HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal

Just for fun -- Where do you fit in politically?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-19-2013, 09:52 AM
  #51
Helton4Hall
Internet Charlatan
 
Helton4Hall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Storming the Gates
Country: South Korea
Posts: 17,871
vCash: 69
Not as far left as I expected, although I was still near the end of the spectrum.

Helton4Hall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 10:47 AM
  #52
ddawg1950
Registered User
 
ddawg1950's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,156
vCash: 500
Liberal democrat.

No surprise...because I also wanted to "explain" all my answers.

ddawg1950 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 01:06 PM
  #53
BSHH
HSVer & Rotflügel
 
BSHH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hamburg
Country: Germany
Posts: 848
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugmo View Post
(...) I'm liberal. And apparently ridiculously liberal. And more liberal than I feel, because I live in Europe where most people would answer those questions exactly the same way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eisen View Post
I was left of everything apparently, like REALLY left. I consider myself left but I didn't know to that extent
(...)
Because you're from Germany, where those positions wouldn't even seem strange to you if you were a CDU/CSU voter.
Being from Germany as well, I also got a far left/liberal result, which does not fit my personal politcal perception. But these political labels are not accurate for a system which is based on proportional voting (as implemented in Cetral Europe) instead of a clear-cut majority vote system (as typical for countries influenced by England).

With regard to the upcoming federal election, I do not feel well represented by any party. However, I intend to shift my vote to the opposite political spectrum for the first time in my life. By the way, my answers were:

1. There need to be stricter laws and regulations to protect the environment: Completely Agree
2. The government should help more needy people even if it means going deeper in debt: Mostly Disagree
3. The growing number of newcomers from other countries threaten traditional American customs and values: Mostly Disagree
4. I never doubt the existence of God: Completely Disagree
5. Business corporations make too much profit: Mostly Disagree
6. Gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry legally: Mostly Agree
7. The government needs to do more to make health care affordable and accessible: Completely Agree
8. One parent can bring up a child as well as two parents together: Mostly Agree
9. Government regulation of business usually does more harm than good: Mostly Disagree
10. Abortion should be illegal in all or most cases: Completely Disagree
11. Labor unions are necessary to protect the working person: Mostly Agree
12. Poor people have become too dependent on government assistance programs: Mostly Disagree

Gruß,
BSHH

BSHH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 01:21 PM
  #54
Vegeta
Registered User
 
Vegeta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Capsule Corp.
Country: Japan
Posts: 1,636
vCash: 500
Very close to being an all around "very conservative". Surprises me because, while I did rate all the way at the end of the spectrum on economics, I was just a little right of center on social issues. Interesting.

Vegeta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 01:32 PM
  #55
Kadri43
Registered User
 
Kadri43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: noneofyourbusiness
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,432
vCash: 500
I feel like there is more consensus with respect to social rather than economic issues.

Kadri43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 01:42 PM
  #56
jflory81
Irken Elite
 
jflory81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 19,864
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to jflory81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadri43 View Post
Ron Paul is not against gay marriage. He believe both the federal and state government should get out of the of marriage altogether. He believes marriage is a religious union between two consenting adults.
And yet he supports the Defense of Marriage Act which allows states to ignore marrige licenses for gay couples as well as preventing the federal goverment from recognizing gay marriage., going as far as to co-sponsor a bill every year that would completely bar federal judges from hearing cases about DoMA (gee, that doesn't sound particularly constitutional).

Oh and:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Paul
"Like the majority of Iowans, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected. I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’ constitutional authority to define what other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same sex marriage license issued in another state.
So yeah, he has NO problem with states not allowing two consenting human beings of the same gender from marrying.

(linky: http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/ro...-abandon-doma/)

jflory81 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 01:46 PM
  #57
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 21,315
vCash: 1
Overall: Very liberal
Economic: Also very liberal, though a smidgen to the right of my overall score
Social: Also very liberal, though a smidgen to the left of my overall score

Not a shocker.

