I'll show you mine if you show me yours....

[Mission Accomplished]

If you think about it, the prevailing opinion would be the definition of "moderate". If everyone thought the same way as Bill Maher then die-hard leftism would be the moderate stance. At one point the Nazis were the moderate stance in germany. So you have a point, it is about what people think about their beliefs. But when enough people think enough alike to affect policy or elections it does start painting a picture.

It also helps to put things in somewhat predefined terms. For the most part it is recognized what it means to be liberal or conservative. It is mostly recognized what being left or right of center means. So in a poll like this, where people self-identify in an anonymous fashion, you can assume they are comparing their views to the generally accepted norms, or at least to their view of those topics that they find most important.

I have a friend who says he is a die-hard republican, but in talking to him I found out he is really just very very very anti-abortion and therefore has lumped the rest in with that, even though on many other important points he disagrees with the general republican stance. That is his hot topic and how he defines his political leaning. But again it is how he relates his views to others based on what we recognize as being conservative or liberal viewpoints.

Then we come to the point of why does everyone dislike Obama??? Well, I believe it has to do with Fox News the most popular "news station". Why did I put quotation marks on "news station" because they are an opinion station that is politically motivated. Yet, those who watch it believe that they are using fact to present their opinions. Lets look at Obama's health care bill and compare him to Mit Romney's bill... Obama tries to pass a comprehensive health care bill that is based on Romey's bill to give a public option and to make everyone have to have health care to push down the rates. Yet, if you were to watch Fox News you would think that Obama is cramming a bill down congresses throats that is too large to even read and that it will bring us to become a socialist nation.

 

[The-Joker]

I'm mostly liberal
I am in favor of anything that helps those who cannot help themselves, even though a small percentage of those programs feed lazy people who take advantage of the government. I think it's a small demerit in a system which needs to exist. When you compare it to how much money the guys at the top take from government, it's really a small setback.

I'm in favor of legalization/decriminalization of victimless crimes-- marijuana (and some other drugs), prostitution, gambling. When you look at how much damage is done with these deals done on the black market, I feel society is much better off. If you want a prostitute, you're going to get a prostitute... if you want some weed, you're going to get some weed... why not just take away the stigma and take away the secondary effects which are worse than the primary--- human trafficking, gang violence, overpopulated prisons.

I think the stupidest idea of all time is the idea that hospitals are run like businesses, and are out to make a profit first and save people second. I mean in which universe does it make sense that hospitals are privatized and power, banks and schools are socialized. Anything that is inherently necessary for human sustenance should not be run like a business.

I believe in controlled capitalism in areas that aren't essential to human health and well being. Nobody works hard enough that they deserve to give a 300 million dollar bonus to themselves, the government needs to step in and bust some heads and get some of the crooked out of big business.

THe sad part is we're just spiralling down and will probably start going through the motions of the fall of Rome with the current track government is on

 

[Boondocksaint27]

I'm in favor of legalization/decriminalization of victimless crimes-- marijuana (and some other drugs), prostitution, gambling. When you look at how much damage is done with these deals done on the black market, I feel society is much better off. If you want a prostitute, you're going to get a prostitute... if you want some weed, you're going to get some weed... why not just take away the stigma and take away the secondary effects which are worse than the primary--- human trafficking, gang violence, overpopulated prisons

Out of curiosity, what are the "other drugs" are you talking about?

 

[The-Joker]

Out of curiosity, what are the "other drugs" are you talking about?

Well I think there are some other drugs which are interpreted as illegal, but really haven't shown that many menacing side effects, beyond.... being on drugs. Among other FDA non-approved drugs which should be relooked at-- like apricot seeds for cancer treatment etc.

I think there isn't any significant evidence proving psilocybin (magic mushrooms) is especially harmful, or all that more dangerous then alcohol.

If we're going to set a "danger-level" at "the adverse effects of alcohol" I think most recreational drugs would be legal.

And a lot of the negative publicity comes from stories about people who are ignorant about usage rates, because they don't print usage facts on the side of the bottle... it would be like outlawing ibuprofen because you could die if you take half the bottle.

I just want these things to be looked at, I could care if shrooms are legal or not... but I do care about the secondary effects I mentioned earlier. How much of a blow to the power held by gangs and other black market groups, would it be if even marijuana and prostitution were legal?

I guess if you want to make the choice to do something, and you have full knowledge of the effects, and you're doing no harm to anyone else and yourself... whats the purpose of having a government watchdog.

 

[sirkickyass]

I'm the only person that has so far responded that I'm a registered member of either party. Riiiiiiiiight. I'm sure that reflects reality.

Let me decode some of these.

I'm moving further and further left on fiscal policy, just not over the notions hard core's like Big Fundy and Kicky espouse. It's incredible we can't figure out demand side in deflationary induced recessions (the exception to the rule) and supply side in inflationary induced, interest hike recessions (the rule). The three rock stars (Keynes, Friedman, and Hayek) all realized this, and realized the magic of going to the opposite end in good times to smooth the business cycle, but, like the vast majority of disciples of every religion, this is lost on our current movers and shakers.

