My Political ideology?

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.

 

I agree with a lot of the stuff you say but you need to understand that USA is not just a nation but an Empire. The Empire must be maintained and extended. USA has Reserve Currency and control of the Bretton Woods institutions that were put in place after USA won WW2. Your thinking does not take this into consideration.

 

I disagree with the premise that the empire being maintained benefits the country as a whole. If you look at the history of all empires, they all fall due to financially not being able to maintain their foreign policies. We're seeing that as a whole right now, with the US financial situation. We're spending trillions of dollars maintaining our military bases in 120+ countries, we're sending out nearly a trillion dollars worth of foreign aide (Israel, Egypt, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, South Korea), we're operating a huge budget deficit, and we're nearly 20 trillion dollars in national debt. To top it off, our foreign policy doesn't actually make us any safer, it only causes "blowback" and causes more countries to hate us, and more fundamentalist to want to commit acts of terror against the West.

I think this is exactly what Eisenhower was warning us of when he said "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist". I think it also accurately represents our current domestic situation when he said"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. If you think about it, this is exactly where we are right now. Just think about the concept of foreign aide.. We take away money from the poor tax payers in this country, and give it to rich people in other countries for the acquisition of weapons.

This is why I think Traditional republicans (Prior to the Reagan Administration) and Libertarians have it right about foreign policy (Those groups are really the same, Libertarians just lost their influence when Neo cons and evangelicals came into the party in the 80's) . They realized that the cost of war was immense, so they didn't get entangled in foreign alliances, were very hesitant to enter war, and they only took action with a formal declaration of war from congress. They wanted to trade with everyone, but wanted to leave Europe to handle it's own affairs. It's the reason why we only entered War 1/2 after we were personally attacked, and both administrations pushing for entering the war were democratic once who faced resistance from the republicans. Back then however, people wrongly labeled Republicans "isolationist", in the same way Libertarians todays are still labeled "Isolationist". However, the more accurate description is politicans who follow the concept of non intervention. The concept of never intervening in foreign affairs, unless America is directly threatened, trading with everyone, and only engaging in military action after having a formal declaration of war. Something we haven't actually had since World War 2, which speakes to how loosly we play with military action today.

So all things considered, I think the best option for us, is to massively reduce our number of foreign bases, cut off our stream of foreign aide, and invest in getting our bills in order. I think we'd definitely take a short term hit as a world power, but I think the hit we'll take if we continue on the financial cliff we're heading towards is much greater. Also, I think the events in Libya, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan all show that countries are better off without us trying to implement regime change.

 

Due to your economic, monetary policy, religious, marijuana, and foreign policy beliefs - you would be classified as libertarian
your views on abortion and feminism make you alt. right / republican - I find it intriguing the issues that distinguish you involve women...

It's going to come down to how much you care about abortion and feminism - if you really are against abortion, republican...if not, libertarian all the way.

 

I disagree that criticisms of third wave feminism have to do with "female issues". When I reference third wave feminism and Social Justice activism, I'm not talking about people who want to make life better for people they view as oppressed. I'm speaking about the wave of social authoritarianism that has been on a rise the past five years. The social authoritarianism that leads to every dissenting opinion being labeled as sexist, patriarchal, transphobic, homophobic, fat shaming, ext.... It's the kind of social authoritarianism that has lead to this "outrage culture" in which everyone has to filter our their words/opinions In hopes of not inciting the public's outrage. I don't think it's a republican position at all. In fact Progressive youtubers and comedians have largely taken this position.

Third wave feminism is very much integrated into that culture. They use the shield of "gender equality", to deflect any criticism pointed at them, and denounce the need for any "male rights advocacy groups" on the basis that feminism advocates for both genders. However, we have seen time and time again that feminism fails to give any real attention to issues that affect men. Issues such as mass incarceration rates for males, increased suicide rates for males, higher high school drop out rates, higher college drop out rates, matriarchal domination of family courts/divorce legislations, the marginalization of fatherhood, male rape, the gray areas of sex, the attack on due process for men accused of rape/domestic violence.. ext.