No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 02:08 PM
  #58
Kadri43
Registered User
 
Kadri43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: noneofyourbusiness
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,432
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jflory81 View Post
And yet he supports the Defense of Marriage Act which allows states to ignore marrige licenses for gay couples as well as preventing the federal goverment from recognizing gay marriage., going as far as to co-sponsor a bill every year that would completely bar federal judges from hearing cases about DoMA (gee, that doesn't sound particularly constitutional).

Oh and:

So yeah, he has NO problem with states not allowing two consenting human beings of the same gender from marrying.

(linky: http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/ro...-abandon-doma/)
He does not want the federal government at all in marriage. He does not support the federal government in issuing gay marriage licenses in a state at all. The reason why he said what he said was because that it should be unconstitutional (in his view) for the federal government to tell the state what to do. In the Iowa context, the Iowa state decided against state marriage. In his views, the federal government should not go against the decision made by the state. It has nothing to do with gay marriage, it is about state rights. The individual state should have the sole jurisdiction in almost everything in his opinion. He does state that his own personal opinion that it should be between one man and one woman but it still a voluntary association between 2 consenting adults. Therefore, if it were up to him, no state or federal government would tell the individual what to do. Furthermore, he does not think that one individual should impose their definition to others. It is totally a non-government relationship and be left out of the hands of government altogether. He does not even believe in Doma for either straight or same sex individuals
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNrDc6NgCIY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH0kHoWdK3M

Ron Paul is probably the least understood politician I have ever come across.

Kadri43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 02:12 PM
  #59
Everlasting
Registered User
 
Everlasting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somwhere in time
Country: Sweden
Posts: 4,046
vCash: 807
I am at the end of the liberal bar, maybe like 3-5 milimiter towards the end, and if i were an american i would be a Liberal democrat.

My answers:
CA
MA
CD
MD
MA
CA
CA
CA
MD
CD
CA
MD

Super liberal on social issues but less liberal on economic issues, even tho i am very liberal according to that bar in that area too...

Everlasting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 02:16 PM
  #60
Sevanston
Moderator
 
Sevanston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 9,604
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadri43 View Post
He does not want the federal government at all in marriage. He does not support the federal government in issuing gay marriage licenses in a state at all. The reason why he said what he said was because that it should be unconstitutional (in his view) for the federal government to tell the state what to do. In the Iowa context, the Iowa state decided against state marriage. In his views, the federal government should not go against the decision made by the state. It has nothing to do with gay marriage, it is about state rights. The individual state should have the sole jurisdiction in almost everything in his opinion. He does state that his own personal opinion that it should be between one man and one woman but it still a voluntary association between 2 consenting adults. Therefore, if it were up to him, no state or federal government would tell the individual what to do. Furthermore, he does not think that one individual should impose their definition to others. It is totally a non-government relationship and be left out of the hands of government altogether. He does not even believe in Doma for either straight or same sex individuals
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNrDc6NgCIY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH0kHoWdK3M

Ron Paul is probably the least understood politician I have ever come across.
This is what people mean when they say that he's an antifederalist, which he is without a doubt.

Sevanston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 02:17 PM
  #61
Everlasting
Registered User
 
Everlasting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somwhere in time
Country: Sweden
Posts: 4,046
vCash: 807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadri43 View Post
What government is not running a deficit?
Norway?

Everlasting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 02:18 PM
  #62
jflory81
Irken Elite
 
jflory81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 19,864
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to jflory81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadri43 View Post
He does not want the federal government at all in marriage. He does not support the federal government in issuing gay marriage licenses in a state at all. The reason why he said what he said was because that it should be unconstitutional (in his view) for the federal government to tell the state what to do. In the Iowa context, the Iowa state decided against state marriage. In his views, the federal government should not go against the decision made by the state. It has nothing to do with gay marriage, it is about state rights. The individual state should have the sole jurisdiction in almost everything in his opinion. He does state that his own personal opinion that it should be between one man and one woman but it still a voluntary association between 2 consenting adults. Therefore, if it were up to him, no state or federal government would tell the individual what to do. Furthermore, he does not think that one individual should impose their definition to others. It is totally a non-government relationship and be left out of the hands of government altogether. He does not even believe in Doma for either straight or same sex individuals
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNrDc6NgCIY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH0kHoWdK3M

Ron Paul is probably the least understood politician I have ever come across.
None of which contradicts my point that Paul has no problem with the state limiting what I view as a personal right.

