New ATS Poll: What Is Your Political Affiliation?

originally posted by: gentledissident
I dream of a technological socialist utopia. I understand the emotional struggles we go through as a social animal. I think those things make me an extreme liberal.

I also understand that citizens have been enslaved and shamed. This makes it hard for workers to be enthusiastic. So, they're given entertainment and idols to motivate them. This makes them insane, as they are at least twice removed from reality through enslavement and entertainment.

Because I direct these people, I must seem cold and conservative to them. I have to adopt my own version of manipulation similar to their masters',so I can interact with them. Please understand, I'd love to communicate with people freely. However, all sorts of problems arise when I don't play the games they've been taught all their lives.

I hear what you're saying, but I am not a slave. I am right where I want to be and I made that happen through hard work and dedication and balls. The whole "everyone is a slave" thing seems to be more of an excuse. Yes, there is a serious disparity of wealth these days. But yes, you can also still follow your own path, chase your dreams, and succeed if you really want to. I wanted to, so I did.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: poncho1982

No one said that ALL who choose Libertarian, are not. But many in this country claim to be Libertarian and then want to deny women the right to her own body and medical choices, deny gay people the right to marry, and oppose the separation of church and state. If that's not you, then the generalization doesn't apply.

On the contrary. That is exactly what was said.

No one made any exceptions, they just said Libertarians.

originally posted by: jaffo
I am not a slave.

This calls for a celebration.

Sorry about the entertainment.

a reply to: gentledissident

I lol'd, dude. Have a great day.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I'd really be interested in seeing how the people that pick "None of these describe me" actually describe themselves.

The problem is libertarian is not its own entity there are a lot of conservatives and liberal minded people that are libertarian , I feel like that drastically skews the results

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: poncho1982

No one said that ALL who choose Libertarian, are not. But many in this country claim to be Libertarian and then want to deny women the right to her own body and medical choices, deny gay people the right to marry, and oppose the separation of church and state. If that's not you, then the generalization doesn't apply.

Why do we deny the basic rights to a unborn human?

How can we magically say a human is human only at a certain time its its development and before they are not human and do not have any rights?

Its Ageism and inconsistent.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I'd really be interested in seeing how the people that pick "None of these describe me" actually describe themselves.

Isn't fooled by the BS divisive left-right paradigm.

a reply to: SensiblyReckless

Or "Silly enough to completely waste my vote and guarantee that I have no actual say." Voting "None of the Above" is just plain silly.

originally posted by: Kali74
By American example, Libertarian is extreme Conservative and though they claim that morality shouldn't be legislated they only mean morality that is in line with their own, which of course makes them right-wing authoritarians suffering from self delusion.

Wow, that's a lie.

Libertarians are pro-gay rights, pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion rights and they are right-wing?

You better recheck your facts.

ETA: Also, we don't support Big Government from Repubs or Dems. Not sure how our lack of support for the existing political parties makes us right-wing unless it bothers you that we want fiscally responsible Government. I can see how that would scare liberals especially.

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I think a lot of it is perspective. Conservatives think I'm a flaming liberal. Liberals think I'm a closeminded conservative. Yet neither is true. My political leanings no longer fit into the spectrum.

I hear you there, big time. So many people 'dying on the sword' of whatever party they seem to gravitate towards.

People toss around labels, defend policies and such that many haven't even taken the time to fully read, much less understand what's being voted on.

When a person has been convicted of a crime, many basically 'label' and 'categorize' and subsequently 'socially punish' those who have committed past offenses. They're all but social outcasts....or in entertainment.

Yet many politicians have shown, many times over, that they don't represent the people who voted them into office to do so. They mistakenly think they have been placed there to 'rule', not 'represent'. Therefore, they have agendas, not of those they claim to represent, but agendas of their own, companies, lobbyists....law for hire apparently.

People need to stand up and let them know enough is enough. I don't 'affiliate' with one, nor the other. There are ideas from all angles that are worth looking at and could realistically be accomplished, if we had politicians who were no longer 'career' - and were paid the median income to do the job. No more labels, it's time for ideas, and people to stand up, stand tall and not vote on 'empty' words, policies and the like. Keep the bills/laws/policies simple to understand, enforce and I feel the response would be overwhelming - the power of labels in politics has to me proven to be destructive and not helpful in anyway....

a reply to: Metallicus

I'm little-L libertarian...I'm not pro-abortion "rights."

