people should choose their representatives for running their towns or city districts, and THESE people should choose higher tier people, because they will have a better contact and knowledge of who above is better suited for the job. That system would probably have its own pitfalls, but I’m looking forward to see it designed and tested, because if I’m sure of one thing is that if democracy is not fixed in some way, we will spiral back to dictatorship or some formy of oligarchy at best. Englightened, if we’re very lucky.

Also, I believe freedom is not a homogenous thing and some freedoms are quite priceless from my POV, but there are a lot of others that just have a price, and by price I mean whether keeping them is really better than relinquishing them in order to gain other, perhaps more important things. Thinking about that mostly in the context of climate change and the like, but also in terms of the freedom vs safety problem. I also believe that freedom must come with responsibility. Like, if you’re kill someone when drunk drivin or high on drugs, you should be judged more severely, because if you took those substances (in certain amount) you surely knew they will make you act in an unpredictable manner, and if you accepted the risk, you must accept the consequences of causing yourself to act like a living hazard. And that sort of things.

You can imagine where that puts my standing on many things but if someone wants to ask specifics, go ahead ;).

1 Like

I have nothing but disregard for the communication strategies that are currently en vogue in the political field, using social media: riling you up over smoke and mirrors. It’s a way for politicians and those who invest in them (read: highest donors) to get rid of the checks and balances and keep their motives hidden when they really should be public so the voters as the constitutional sovereign actually get a chance to make a decision, no matter how macroscopic that only can be when you have basically just 2 candidates with a chance of winning.
There is a reason why forums like this usually have a policy of “no politics”.
I detest mobs and hooliganism: they are a threat to individualist expression (like for example, flamboyant haircuts) and instead are a haven for uniformity through group pressure and more physical forms of pressure. Politicians who actively apply these methods or find benefit from them should find it rather hard to find my support.

1 Like

You make some good points. I especially agree with voting in local representation and the President being chosen by them.

So, say, people should choose their representatives for running their towns or city districts, and THESE people should choose higher tier people, because they will have a better contact and knowledge of who above is better suited for the job. That system would probably have its own pitfalls, but I’m looking forward to see it designed and tested

This is literally the way representative democracy used to work in the stagecoach era. The British parliament still works like this. If the supposed effect is the election of sage, level-headed leaders, the evidence for that isn’t overwhelming.

Oh, I’m not THAT optimistic. My rationale for that is less about the quality of leaders and more about the country being more responsive to governing and less prone to emotional shakeups of the public. Also, about people making country-level decisions having at least SOME idea about how things work at this level. Obviously this would have to be accompanied by increased transparency in order not to turn into a bunch of fiefdoms governed by local princes. Also, if that was more layered, then perhaps going for a higher tier office would require going through the ones below earlier. Paired with limited terms of office, that might motivate the elected leaders not to do things that would earn them bad rep. Also, towards ensuring some more checks and balances there could perhaps exist a popularly elected group of reviewers/supervisors whose only job would be to be a form of very inquisitive journalists, questioning stuff the governing people do and having instant access (without having to ask nicely or wait for weeks or months) to any materials that are not classified. Basically, I see this as a way of sort of “institutionalising” the press/media while ensuring pluralism among them.

All in all, these are rather general ideas and I’m well aware of the problems in designing them in a way that works as they should, and also aware that no system designed so far has worked perfectly. Still, like I said, I am also of the mind that democracy in the current form is not sustainable and will only lead to masked oligarchy (with those having the money/power to manipulate the masses being de-facto rulers) or a form of dictatorship/authoritarian rule (once that oligarchy pissess common folk to the point of them finding someone promising to “clean up”).

The challenge is to keep democratic decision making (i.e. voting) and representation (so that people can really have their voice heard), while at the same time increasing the ability of the country to make the necessary but at least initially unpopular decisions (e.g. those that surely be needed for battling climate change and/or to prevent megacorps from overwhelming the government) and to be less guided by opinion polls and emotional factors having little to do with how well the country is governed. Also, it should be a way of making politicians more responsible for their actions (at the lowest layer directly to the common voter, and the higher ones - to the elected voters who will have to explain why they voted to keep that fella from the higher layer in the office).

What good is the power to elect a president, for example, if you keep electing him for all the wrong reasons because you have no real idea of who he is and what he is capable of doing? And how big is the power of your vote if you’d have to be rich and powerful to actually gather enough people around you to make a dent? In a small community you at least have a theoretical option of talking to all the people in person if needed - and you can influence who is elected locally. On the national level you either need to have tools of opinion control - media, advertising, etc. - or devise manipulation that would be unverifiable enough for a common person to check if there is a grain of truth in it (and how big) and inciting enough to make a dent in a given person’s standing.

This is all obviously under a dire need of polishing and debate, but so far there is no real debate like that (none that I have seen anyway). We only have this whole liberal vs illiberal democracy thing, and illiberal democracy is not something I have in mind above as it’s basically a clan rule with checks and balances disabled.

President or even the parliament members. Or even local government first - all depends how you layer it and how you organise the structure of voting power. The thing is, it should be complex enough to achieve the improvement while at the same time not too complex for the majority of people to understand (there is always a level of dumb that you just can;t help, but common sense is called “common” sense for a reason, right? ;))

I live in the State of Georgia here in the US. During the Presidential election, our State came under a lot of criticism for questionable ballots which showed up after the counting was paused with one candidate leading by a significant margin and then losing after the counting resumed the next day.
That in itself is far from unusual, but there were enough ballots cast under questionable circumstances to warrant the State Legislature to enact changes, including a mandatory photo identification for anyone to vote. That seems reasonable to me, considering I have to present identification every time I buy a beer…
The new “Voter I.D” law was met with a ShitStorm, including Major League Baseball pulling the All Star Game out of Atlanta to “protest” (what I honestly have no idea).
I can’t agree more with having the general public voting limited to local jurisdictions and those elected persons being responsible for higher elected office.
Our Congressional Representatives here serve only two years (thank God) before re-election. Unfortunately, there are a shitload who have been “representing” :roll_eyes: for 40+ years. I think the framers of the Constitution here would be shitting bricks at the thought of how things have turned here.

1 Like

Unfortunately, a lot of dumbasses get to vote, and they do indeed vote.
“What can you do for me?” votes count just as much as those who have spent multiple tours deployed overseas away from wives and children. Not bitching, but just saying…it is what it is. Would I do it again? Yeah, but I might be more inclined these days to look at some people and think to myself…“that a-hole needs a throatpunch”. To be clear…only a thought, not an action lol.

Fiscally conservative, socially more liberal, so I’m a person without a political party!