I actually think you and I are in virtual lockstep on this issue, so I'm not certain why you called me out by name here.

Where would Spend Less and Tax More put me? I know that is a very unpopular stand but with the current deficet and tax loopholes I just can't see any other way out of the mess we are currently in. I would also be for any politician or political party that was pro reducing the size of the Military, Medicade, and Social Security. Another question, where would pro military but anti war put me?

This would make you an Eisenhower Republican. Congratulations, you are currently represented by nobody.

Christian. The battle always has been, will always be, good vs. evil.

This is highly disturbing.

Let me guess: Good is your way of thinking and Evil is against your way of thinking.

Moderate, leaning left. I think that there are things the governemnt does well, or at least better than private industries, that are also common goods, and there fore it should do these things. There are also things that the governement should never involve itself in.

You're a liberal. Don't run from it. Embrace it. No one is fooled.

Social liberal/ fiscal nutcase

Fixed that for you.

I am a human being first, and will maybe accept being a citizen of a state/nation that considers my rights to be important enought to actually protect.

Barely above an anarchist.

 

[LogGrad98]

I know I do not register under either major party. I think that it is happening more and more, but I don't have any data to back that up. And I think that often people differentiate between registering for the vote alone and actively supporting the party they register under, with the latter really being viewed as being "registered".

 

[Bronco70]

I also believe in Capitalism as the best system out there. But, what is at the heart of Capitalism human greed and just like you said earlier man is an idiot. So, what are they going to do when the $$$ start flowing find ways to make $$$$.

If greed were exclusive to capitalism, you might have a point. But greed exists in every system. That's why communism looks good on paper, but doesn't apply so well.

 

[Stickler]

When it comes to government, I am in favor of freedom, truth, and financial responsibility. I share many positions with liberals, and many with conservatives. I most often appear to be a hardcore liberal in internet debates, because internet debates usually center around social policies. (Like I said, I'm in favor of freedom.) I chose Independent on the poll. But my thinking bleeds into all kinds of philosophies. On some issues (like freedom of speech) I am an absolutist.

When I was 18 and I registered to vote, I registered as a Democrat, because my dad was a Democrat, a union-man, and a former minor official in the party. I always vote, though, for the person I consider to be the best candidate. I find the "Nader cost Gore the election" way of thinking to be ****ing repulsive. That's the thinking that leads us to always choose the lesser of two evils, when we could be electing honest-to-God good men.

 

[LogGrad98]

When it comes to government, I am in favor of freedom, truth, and financial responsibility. I share many positions with liberals, and many with conservatives. I most often appear to be a hardcore liberal in internet debates, because internet debates usually center around social policies. (Like I said, I'm in favor of freedom.) I chose Independent on the poll. But my thinking bleeds into all kinds of philosophies. On some issues (like freedom of speech) I am an absolutist.

When I was 18 and I registered to vote, I registered as a Democrat, because my dad was a Democrat, a union-man, and a former minor official in the party. I always vote, though, for the person I consider to be the best candidate. I find the "Nader cost Gore the election" way of thinking to be ****ing repulsive. That's the thinking that leads us to always choose the lesser of two evils, when we could be electing honest-to-God good men.

Amen to that.

But it seems the problem is finding those good men and getting them to run. Instead we tend to get 2 crappy candidates and have to vote for the less crappy of the 2.

 

[Stickler]

Amen to that.

But it seems the problem is finding those good men and getting them to run. Instead we tend to get 2 crappy candidates and have to vote for the less crappy of the 2.

We need more parties. When Nader was running in 2000, he ran on pointing out all the similarities between the two parties; they agree on 90% of all issues. Someone posted a link to a Bill Mahr (Maher?) video recently and I thought the best thing he said, after giving a handful of examples, was the phrase "Two parties, one policy. Two parties, one policy. Two parties, one policy...." We need more parties.

 

[Agoxlea]

I am moderate with slightly left leanings. I am mostly to the left socially, and fairly moderate fiscally. I tend to vote Dem because I feel like I am making less of a sacrifice although the candidate may not be my dream candidate. I am definitely open to third party candidates, and wish we didn't have such a sharply divided two party system. I have felt America as a whole is moving further towards the religious right lately, and that is a little scary to me. That tends to push me a little more to left.

 

[LogGrad98]

We need more parties. When Nader was running in 2000, he ran on pointing out all the similarities between the two parties; they agree on 90% of all issues. Someone posted a link to a Bill Mahr (Maher?) video recently and I thought the best thing he said, after giving a handful of examples, was the phrase "Two parties, one policy. Two parties, one policy. Two parties, one policy...." We need more parties.

This has long been my mantra, that the two-party system is destroying America. So often they rely on the standard "my daddy voted republican, his daddy voted republican, so I am voting republican" to get them elected rather than really having any of value to add. I would love to see some version of a primary election that included any and all candidates with an hard cap on campaign spending and a "blind vote" wherein the political affiliation of the candidates is not known, just their platform. Of course that is virtually impossible, but it would require that people actually educate themselves on the issues rather than just vote for who their daddy voted for or who Franken or Limbaugh told them to vote for or for who has the best hairdo, whatever.