My Political Ideology? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Any other minor ideologies.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14717726
I know what I generally classify myself as, but I wanted to see what members of this forum would classify me as.

Age: 23

Race: African American

Views

Religion- Atheist. Nothing more to really say

Abortion-Against, except in the case of Rape, Incest or Danger to the mother’s life. I generally feel that people should be provided with all the birth control options possible, however it's up to them to actually use them responsibly. After a life is conceived I don't believed we should terminate that due to our own convince. The right to live is the most essential American right in my opinion.

Death Penalty- Against. Just like with abortion, this comes down to the most fundamental right of all Americans, which is the right to life. I don't believe the state has any authority to kill of individuals, due to their past actions. I feel the role of the court is to judge an individual’s actions, and remove him from society. When the courts decided to take someone’s life I feel it's a violation to liberty.

Euthanasia - Pro. Just like with the previous two issues, the fundamental concept is the right to life. As I've expressed every person conceived should have the right to their own life. However, that also means that in cases where the individual determines that their life is too painful to continue to live, they should have the option of ending it in a medically efficient and relatively painless way.

Capitalism- I'm pro capitalism, in most instances. However, what I'm not pro is this "crony capitalism" that has existed since around the 1920's. I blame that on a lot of things, including the devaluing of our currency (By terrible federal reserve actions), the fact that the Federal reserve is literally made up of investment bankers putting monetary policies in place that suck the value out of the middle class, and bail out corporations/banks that operate in bad faith, monetizing debt.. Ext.

Federal Reserve- Won't get too much into it... However, the Federal Reserve needs a full audit, and to be abolished. At the very least every Federal Reserve action should need an approval from congress. The reserve has caused too much damage, due to practically operating with no limits or regulation. A reserve that by its very makeup benefits bankers and corporations.

Gay marriage- Pro. This is simple, if you want to marry someone, it's not the governments roll to tell you that you can't.

Marijuana legalization- Pro. We need to treat Marijuana like we do cigarettes/alcohol. Set potency limits on commercial Marijuana. Make sure all industries adhere to strict composition standards. Let the FDA research/regulate medical Marijuana (Which can be given at higher levels with a prescription, than what's allowed to be sold at stores). Tax it highly, like what we do with cigarettes.

Electoral College- Abolish. Absolutely terrible, not a single reason I think this institution should still be in place.

Super delegates- Abolish. These systems meant to protect the voter from themselves, are absolutely just a system put in place to benefit the establishment.

Environmental Protection- This is an example of "Good government". The government has to play a major role in the management of climate change, even at the expense of the people/businesses. We need to incentivize businesses to research and innovate in alternative fuels and nuclear technology.

Estate Tax- Con. Think transfers of money between families, isn't for the Government to profit off of.

Flat Tax vs Progressive Tax- Truthfully I don't have any real preference of one over the other. The only thing that I care about is paying or national debt/balancing the budget. If that included a Flat tax, or if that includes a progressive tax then so be it. However, either tax is worthless if it doesn't get us closer to balancing the budget.

TPP- Absolutely terrible, these attempts at huge global markets have shown to have disastrous effects on economies and citizens. It's not a true free trade agreement at all, it's an attempt by global governments to maintain complete control over trade. If it's implemented it'll crash.

EU- Terrible for the same reasons as TPP, yet for some reason there was less resistance to it than TPP.

Gun Rights- A person should be able to use a firearm to protect their property. However, firearms shouldn't be allowed in the hands of people with criminal records/certain mental disabilities.

Foreign Policy. Our current foreign policy is absolutely mindboggling. I would prefer a conversion back to the policies leading up to World War 2. The policy of non-intervention, where we were skeptical of getting involved in conflicts that don't threaten us directly. We have military bases in 1400 military bases scattered along 120+ countries. We invest heavily in a foreign policy that doesn't make us safer, but instead just causes both our enemies/allies to hate us more (What the FBI calls blowback). We need to massively cut back our defense spending, because it's the prime reason why our nation debt continues to grow. I propose that we get out of Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan as quickly as possible, and we cut down our military bases by at least 40% over the next 4 years. We need to get back to a policy of non-intervention, and stop acting as the world’s police. We also need to stop interfering in the politics/civil wars of other countries, and stop overthrowing governments in an attempt to put "Puppet dictators" that support American interest. I think after decades of interfering in the Middle East (Ever since overthrowing the Shaw in 1957), we'll see that terrorism dramatically decreases when we leave them to self-govern, without American bases scattered across their land. We need to follow our constitution meaning “Every war/military intervention must have a formal vote/declaration from congress".