I actually didn't realize that third wave feminism only played lip service to equality, until my Junior year of college. A group of us recognized that these issues were becoming more and more prevalent amount males, so we decided to found a group named "Men in Progress", the only male advocacy group of campus (On a campus that already included 3 women advocacy/focus groups as well as a Woman's center). We were met with resistance, and often asked by professors and students if our group was "anti women" . At first this confused me, cause I didn't understand how advocating for legitimate male issues, could ever be twisted as "anti women". However, when I really started to look around the internet, this wasn't a unique phenomenon, this was actually happening on a much worse scale at larger college campuses. Male rights advocates were often protested, not allowed to speak, and demonized as patriarchal the moment it was announced that they would be speaking on these campuses. Male advocacy groups were protested before they could even get off the ground. It was when I took the blinders off that I eventually realized, that playing lip service to men's issues, wasn't the same as actually advocating for male rights. Third wave feminist look at society as inherently patriarchal in all aspects, and as a result marginalize any issues that don't help them advance that narrative. They use "outrage culture" to label individuals who push back against these narratives as sexist.

In general my default position on social issues is that the government has no place in legislating morality, only in protecting people's rights through law. I don't particularly care about identity politics, as long as individuals are allowed to pursue their own interest. Societal restrictions are irrelevant to me, because people are perfectly within their rights to deem certain behaviors/lifestyles as unethical. As long as the government is protecting the rights of the people to perform those behaviors or live those lifestyles, then it's done it's role.


Also, I think on abortion you're incorrect if you believe that Libertarians are as one sided on that issue as Progressives or Conservatives. A very large section of libertarians hold the position that the "non aggression principle" applies to fetuses, and the government is obligated through our social contract to protect our right to life. The debate amongst Libertarians comes down to how you view "personhood". Libertarian philosophy is clear, if something is considered to have "personhood" then those rights must be protected. This is a pretty big over-simplification, but I don't feel like really writing paragraphs on this subject at the moment. However, it really sums up my mentality on both Abortion and the death penalty. I view the right to life as the most fundamental right, and as a result anything that violates that right ( By a person or the government) is considered unethical in my view.

Personally I always found it weird that people tend to be either Pro-Life/Pro-Death Penalty or Pro-Choice/Anti death penalty. To me, those positions never really made much sense, consistency wise. For me there is no distinction between when I believe a life should be protected, whether that be before it's viable outside the womb, or after it's a serial killer on death row.

However, if you're judging this by how much I care about abortion. Not much at all. I say this constantly, Social Issues are the opiate of the masses. It makes people feel good to argue with each other about social issues, because they get to go on their "moral high grounds" and demonize the other side. In reality however, social issues are largely irrelevant when compared to the things that affect our very existence as county. It amazing to me that things like the existence of the military industrial complex and the nation debt enrage people a lot less, than someone disagreeing with them about a social policy. In a lot of ways our government benefits from this fixation on social issues, because as long as social groups are given enough to be kept satisfied, they are less likely to protest the unethical policies that affect the future of this country and keep us in a state of perpetual warfare.

 

So you are against self-defence overall then, or are you advocating that a fetus has a greater right then any other person?

 

You are going to find far more republicans that agree with your critique with 3rd wave feminism and abortion than you will democrats. These ideas basically default you to a conservative politic. I think you misquoted me on 'female issues' - (I have read feminists take issue with the use of the word female instead of woman/women ironically) - that should be read as the issues that distinguish you from alt. right republican from libertarian deal directly with women: feminism and abortion. Sounds like both are very important. If you are saying a majority of libertarians are against abortion, ok - perhaps. I'd say far more republicans are. Abortion is a major republican issue - that's one of the reasons pro-lifers vote for them. That's why I asked, what is most important to you...
If abortion is more important to you than say abolishing the fed, you should vote republican.

Did a google search on libertarians and abortion and found these links:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Libertarian_Party_Abortion.htm
https://www.lp.org/platform

you see in first link libertarians calling for government to stay out of the decision. In the second link, the official party website, you see no mention of the issue and just a call for smaller government (tells me it is a very small issue for them).

Looking at these, I don't see how you could vote for a libertarian if you wanted to see someone back pro-life legislation. The libertarian stance basically indicates he or she would be against that type of legislation.

 

Neither.

The obligation to protect, provide and give aid to a fetus, baby, toddler and eventually child, is the concept of parenthood in it's entirety. Once parents make the decision to have sex, if they end up conceiving a child, it is their obligation to protect/provide for that being. Until a child reaches a certain age, they're incapable of self sustainability, and they rely on their parent or guardians to provide their means of subsistence. If a Parent refuses to provide that for a child, they're either prosecuted or stripped of their parental rights.