And what the hell do you mean he doesn't believe in DoMA? He criticized Obama in the link I provided for not defending DoMA any more and it is a FACT that he has repeatedly sponsored a bill that would prevent the federal court from reviewing the constitutionality of DoMA (which would be the legislative branch trying to take away the judical branches function)

His actions on this speak louder than his words. He has NO problem with states determining who can and can't marry.

jflory81 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 02:19 PM
  #63
Sevanston
Moderator
 
Sevanston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 9,604
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadri43 View Post
I feel like there is more consensus with respect to social rather than economic issues.
Not surprising for this board.

It was pretty clear after posting here for a few days that there are very few social conservatives here.

Most arguments seem to stem from issues of economics and foreign policy.

Sevanston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 02:31 PM
  #64
Kadri43
Registered User
 
Kadri43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: noneofyourbusiness
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,432
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jflory81 View Post
None of which contradicts my point that Paul has no problem with the state limiting what I view as a personal right.
.
He believes that it is a state right. If the state wants to make something as ridiculous as polygamy legal than it is that state's right. However, if he were voting on the issue, he would vote against it. He is simply anti-federalist at every level. A better term for him rather than libertarian is that he is anti-interventionism (which he labelled himself in Canada over the weekend). It is of his opinion that no level of government should intervene at all in anyone's personal life.

Kadri43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 02:37 PM
  #65
Kadri43
Registered User
 
Kadri43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: noneofyourbusiness
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,432
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jflory81 View Post
And what the hell do you mean he doesn't believe in DoMA? He criticized Obama in the link I provided for not defending DoMA any more and it is a FACT that he has repeatedly sponsored a bill that would prevent the federal court from reviewing the constitutionality of DoMA (which would be the legislative branch trying to take away the judical branches function)
This is his opinion on DoMa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH0kHoWdK3M

Kadri43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 02:38 PM
  #66
Daynz
What!?!
 
Daynz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Downtown
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,961
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddawg1950 View Post
Liberal democrat.

No surprise...because I also wanted to "explain" all my answers.
I completely understand.

Daynz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 02:40 PM
  #67
jflory81
Irken Elite
 
jflory81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 19,864
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to jflory81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadri43 View Post
He believes that it is a state right. If the state wants to make something as ridiculous as polygamy legal than it is that state's right. However, if he were voting on the issue, he would vote against it. He is simply anti-federalist at every level. A better term for him rather than libertarian is that he is anti-interventionism (which he labelled himself in Canada over the weekend). It is of his opinion that no level of government should intervene at all in anyone's personal life.
That's not true at all. He's said that if he were in California he would have voted in favor of proposition 8. He doesn't believe in a federal amendment either way (hence, anti-Federalist) but he's fine with states taking away their citizens rights based on a majority vote.

He believes, again, that states have the right to take away something that I view as a right. He is anti-Federalist. He has no problem with states taking away people's rights.

jflory81 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 02:42 PM
  #68
jflory81
Irken Elite
 
jflory81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 19,864
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to jflory81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadri43 View Post
This is his opinion on DoMa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH0kHoWdK3M
Why do I need your video? I already directly quoted his view on DoMA (the link goes deeper, also in his own words) and he has, again, sponsored a bill in Congress every year to prevent Federal judges from from reviewing the law for constitutionality.

Here's a clue: when his answer for social issues is "well I think the states should decide", that's probably a pretty good clue he doesn't have much of a problem with states repressing people's rights...only the federal government.

jflory81 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 02:59 PM
  #69
Kadri43
Registered User
 
Kadri43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: noneofyourbusiness
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,432
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jflory81 View Post
That's not true at all. He's said that if he were in California he would have voted in favor of proposition 8. He doesn't believe in a federal amendment either way (hence, anti-Federalist) but he's fine with states taking away their citizens rights based on a majority vote.