Social Programs/Healthcare/Education- I group these topics together because just like our foreign policy, we waste a lot of money domestically on these things, yet we don't get back the value we put into it. Our education system is lagging... We spent more on Healthcare than any other country yet it's still inefficient, and we spend way too much on inefficient social programs. I think that we need to completely remake our welfare system/healthcare system/education, into an efficient system that will cost tax payers less money for a better result. Welfare should exist with individual plans to transition people off welfare and into stability based on time periods determined by each individual situation. I'm not against spending for programs if they work. However, it's clear to me that our solution of throwing more money at every problem, isn't producing results. Another reason why our budget is never balanced, just so much government waste domestically.

Foreign Aide - All our foreign aid to other countries should be stopped immediately. Just like what I outlined previously about voting for war, any attempt to send foreign aid to any country should be scrutinized and voted on by congress. There should be no reason why homeless individuals can suffer yet Israel, The Philippines and Saudi Arabia can get hundreds of Billions of dollars in American Aide. Our foreign policy needs to change dramatically.

Immigration- Our immigration policy just doesn't work. We have to make it easier for people to come into this country legally, but make it harder for people to enter this illegally. We need to incentivize legalization, and incentivize illegals already in the country to become citizens. The concept of building a wall is another example of wanting to implement an inefficient method, which cost a lot, but wouldn't solve the problem.

Prisons- Another area of huge government waste. We incarcerate a ton of people for petty crimes connected to our failed war on drugs. Prisons need to be separated from corporate interest, and can be reduced by nearly 40% by reforming our drug policy, and retroactively releasing inmates. Also, if prisoners were allowed to vote, it would actually incentive politicians to propose solutions to the system. Also be a prisoner doesn’t mean you should have your voice stripped from the political process.

Minimum Wage- I'm pro a minimum wage based on age. A livable wage as an adult is completely different than a livable wage as a teenager. However, minimum wages shouldn't be national, but instead should be determined by states, based on their "cost of living".

Social Justice Activism- Absolutely against, what has become one of the most toxic movements in America. People who use the blanket of social justice to limit free speech and criticism are absolutely having a negative effect on this country. These people attack comedians, politicians, businesses, celebrities, ext... And use the blanket of social justice to label everyone who disagrees with them or offends them as racist, transphobic, homophobic, sexist or any other buzz word meant to negatively label someone. These individuals seek to make people lose their jobs over making them uncomfortable. It all starts on college campuses, and this focus on identity politics. Whenever people are confronted with opinions that make them feel insecure about an aspect of their "identity", they run for their safe spaces, and try to demonize the other party. That’s not to say there’s not legitimate social justice causes, however this kind of activism just takes attention away from those causes. For example, something like Police and prisons disproportionately targeting minorities is something that is a legitimate reason to be outraged about and try to advocate for change.

3rd Wave Feminism- Absolutely against. Third wave feminism has an overwhelmingly negative effect on our current society. This brand of feminism blames patriarchy for every issue that they encounter in society, attacks anything associated with masculinity, and hides behind the traditional definition of feminism, which is "the fighting for the equality of both sexes". The practices of third wave feminist have evolve so far from the traditional definition, that the current ideology in no way mirrors a push for equality. Men's rights activist are constant berated for bringing the spotlight to legitimate male issues such as suicide rates, dropout rates, homicide rates, the demonization of masculinity, male rape, and male mass incarceration... Also another big issue I have with 3rd wave feminism is their completely disregard and chipping away at due process, for anyone accused of Rape/Domestic violence. Men are considered guilty until proven innocent, and their reputations are completely destroyed without remedy in the case of false rape allegations. Feminist have pushed for a culture on college campuses, where rape accusations cause individuals to be suspended/expelled and assumed guilty, on a much lower standard than would ever be acceptable in a court of law. Victims of false rape accusations are consistently told that they shouldn't press charges against their accusers because "It might make it harder for real victims to come forward". It's a system where a person’s reputation can be destroyed, with little evidence, and a complete disregard for their due process and any assumption of innocence.