The only time self-defense comes into the debate for me, is in the case of Danger to the mothers health. When doctors determine that there's a reason expectation of serious harm to the mother, it's unethical to ask a mother to sacrifice her right to life, for another's.

 

Oh I at least understand what you're getting at. However, I will repeat my most common line. "Social Issues are the opiate of the masses", they just make people feel good about themselves, when they can get on their moral high grounds and condem anyone who disagrees with their social views. However, in reality, social issues are no where near as important as the things that actual threaten our very existence as country. Things like our military industrial complex, a dollars collapse, the nation debt, terrorism.. Those are things that actually keep me worried about this country.

I find it crazy that people are more outraged about a potential court ruling on a social issue, than they are when they hear Obama just approved 38 billion dollars in foreign aide to Isreal.

So any social issue, is way down my totem poll of things I care about.

If I had to rank it

1. Our foreign policy
2. The economy
3. Social Issues.

 

I would never vote for someone on the basis of "pro-life legislation". My last two votes were Ron Paul in 2012, who was a pro-life libertarian, and Bernie Sanders in 2016 who is a pro choice progressive. Their views on social issues barley factored into the equation. The goals they both shared, the end of our military industrial complex, end of our foreign aide, end of the war on drugs, end of corporate subsidies, end of corporate bailouts, the push for prosecution of the wall street bankers... ext. Those were the things that got me to vote for them.

Let me put it this way. I would never vote for a pro lifer who supported our military industrial complex. But I would vote for a pro-choicer who was against it, without hesitation.

 

There is no obligation to protect, provide and give aid to a fetus, there is no legal requirement for a person to give any of those things to any other person whether born or not.

sorry consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy.

There are no parents until after birth takes place, unless they have other born children . .from where does this obligation come, considering the reality that sexual intercourse only incurs a risk of conception and I'm afraid we do not expect people to suffer injury due to taking a risk.

I have no obligation to protect/provide for my children, I do so because I choose to, not because I am forced to .. I would be perfectly entitled to give my children up for adoption without any penalty, just as I would be perfectly entitled to kill my child if they are injuring me without my consent . .especially as pregnancy is already deemed a serious injury in law in some cases equivalent to a gun shot wound or a broken limb.

Yes, and each of those parents or guardians do so by consent, not by force and may, at any time, stop doing so simply by placing their child in the adoption system.

Wrong, the only time a parent is prosecuted is through neglect, if the parent places their child up for adoption there is no crime committed.

then you are at odds with your constitution, specifically the 14th amendments equal protection clause, the state cannot give a right to one set of people that it does not give to all people, to give the fetus the right to use another persons body without consent to achieve it's goal is a direct violation of that clause as the state does not allow that right to any other person.

You do realise that the threat to life is not the only justification for the use of self-defence, you also have the right to use self-defence in the case of serious injury and/or loss of liberty .. pregnancy certainly meets the serious injury requirements, and is already deemed as such in some circumstances.

The very fact that pro-life advocates want the unborn to be deemed as persons from conception actually increases the legality of abortion at any time, for any reason and the state having to pay for it.

 

I find it strange that abortion ranks so low on your ideology, given that it is a fight over personal autonomy and whether that person has the right to govern who, what, where and when their body is used by another without intervention from the state, and the fact that a libertarian is a person who believes in free will - the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. - what could be more adverse to free will than that person being forced to capitulate to an enforced ideology.

Abortion is not a social issue, it is a fundamental grass roots argument concerning free will.

 

I disagree the obligation does exist. What happens when someone surrenders their child up for adoption is that the parental obligations are transferred, in the same way they're transferred under a guardianship. Transferring of parental obligations, can happen numerous times over the course of a child life, but whoever is legally given those parental obligations is force to provide a certain standard of living or they are deemed unfit, or prosecuted for negligence.


Consenting to sex is consenting to any potential ramifications that come with that action. Unless you're coerced into sex , It might not be an intentional outcome, but it is an a fully expected and reasonable outcome of said action. As said action has consistently shown to be the number 1 producer of said result.

Your argument about the 14th Amendment seems like quite a stretch to me. The constitution can and has put the value of an individuals life over the rights of other individuals pretty clearly.The constitution only protects your rights as far as they don't infringe on someone else's rights, especially their right to life. There is not a single constitution protection for someone's absolute right if it infringes on another persons right to life. The fetus doesn't take a persons body, the body is given to the fetus through sexual action consented on by both parties. The consenting parties are completly aware of the possibility of pregnancy, and make that decision knowing that if pregnancy occurs a fetus will occupy that space.