One of the tennets of libertarian thinking is that you are free to do as you wish as long as it doesn't intrude upon another individuals freedoms or harm them in any way.

Abortion harms someone, therefore I take the stance that it's fine in cases of incest, rape, or life-of-the-mother complications, but other than that, it's a choice to harm--well, kill--another human being.

You're generalizing libertarian-minded people a bit too much, and I think the party proper is a bit hypocritical on the subject:

STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES

We, the members of the Libertarian Party...

snip

...deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others;...

Source

And then they make their stance on abortion as follows:

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

Same source.

Now, I get that they're saying that GOVERNMENT should not deny the right to life, not individuals, but the philosophy of not harming others is at odds, IMO, with their stance on abortion.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I'll never support abortion in any form for any reason under any circumstance.

It's an evil practice that violates the rights of an unborn human.

I'm certainly more left-wing than anything but I have to say that there isn't really a party that represents me and there's not really an option from the choices in the poll that I feel is me. Labels are pretty lame.

a reply to: jaffo

Having a 'choice' of two political parties is the silliest thing I've ever heard. Especially when one is right wing, and the other is right wing masquerading as a left wing party. Wolves in sheep's clothing.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Okay.

originally posted by: SensiblyReckless
a reply to: jaffo

Having a 'choice' of two political parties is the silliest thing I've ever heard. Especially when one is right wing, and the other is right wing masquerading as a left wing party. Wolves in sheep's clothing.

And having three or more disintegrates the vote to the point where no one who is elected has a mandate. Put simply, without that idiot Ralph Nader, Dubbya would have been a one term President. Without Perot, Bush, Sr. would have been a two term President. Multiple parties in a Presidential election is not all it's cracked up to be and it is not a miracle solution. You know what would help? If even HALF of the people running their mouth actually voted in the primaries and at the local level, not to mention the Presidential level. Talk is cheap. The numbers show that less than half the people on this site bother to vote.

I was a JFK democrat since the 60s...back when liberals were compassionate free-thinkers. I dropped out of the democratic party after Obama because he seemed the same as Bush (Patriot Act, war mongering, etc) except Obama had no experience and seemed far more arrogant than Bush. Once liberals started calling anybody that questioned Obama a racist, that sealed the deal--I'll never vote democrat again.

I'm definitely no know longer trust democrats.

I still can't stand republican agenda (I'm for women's rights and gay rights)--although they seem less crazed than today's mean-spirited, race-baiting liberals.

I guess I'm closest to libertarians....Yup, put me in the Libertarian column, please.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

A Tea Party Libertarian is that.

That is the American version of Libertarian... the Tea Party kind. See my sig.

Problem with your survey is the continuum assumptions.

Today's neo-liberal is not a classical liberal at all.
The neo-liberal is really totalitarian but won't admit it.
The neo-liberal believes strongly in thought and speech control,
with social ostracizing (or social media hounding)
or actual punishment for violators
of what the neo-liberal considers incorrect thought or speech.
For example: Global warming far left leadership
calling for the jailing or killing of non-believers;
death threats for hypothetical answers to questions
regarding LGBT with the "wrong" answers;
quick to call racism and for punishment for racism,
before all the facts are in.
A strong desire to regulate what the citizenry eats.

The classical liberal believes in social equality and justice,
AND more importantly, freedom of speech
regardless of whose feelings are hurt or how offensive the speech is to others.
If one believes that controlling the thoughts, speech , or actions of others
for their own good, or for the good of society
is necessary then they are not a classical liberal.

There are also libertarian conservatives, which is where I fall.
Live and let live on social issues
(LGBT, abortion before the date of survivability outside the womb, legalization of ALL drugs including prescription to be made over the counter),
including the classical liberal stance on freedom of speech and thought.
But, conservative on fiscal issues.
With a very strong desire for far less government control,
paring back government to only what is mandated by the constitution.
Elimination of the EPA, the TSA, NSA,
the Dept of Education (this belongs to the state)
and many other alphabet soup regulators and oppressors of the people
in the name of the federal government.
An elimination of income taxes which are not really constitutional,
replaced with sales tax which since the federal government
is supposed to regulate interstate commerce would be constitutional.
Lastly freedom OF religion enforced with the same vigor as
anti-racism since freedom OF religion is constitutional; and
freedom from religion is unconstitutional.