#1 Issue- National Debt- The nation debt needs to be reduced period. That means cutting down domestically (Excess government spending in all areas). Cutting down our national defense budget (Adopting an economically proven system of non-intervention). Stop sending aid to other countries (Israel, Philippines, and Saudi Arabia). End the Federal Reserve and its policy of printing money, and artificially lowering interest rates. And after all that excess spending/bad monetary policy is cut, we can finally get our bills under control. Once we get our bills under control, we can invest in our infrastructure, alternative fuels and our middle class.
#14717728
Welcome to Pofo.

You sound a lot like a Republican, but a more progressive one, than most. Not a bad thing.
#14717732
Saeko wrote:Why not just read up on various ideologies?

FYI: To me it sounds like you're just a conservative.


Well I already generally know what I consider myself, which is an Independent who's ideologically somewhere between a libertarian and progressive (according to my quizzes at least).

But a conservative :eek: that's a new one. In fact that's usally the side of the spectrum I'm furthert away from when I take those quizzes. I'm curious why would you think conservative?
#14717733
Godstud wrote:Welcome to Pofo.

You sound a lot like a Republican, but a more progressive one, than most. Not a bad thing.


When it comes to republicans I generally don't find myself agreeing with the republicans of today at all. However, the republicans up to Eisenhower, who preached about non intervention, the cost of war, and being fiscally responsible both domestically/internationally definitely resonate with me. Most recently, Ron Paul seemed to remind people of that kind of republicanism in 2008/2012.

The kind of republicanism I don't connect with is the one that was hijacked by neocons, and integrated Christian fundamentalism into it's platform. So really from Nixon onward.

Probally why I consider myself an independent

Also, when I did the "isidewith" quiz, I came up with 86% Gary Johnson and 82% Jill Stein, which is why I asked here.
By Decky
#14718073
Wanting the state to enslave women to be baby making factories. Libertarians want a small state but they don't want it so small that the government can forcibly shove it up a woman and into her womb. No such thing as a libertarian who wants abortion banned in my opinion.
#14718105
Decky wrote:Wanting the state to enslave women to be baby making factories. Libertarians want a small state but they don't want it so small that the government can forcibly shove it up a woman and into her womb. No such thing as a libertarian who wants abortion banned in my opinion.


Intresting, would you also classify Ron Paul as not being a libertarian for being pro-life and holding the same position? Because if that's the case then I can safely conclude that you have an extremly limited view of what classifies someone as a libertarian. I've seen many libertarian debates on how the right to life, balences out against the right to one's body. Which makes sense because at the core of libertarianism, are our natural rights and the social contract that mandates that the goverment protects them.

Also, your implication that being pro-life is the equivlent of wanting women to be baby making factories is quite a stretch to me. Libertarians who classify themselves as pro-life are also completly pro birth control and sexual education. Personally I believe people have a right to have sex with whoever they please, have proper sex education and use any means of birth control they're confortable with. I have no care if a women decides to have no kids or 100 kids, that's why birth control exist. No one wants anything shoved up a women, or to make anyone slaves, that's just hyperbole and it makes it harder to have a rational conversation. The last thing I want is anyone policing the bedroom.


However, from the point of conception that fetus is endowed with the most fundemental right, which is the right to life. As a strong believer in protecting natural rights, I have never endorsed the idea that an arbitary cut off point should designate when a life is allowed to be terminated. In my eyes our goverment has the essential duty, to protect the human rights of the voiceless. The violation of the right to life should never be done out of convience, but only when medical reasons nessecitate it (Rape, incest, danger to the mother).

From my perspective being pro-life and anti death penalty go hand and hand with the fundemental need to protect the right to life against acts of aggresion. I actually find being Libertarian/pro-life/anti death penalty a much more logically consistant position, than conservatives who are pro-life/pro death penalty, and liberals who are pro-choice/anti-death penalty. I feel if you're going to argue that life is a fundemental human right, than you should protect it all the way, and be consistant.