Every single person who has ever lived has been given the womb as their space to occupy by the two parties having sex. So every person has been protected by the equal protection clause. It's something in which we've all experienced, as it has been applied equally to all people. Except the people who have had abortion enacted against them without their consent.

I disagree about what constitutes serious bodily harm. I don't look at pregnancy itself as offering "serious bodily harm", which is the standard I give for legalized abortion. I look at pregnancies in which a person's life is considerably at risk, as serious bodily harm. It's the same reason why we don't allow people to stab someone with a knife, if someone slabs them in the face. The aggression taking against an aggressor has to be proportional in someway to the risk that aggressor is causing. This is why we've seen numerous times that the court has held up that self defense is not an absolute ideal, and it applied very strictly on a case by case bases. There is a clear difference between a woman going through a normal pregnancy cycle ,and a women who has a fetus pressed up against her Organ, which is interfering with her blood circulation, and causing her body to literally shut down. I disagree with the notion that pregnancy constitutes "serious bodily harm". I only content that speific "at risk pregnancies" constitute serious bodily harm or serious injury. If you go to court to argue that you killed someone on the basis of "serious injury" than you must actually prove two things. One, that it wasn't an expected or potentially foreseeable outcome of your action (The sex in this case), and two that the injury is actually "serious" enough to constitute the response to it. For example, when I go out to play ball at the park, I take hits from opposing players constantly, as a result I've had sprains, injured ankles, hands, arms, bruises ext... However, this is a foreseeable outcome of the action (Playing ball in this case). And even though those injuries impeded on my ability to function normally (Loss of liberty/Serious harm), they don't reach the standard for me to use serious force/kill any of the people who have injured me on the court.

Also, I was only originally responding to your post because it seemed like you needed clarification on my stance to make a decision on my political ideology. However, if it's an abortion debate, I think it would be better served in another thread, as I generally want to see what people would classify me as.

 

I disagree with your framing of the "issue". From my perspective abortion is a fundamental grass roots argument concerning the right to life, and the protections of that right by the state. To me there is nothing more adverse to free will, than having your free will terminated, before you actually have a chance to defend your free will. The ability to act at one's own discretion is taken away, when the parents of that individual decide to strip it of it's right to life, when it has no ability to defend itself against that aggression. It's runs counter to the basic "non aggression principle".

However, that just a fundamental difference in the way we look at the central issue at hand. My arguments for/against abortion are my same exact arguments against the death penalty, because I see them as two sides of the same issue, the violation of the right to life by an aggressor.

When it comes to your first point however, on why it ranks so low it's actually pretty simple in my head. The two groups of issues I put ahead of it, are the issues that actually threaten our very existence as a country. If we continue to support our military industrial complex, not only will we be broke, but the country will always remain on the brink of World War 3. It's preferable to live in a country that actually exist, and at least protects our rights to some degree, than to have our country fall due to bad foreign/economic policies. That's why I'm significantly more likely to vote for someone due to their foreign policy/economic issues than I am due to social issues. When I view things like Abortion/Death Penalty/Gay marriage/Race Relations ext.. I view them as things we can get better on as a society, and hold ourselves to a higher standard, but I don't view them as necessarily a threat to our very existence as a country. Social Issues don't keep me up at night.

But like I said before, I'd rather this not be an abortion debate thread, as I'm more interested in how someone would overall classify my ideology.

 

Your right it has gone a little off topic .. would be interesting to continue this in the relevant forum if you are up for it.

 

I would say on certain subjects you are much more conservative than on others ..

 

I see you as an independent. You have definite Libertarian leanings on some things, while your stance on abortion is in line with the Republicans, and your views on environmental protection and the death penalty are more in line with liberals.

Just a little feedback ...

If we abolish the Federal Reserve, who would be in charge of the money supply? If your answer is Congress, I would prefer to keep the Fed. Members of Congress are (1) morons, and (2) motivated by political expediency only. You don't want a monetary policy moron motivated only by politics in charge of decisions about our money supply.