He believes, again, that states have the right to take away something that I view as a right. He is anti-Federalist. He has no problem with states taking away people's rights.
He is fine with the States taking away the citizens liberty if it is not guaranteed in the his view of the Constitution. Again, he is not against gay people at all and views them as being able to get married through a church. I have provided the necessarily links. You are right that he is anti-federalist. He also does not condone the states taking away for matters guaranteed under the constitution.
You do not have a thorough understanding on the first link that you provided btw.

Kadri43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 03:00 PM
  #70
Kadri43
Registered User
 
Kadri43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: noneofyourbusiness
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,432
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jflory81 View Post
Why do I need your video? I already directly quoted his view on DoMA (the link goes deeper, also in his own words) and he has, again, sponsored a bill in Congress every year to prevent Federal judges from from reviewing the law for constitutionality.
He goes deeper than the quote provided. You should look at it.

Kadri43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 03:06 PM
  #71
jflory81
Irken Elite
 
jflory81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 19,864
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to jflory81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadri43 View Post
He is fine with the States taking away the citizens liberty if it is not guaranteed in the his view of the Constitution. Again, he is not against gay people at all and views them as being able to get married through a church. I have provided the necessarily links. You are right that he is anti-federalist. He also does not condone the states taking away for matters guaranteed under the constitution.
You do not have a thorough understanding on the first link that you provided btw.
"I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and must be protected."

Direct quote. And is quite clear. Unless you're saying he says different things to different groups which would make him *gasp* a typical politician.


I'd also like to point out the absurdity of framing the gay marriage question under the guise of government interventionism. Allowing gay people to marry intervenes not at all into other people's lives as indiviuals.

jflory81 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 03:11 PM
  #72
Kadri43
Registered User
 
Kadri43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: noneofyourbusiness
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,432
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jflory81 View Post
"I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and must be protected."

Direct quote. And is quite clear. Unless you're saying he says different things to different groups which would make him *gasp* a typical politician.


I'd also like to point out the absurdity of framing the gay marriage question under the guise of government interventionism. Allowing gay people to marry intervenes not at all into other people's lives as indiviuals.
There are direct quotes saying that he is against either the state or federal government involved in marriage at all. He states pretty much what you quoted but goes further afterwards. With respect to your last comment, he does not believe that government at all should define marriage. He believes that any definition provided by government whether that be gay or straight is interventionist.
We shall agree to disagree I suppose.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNrDc6NgCIY

Kadri43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 03:18 PM
  #73
jflory81
Irken Elite
 
jflory81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 19,864
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to jflory81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadri43 View Post
There are direct quotes saying that he is against either the state or federal government involved in marriage at all. He states pretty much what you quoted but goes further afterwards. With respect to your last comment, he does not believe that government at all should define marriage. He believes that any definition provided by government whether that be gay or straight is interventionist.
We shall agree to disagree I suppose.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNrDc6NgCIY
He states pretty much what I quoted? He stated EXACTLY what I quoted. That's why it's a quote. So, he's on the record saying straight marriage needs to be protected, so how does he plan to go about doing that without government and law being involved in the marriage process?


The problem is that the government does, in fact, regulate marriage. So through his view, he's in favor of preventing gays from getting the same benefits of marriage that straight couples have. If he had said "well, I'll try to do away with any gov't ties to marriage, but in the mean time gay couples will be on equal footing with straight couples", I could respect that. (Despite the fact that he's wrong and marriage has always been a social contract)

I have no respect at all for Paul's social issue views. We'll leave it at that.

jflory81 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 03:23 PM
  #74
Kadri43
Registered User
 
Kadri43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: noneofyourbusiness
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,432
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jflory81 View Post
He states pretty much what I quoted? He stated EXACTLY what I quoted. That's why it's a quote. So, he's on the record saying straight marriage needs to be protected, so how does he plan to go about doing that without government and law being involved in the marriage process?



I have no respect at all for Paul's social issue views. We'll leave it at that.
And I have EXACT quotes from the link that I provided as well. He states what you quoted and GOES FURTHER.

Kadri43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 03:26 PM
  #75
slip
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,008
vCash: 500
There's many reasons I'm drawn to the political philosophy of Ron Paul. His views on same sex marriage is certainly not one of them.

slip is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:08 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.