If you believe that there's no such things as pro-life libertarians than I think you haven't been to many libertarian forums (I could be wrong).
Some of the most contriversal topics in Libertarian debates are omes in which one right has to be weighed against another.
Last edited by Albexmrutah on 14 Sep 2016 02:20, edited 1 time in total.
By Decky
#14718109
However, from the point of conception that fetus is endowed with the most fundemental right, which is the right to life.


Nonsense. It is trespassing. If the woman wants it out it needs to vacate her property. Lets say a homeless man is in your house and you throw him out and he freezes to death afterwards. Are you a murderer? Of course not, that bum has not right to be on your property. It is the same with an abortion. Sure you can argue that the embryo is a human (I think that is an odd argument but we will accept your point for now) but being human does not give you the right to be on someone elses property without their permission. If it can't survive out of the womb it isn't relevant just as the homeless person freezing is not relevant.

For any real libertarian abortion is between a woman and her doctor. The law does not come into it and neither does it's communist enforcer the state. What would Ron Paul know about Libertarianism anyway? He worked for the US government in the air force and the national guard. He is another welfare bum living off real workers tax money.
#14718121
Decky wrote:Nonsense. It is trespassing. If the woman wants it out it needs to vacate her property. Lets say a homeless man is in your house and you throw him out and he freezes to death afterwards. Are you a murderer? Of course not, that bum has not right to be on your property. It is the same with an abortion. Sure you can argue that the embryo is a human (I think that is an odd argument but we will accept your point for now) but being human does not give you the right to be on someone elses property without their permission. If it can't survive out of the womb it isn't relevant just as the homeless person freezing is not relevant.

For any real libertarian abortion is between a woman and her doctor. The law does not come into it and neither does it's communist enforcer the state. What would Ron Paul know about Libertarianism anyway? He worked for the US government in the air force and the national guard. He is another welfare bum living off real workers tax money.

I don't actually think your analogy makes any sense. The homeless man has no right to your propety. A person in no way has an obligation to a homeless man. However, you replace that homeless man with a baby or a toddler, suddenly the argument doesn't hold weight anymore because your obligation is formed through the process of motherhood/fatherhood. When a man and women make the decesion to have sex they are consenting to the potential obligation of parenthood that may result from that decision. So suddenly it stops being a homeless man thats inhabitting your house by no choice of your own, and suddenly it becomes a life with its own rights that inhabits your body due to your sexual activity.

Lol are you already hitting me with "A no true scotsman"? You seem to have very narrow definitions of how you classify political groups, and cast anyone who doesn't fit into your limited molds as being "fake". "No true scotsman" and it's finest. Your statement about the law not only shows a misunderstanding of my argument, but also a misunderstanding of the libertarian values that crafted the decleration. In a society based on liberty the law will always come in to protect natural rights, I think you might need to read up on your social contract literature.

Your last statement had nothing to do with disputing Ron Paul's status as a libertarian, and was just a ramble of pointless attempts at character assasination. It's clear at this point you're not the kind of poster who provides any kind of constructive debate. You jump from hyperbole, to bad analogies, to a misrepresentation of the role of law in a social contract, to ultimatly attempting to commit character assasination against Ron Paul due to the fact that he doesn't conform to your narrow definition of what it means to be a libertarian.

Anyhow it's clear at this point that you only read one of my views, and came up with your whole determination based on that. So I won't bother replying further to your post.
#14718257
Albexmrutah wrote:You jump from hyperbole, to bad analogies, to a misrepresentation of the role of law in a social contract, to ultimatly attempting to commit character assasination against Ron Paul due to the fact that he doesn't conform to your narrow definition of what it means to be a libertarian.