The defense budget is down to 16% of the total federal budget. My preference, rather than cutting defense by 40% as you suggest, is to maintain a strong military. But, what I think is important is what we do with the military, and this is where I part company with Hillary Clinton and a lot of Washington Republicans. I want us to stay out of other countries' civil wars, like Libya and Syria, where the outcome does not threaten us one way or the other. I want us only defending ourselves or our closest, longstanding allies. I do see Al Qaeda and ISIS as enemies that we have no choice but to deal with. But I am satisfied with the manner in which this is being done, using air power and Special Forces raids. We don't really win, but we keep our losses to a minimum this way. America does not possess the will to win, and America is led by morons, so America does not deserve the blood of our young people in this fight.

I too am very concerned about the national debt, but the truth is, America doesn't want to cut the budget. America doesn't really feel a need to cut the budget because we don't actually pay for our overspending out of our own pockets. We just put it all on the national credit card and forget about it.

You want people to get serious about the budget? Make them pay for our spending. Yeah ... raise taxes to pay for it. Then, I guarantee you, there will be a national discussion on the budget. Short of that, nobody cares, and they're not about to, either.

My two cents ...

 

I have far more trust in congress than the federal reserve. What you always have to remember about the federal reserve is that it's literally made up of wall street bankers, and their monetary policies have shown to always protect those same banks. Remember that you had people on the board of the federal reserve who literally were working for the same banks that were crashing our economy in 2008. The federal reseve without hesitation was willing to bail out their banking partners, because literally their members were all representatives of those banks. The federal reserves focus on artificially suppressing interest rates, printing up endless money, bailing out foreign economies, suppressing the true inflation rate, and protecting their banking partners deserves significant scrutiny. It's the reason why they've opposed nearly every bill that has called to audit, and have greater accountability to their actions. The federal reserve as it is now, has way to much power, with way to little accountability.


I think you have to understand that maintaining a strong military is still possible with significant cuts to the budget. Remember that we have military bases in 140 countries right now. Think about that, how much do you think we spend on maintaining those bases? We spend more on our military than all the other countries in the world combined. The Pentagon itself recommends that we can cut down at least 20% of our bases domestically, so why exactly do we need military bases in 140 countries for our defense?

The Issue with our foreign policy is that it's not only wasteful, but it also makes us less safe. The terrorism you want to fight, is a direct result of the interventionist policies we've had in the middle east. It's hard to fathom but we've been interfering in the middle east since 1953, when we overthrew the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, and implemented a western puppet dictator in the Shah. It wasn't until the Iranian's became privy to this knowledge that they finally revolted and took over the American Embassy. So our actions in the middle east have shown from the very beginning that they have consequences or what the CIA termed as "Blowback". When we had a military base on the Muslim holy land in Saudi Ariabia, that was stated specifically by Al-Queda as one of the major reasons they attacked us. I'm pretty confident in saying, that if we pull out of the middle east, and get our military bases off their land, terrorism across the globe will be down. What you have to realize is the majority of people who live in the middle east just want peace, but when they've lived decades of military occupation, they know nothing but hatred for the West.

I think Ron Paul actually summed it up perfectly in his "Imagine" add a few years ago.

[video=youtube;XKfuS6gfxPY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY[/video]

It hits home when you considered what the reality would be if China or Russia had military bases on our soil.

We can't win the war against an ideology, if our act of war is exactly what continues to grow the ideology. So unless we stop doing what we're doing we'll always be trapped in perpetual warfare.

And yes, the worst kept secret in congress is no one wants to deal with spending. The Democrats won't make any cuts to the welfare state, the Republicans won't make any cuts to the military and we're just left with an unsustainable economy.

 

I've always found it weird that people's views on issues tend to alline so perfectly with party lines. I've always felt like that's a result of people surrounding themselves by only one side of the argument when they start to affiliate themselves with a party.

From the moment I got interested in politics, I never classified myself as anything other than an independent. So I never really saw issue's in terms of conservative vs Liberal.

So when I look at Abortion, Death Penalty, Euthanasia.. I see issues of life

When I look at Wars, Foreign Aide, Nato... I see issues of foreign policy

When I look at border security, illegal immigration, Amnesty.. I see issues of immigration

I've never really looked at these issues as partisan. So that's why I think my views have never neatly aligned with a single party. I'm very confortable with saying that Progressives might be right in this area, conservatives in this area, and Libertarians in another area.

 

I had you pegged as a lefty when I saw 23 years of age. We are all born lefties, screaming for a bottle from mommy, and some of us evolve to the right. Right is the only way we can evolve politically, and most 23 year old kids I know do not have the life experience to have evolved right. I gave you the benefit of the doubt though, since you are here on a political forum, and you are presenting a challenge. African American is no guarantee that you are a lefty, but it greatly increases the odds that you are, so I will put a check mark in the lefty block with this tid bit.

Religion, "atheist", puts another check mark in the lefty column. Lefties are not conscious of how western civilization was built upon Judeo Christian values, and lefties resent Christianity because it contains the most recognized moral compass in the world, The Ten Commandments. Lefties don't want to live up to the moral standard, so they resent and fight the standard. They tend to be atheist or even worse, secular humanists.

Your abortion values are similar to mine, but I still have you pegged as a soulless-by-default lefty.

Much of the rest of your post shows that you have been exposed to either a good upbringing, or some good people who have had a good influence on you. It sounds like you are being exposed to both lefty and righty influence, which in my opinion is quite valuable. I would continue making the conscious effort that you have already been making to identify and separate your lefty and righty values.

When I was 23, I was far more to the left of where you are, completely clueless politically, which defaults as a lefty. It took me years to wake up from the liberal slumber that I was in, so I envy your huge jump start that you have of already having one eye open. Don't trust the media, don't trust me, don't trust anybody, and you will be off to a good start.

 

I know how you feel .. on here I am branded as a Liberal because I support the females choice for abortion, LGBT Rights etc, and yet on UK forums I am branded a Conservative because I supported Brexit and controlled immigration.

 

I believe there are reforms to the banking industry that should be enacted. For one, the mortgage industry should be separated from the investment industry. If either industry undergoes stress, the other is not affected. I would even entertain the idea of a ban on the sale of mortgages between banks and financial institutions. The idea is that your mortgage stays with your bank until you sell or pay it off. If we did this we would not end up in a situation where a mortgage industry bank was "too big to fail" like Fanny May, for example.

I agree that the activities of the Federal Reserve should be as transparent as possible.

Now consider this ... You mentioned 2008, so let's think about that a minute. For millions of our citizens this was a scary, difficult time as the country's economy contracted. It was particularly scary for retirees and future retirees who had spent a lifetime investing for their retirement years, as those big banks teetered on the brink. I can imagine their relief when they found out that the federal government decided to back those big banks. Now the point I am trying to make is this ... I know we all love to hate the big evil bankers, and some of that is probably valid. But, like it or not, millions of us are tied to them - our retirement funds, our mortgages, our use of credit, and even our little checking accounts are ultimately connected to them. We are also tied to them indirectly through our employers and the businesses we patronize. Point being (I was seem to find the long way to get to a point, sorry) that when we are doing well, those banks are doing well. It is not in their interest to "crash our economy". It is in their interest for our economy to chug along and to create wealth.

Those comments notwithstanding, the banking industry needs reform and diligent regulation and policing, in my opinion. And, we must not allow politicians to make changes to the banking/investment industries to score political points like they did in the 90s. Yeah, I blame the politicians, for they are the ones who enact the laws. They are buffoons who don't know anything and who care only about the political winds and the next election. I have absolutely zero confidence in the idea of turning over control of the money supply to them. Zero. They remind me of trained monkeys doing tricks for a banana, to be honest. The money supply is not the thing to entrust to amateurs, buffoons, and trained monkeys. The bankers are not perfect, and they should be policed, but at least they are professionals, and as I said before, if we sink, they sink. They may sink slower than we do, but they sink too in the end.

Sure, I agree with the Pentagon on domestic base closures. I also think the politicians waste money by demanding that the Pentagon buys stuff the military doesn't want or need. And it is the politicians (the same ones you would trust with our money supply) who are keeping those unneeded bases open for political purposes.

I don't mind having bases around the world. What I want, though, is that our military be a force for good. I want us to have good policy. I want us to use forethought. I want us to be prudent, not reckless. I want to walk softly but to carry our big stick. I want us to be able to respond to our enemies if they choose to be our enemies. But I most definitely do not want us to police the whole world, and I do not want us cavorting around just itching for another war to get into. This is a primary reason why I will not vote for Hillary Clinton this election.

My attitude is to hell with AQ, and to hell with ISIS.