Ron Paul does not conform to Ron Paul's views of libertarianism. While he campaigned against public & free health insurance, social security, etc, he benefited from government-provided health care as a member of Congress. Decky is just pointing out that it's exceedingly common among right-leaning liberals such as Republicans, as well as Libertarians, who complain about things like welfare and health care and so on to actually directly and personally benefit from such things. There's quite a few Republican politicians, for example, who manage to apply for benefits belonging to those in poverty, or to take government money to benefit themselves, their homes, land, etc.
#14718265
Bulaba Jones wrote:Ron Paul does not conform to Ron Paul's views of libertarianism. While he campaigned against public & free health insurance, social security, etc, he benefited from government-provided health care as a member of Congress. Decky is just pointing out that it's exceedingly common among right-leaning liberals such as Republicans, as well as Libertarians, who complain about things like welfare and health care and so on to actually directly and personally benefit from such things. There's quite a few Republican politicians, for example, who manage to apply for benefits belonging to those in poverty, or to take government money to benefit themselves, their homes, land, etc.

That's a valid critisism, however I'm not necceserily sure that critizising a system that you benifit from indicates a dissconnect from your values. I think if a flawed system is in place you have just as much of a righr to benifit from it as you do to critiize it and offer solutions against it. I don't think it's a fair standard to hold people to. For example do you feel its acceptable for a corrctions officer to critizise mass incarciraction, or is he not allowed due to benifiting from that system? Is it not acceptable for an NSA agent to be against goverment instrusion, because at his work he benifits from that system?

From my perspective we all tend to rally against things we benifit from, because we can seperate ourself from our biases and recognize things that need to be fixed or eliminated. I think that takes a level of self awareness/maturity. I would never advise someone to not take full advantage of a system that could help them, just because they think the system needs to be changed.

This is actually reminisent of an age old debate that we have in the gaming community. If a weapon is considered "overpowered" are you allowed to utalize it, at the same time you critize it? Or are you not allowed to reep the benifits of the broken system until the game is fixed to adress the issue?

I think history shows most people go with the option of being critical of a system, despite benifiting from it.

I think it's weird that you specificlly pointed out that this is an issue amongst Republicans/libertarians... Because the more I think about it this standard can be applied to nearly everything. In fact I just remember watching a video the other day of a white progressive being called out for being "hypocritical", because he was complaning about white privalege, despite the fact that he dirctly benifits from it.

When I'm critical of politicans its generally because their actions in office (the donation they take, the intrest they serve, the bills they sign) directly contradict the message they sold to the American people. I hold them to a high standard in action.. In that regard Ron Paul has been remarkably comsistant at the intersection between his political actions and his political message

However, I dont expect them to never reep the benifits of the system in their day to day life. Before they're politicans they're Americans who are entitled to benifit from the system in place, however flawed that system might be
#14722920
Someone on another forum I posted this on, thought I should clarify my religious views, and views on religious freedom in general.

1. As an atheist I personally have no investment, in religion or faith in really any capacity.

2. However, I'm the kind of person who's never drunk alcohol, smoked anything, or was ever invested in any crazy activities growing up. So because of the way I grew up, I naturally tends to surround myself with people who were similar to me in the way they approached the world, and socializing. As a result, a ton of my closest friends are actually pretty strong in Christian faith, that seems to lend itself to those values. So I think I've seen a lot of positive affects of Christianity on people's lives. So naturally, I'm not as antagonistic towards it as other atheist tend to be. I personally don't care much what people believe, as ling as they don't harass other people about it.

3. My libertarian side of views really come into play in the conversation over gay marrige. The government has no role in legislating morality. The government's only role is protecting peoples ability to pursue their own self interest. So religious people are free to think whatever they want about homosexual, as long as the law allows protects peoples right to marry who they choose. It seems like a lot of progressives tend to go the route, of condemining anyone who has opposition opinions about homosexuality, I never really go down that route. All I concern myself with, is that they have equal protection under the law.
#14725677
Albexmrutah wrote:Religion- Atheist.


Welcome to the club. :)

Abortion-Against, except in the case of Rape, Incest or Danger to the mother’s life. I generally feel that people should be provided with all the birth control options possible, however it's up to them to actually use them responsibly. After a life is conceived I don't believed we should terminate that


My only criticism of abortion is that it's too indiscriminate to be eugenic.

Euthanasia - Pro.


Same here.