There is no justification for the attacks of 9/11 which were aimed primarily at civilians. And in 2001 we were not occupying any countries, and we did have military bases in Saudi, Kuwait, and Qatar with the permission of those governments. That does not justify wiping out 3000 innocent Americans. AQ's other beef with us was our support of Israel. That support has been a fact for a long time. It is a part of our foreign policy. You do not murder 3000 civilians just because you don't like a country's foreign policy. Osama bin Laden was a rich man. There were all kinds of peaceful, legitimate avenues he could have taken to oppose the policies of his own government and our government, but instead, he took on this pseudo-religious mantle to justify mass murder.

So .... I spit on his memory. I'm glad we found him and shot him in the face and gave him to the crabs and fishes. To hell with him.

Then take the comparison to its fullest. If we weren't the "United States" of America, but, instead, we were small, weak America, the size of Kuwait, with a hostile neighbor to the north who invaded us, and.... Russia or China was a big, strong, benevolent protector, would we still not want them to put a base on our soil? You see, the comparison isn't valid. We don't want a Russian or Chinese base on our soil because we don't need a Russian or Chinese base on our soil.

We part company here, friend. Americans don't care about the ideology of some uncivilized cave dweller in North Waziristan. They can have it. What Americans care about is that they don't attack us. That is something we are fully capable of doing something about, and we have every right to protect ourselves. And yes, we do possess the ability to dissuade those who don't like us from choosing to go to war with us. Oh yes we do!

I am just as strong on defending ourselves as I am on my non-interventionism in things that are none of our business.

You don't like our foreign policy? Write a book. Go on speaking tour. Give a speech at the UN. Start a political movement. Be civilized in your opposition. But kill us? Our civilians? Nope. Then you get a drone strike. Then you get woke up in your house in the middle of the night and shot in the face by the effing U.S. Navy SEALs.

The R's and the D's really don't want to cut anything on social spending or defense. And, they really don't want to pay for our spending. Dems are all for tax increases on the rich when they know there is a branch of Congress that is controlled by R's who won't pass the tax increases. When the D's control both branches of the Congress, tax increases on the rich just sort of die on the vine. Not surprising, once one understands what's really going on there.

Cheers

 

1. I don't disagree with the concept that people had a lot to lose. However, I don't believe bailing out the bankers who literally commited fraud on wall street was the correct route. In my eyes if the banks were allowed to crash, banks that actually practiced in good faith would be utilized more. When I look at it, it seems like by bailing out the banks, all the fed did was put false confidence into banks that didn't get held accountable for their actions. I think Libertarians are 100% right when they say that only in a crony capitalist society, can bad businesses be stopped from failing after frauding the American people. I think there has to be accountability to the Federal Reserve, because as it stands with them being made up nearly entirely of wall street bankers, their policies will always benefit the banks rather than the American people. I would eliminate it entirely, but if it can't be It needs to be audited, and have all it's actions approved through congress.

2. I disagree, I think if when you have bases in 140 countries, it makes it absolutely unsustainable economically, and also has the added bonus of contributing to anti- American sentiment in these countries.

3. Let me clarify, because it seems like you're mistaking the "blowback" effect, for justification of actions. The Blowback effect, just speaks to the unindtended consequences of our foreign policy, that leads to a grow in anti-American sentiment and terrorist ideology. That doesn't mean terrorism isn't justified, it means that we have the blueprint to adjust out foreign policy in a way where we can combat the ideology through our actions. It doesn't matter if the goverments allow it, history shows that as long as America continues to trade/supply a country with money they'll continue to allow our military bases.

Also, yes we were intervening in the middle east before 9/11. In 1953 the America and the Britain, overthrew the democratically elected Iranian government and implemented our puppet dictator the Shah, who would rule over Iran for nearly two decades (Operation Cyclone) . We did this exclusively, so we could have better access to the Iranian Oil supply. However, over the next two decades, as the Iranian's became aware of the our actions, anti-American and anti-western sentiment continue to grow across the country. This is why when they overthrew the Shah during the Iranian revolution, they also took over the American Embassy. That was probally our earliest examble of intervening in the middle east, and you can see how it still has a huge impact on anti-American sentiment in the country, even until today.

2. If you don't call the gulf war an intervention, what would you call it? From where I see it, it seems like another example of us interfering in a conflict, that we have no reason to be in, and bombing the hell out of the middle east, which resulted in the death of a ton of civilians. The craziest part about it however, was that not only was it not condemned, it was literally televised and glorified by our government.