Environmental Protection- This is an example of "Good government". The government has to play a major role in the management of climate change, even at the expense of the people/businesses.


Right. The well being of the whole ecosphere should have priority over the individual, or oneday we'll be all dead. But by the same token, the well being of the State should have precedence over the individual, which is why I don't oppose the death penalty.

Foreign Policy. Our current foreign policy is absolutely mindboggling. I would prefer a conversion back to the policies leading up to World War 2. The policy of non-intervention, where we were skeptical of getting involved in conflicts that don't threaten us directly. We have military bases in 1400 military bases scattered along 120+ countries. We invest heavily in a foreign policy that doesn't make us safer, but instead just causes both our enemies/allies to hate us more (What the FBI calls blowback).


You shouldn't assume the only alternatives are isolationalism and stupid, misguided interventionism, such as the 2003 Iraq invasion. The US has no choice but to maintain a strong presence overseas because if it abdicates its role in maintaining relative stability, others will fill the power vacuum, and they might get very ambitious just like the Axis prior to internationalism. And there is such a thing as intelligent intervention.
But with regard to the last sentence above, I believe that US policy, notably support of Israel, was a major cause of 9/11. That was the conclusion of two distinguished professors, Walt and Mearsheimer.


We also need to stop interfering in the politics/civil wars of other countries, and stop overthrowing governments in an attempt to put "Puppet dictators" that support American interest.


In fact the most egregious error in recent years was the neocon scheme to democratize the Mideast by overthrowing Saddam. The US must be internationalist, because it has interests elsewhere. But that need not imply imposing US values where they don't belong and just won't work.

I think after decades of interfering in the Middle East (Ever since overthrowing the Shaw in 1957),


Na the Shah in 1953!



Social Programs/Healthcare/Education-


By far the worst problem is that money is wasted on programs designed to benefit individuals instead of the whole country. Vast sums are blown on people who are near death anyway and on all kinds of defective and sick people who will never contribute anything to society. There should be better priorities--more money for gifted young people, none for those in the last 6 months of their lives.


Foreign Aide - All our foreign aid to other countries should be stopped immediately.


That would be going too far. It can be in the best interest of the US to prop up certain foreign nations.


any attempt to send foreign aid to any country should be scrutinized and voted on by congress. There should be no reason why homeless individuals can suffer yet Israel, The Philippines and Saudi Arabia can get hundreds of Billions of dollars in American Aide.


:lol: Can't you see that congress, under the present system, has no choice but to shell out billions to Israel? Haven't you ever heard of the pro-Israel lobbies?? They're extremely powerful, and, at the same time, willing to force the US to give Israel priority over itself.



Prisons- Another area of huge government waste. We incarcerate a ton of people for petty crimes connected to our failed war on drugs. Prisons need to be separated from corporate interest, and can be reduced by nearly 40% by reforming our drug policy, and retroactively releasing inmates. Also, if prisoners were allowed to vote, it would actually incentive politicians to propose solutions to the system. Also be a prisoner doesn’t mean you should have your voice stripped from the political process.


Prisoners who got in trouble because society failed to provide enough opportunity e.g. by wasting money on Iraq or half dead seniors, should be given another chance. But born losers should be either shot or publicly paddled or something. :)

Issue- National Debt- The nation debt needs to be reduced period. That means cutting down domestically (Excess government spending in all areas). Cutting down our national defense budget (Adopting an economically proven system of non-intervention). Stop sending aid to other countries (Israel, Philippines, and Saudi Arabia). End the Federal Reserve and its policy of printing money, and artificially lowering interest rates. And after all that excess spending/bad monetary policy is cut, we can finally get our bills under control. Once we get our bills under control, we can invest in our infrastructure, alternative fuels and our middle class.


:lol: I agree with some of the above but face it, as long as our current democracy is intact, all hell will freeze over before any of this is implemented. All too often, politicians must shell out to various special interest groups i.e. those for whom foreign, individual or other parochial concerns trump the US as a whole, or the US period.

This is a lie. You're not that stupid or ignorant[…]

Neither is an option too. Neither have your inte[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@JohnRawls There is no ethnic cleansing going o[…]

They are building a Russian Type nuclear reactor..[…]