3. The idea that "America doesn't care about the ideology" of these countries in which anti-American sentiment continues to grow in misguided. We're not currently fighting a war against any country, we're fighting a war against an ideology, that keeps creating more terrorist. If we don't actually recognize the reasons that ideology exist, and try to counteract it, we'll be trapped in perpetual warfare for another 50 years.

4. No we wouldn't want them on our soil. I think you wrongly assume our bases are on foreign soil because of protection reasons. Are you telling me that 140 countries feel threatened to the point, where they all decided that they needed the American military to protect their countries? Obviously not, history shows you that countries value their own sovereignty. Our bases are on their soil primarily because we've made agreements with their governments, that we'll give them money, or employ their workers, if we're allowed to build a military base on their soil. We build military bases for geopolitics, not for humanitarian reasons.

Also, wasn't the entire point of the United Nations, and international law, so we could respond to atrocities as a collective? If we have a system in place, where countries can intervene when unethical acts of warfare are commited against a country, then what exactly necessitates consistently spending billions of dollars maintaining military bases in those countries? I don't think your logic that our military bases are a means to protect other countries, actually holds up to any scrutiny.

 

Whenever I think about national issues, from soup to nuts, I think about how the issue affects the lives of the little guys. How it affects the big guys is last on my list of concerns. So yeah, we could have taught those big banks a lesson by letting them crash and burn. And out of the ruins new banks would emerge that were better than the old ones. Great. You're probably right. My problem is that Gramma and Grampa's life savings were lost in the crash. Gramma and Grampa didn't do anything wrong. They were responsible all their lives and saved money. And now it's gone. That's my problem with not bailing out those banks.

My approach is more along these lines .... Now that we took care of Gramma and Grampa, (we bailed out their bank) let's reform the banking industry in a responsible, controlled way. Perhaps it is time to break those banks up into smaller banks. And let's separate the mortgage industry from the investment industry. There need to be viable retirement savings programs that are guaranteed and safe. I had a small IRA account when the 2007 crash hit, and it lost about 30% of its value. It was not something I was depending on, but what if it had been? I have nothing against people gambling on the stock market if they want to, but I'm not sure retirement savings accounts should be. Perhaps that discussion should be had.

Haha, I think I was right. You sound a lot like a Ron/Rand Paul Libertarian.

I share some of their beliefs, so that's not a bad thing. I just don't share all of their beliefs.

On defense, I am in favor our military being a strong force for good. I don't mind that our presence helps provide security for our friends in the world. But I hold a fairly narrow view of who are friends are, and I have expectations from our friends. For example, a trading partner is a trading partner, but it is not necessarily our friend that would be worth the blood of our young people. Some are strategic partners, but not close friends. Muslim middle-eastern countries fall into these categories, generally. I think of our friends as being nations who are most like us in their application of democratic principles in the way they govern themselves and with whom we have a history of friendly relations. In many cases they are also our strategic partners and trading partners. South Korea, Japan, and Australia as examples. And then of course, there are our most traditional friends and allies in Europe. My expectation from those countries is that they appreciate our support but that they not take advantage of it. My expectation is that they invest in their own defense rather than thinking of our friendship as their defense. Trump has made an issue of this, and he is right. The percent of GDP many of those countries spend on their own defense is well below ours, and this is simply not fair.

The United States is the only country in the world that possesses a credible capability to export our conventional military might to anywhere in the world and win the battle or war. No other country can do it like we can. No other country can support an expeditionary fighting force like we can. We truly are the "Superman" of military logistics. A very important part of that capability is those 140 bases around the world. I am comfortable with this being the case provided that our military is used as a force for good, not evil. I want our military might to act as a deterrent 99% of the time, and I want it engaged in battle only when it is absolutely necessary to defend the United States or our closest friends. The invasion of Afghanistan, the toppling of the taliban as its government, and our pursuit of Al Qaeda was, as I see it, a legitimate act of self-defense. And, it is an example of that expeditionary capability we possess being put to good use. No, we did not eradicate AQ. It still exists and similar groups. But the United States punished AQ. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, we sent them a helluva message. "You attack our people, on our shores, then there is going to be an awful price to pay." They honestly thought we would cower. Captured documents indicate that they misjudged our reaction, and they truly had no idea what was coming. This needed to be done. We had to assert ourselves, get justice, and make an example of them. It was either that or the United States could submit and allow our foreign policy to be dictated to us by mass murderers. No, we cannot eliminate an ideology. By that standard, we still haven't defeated the Nazis. But we can defend ourselves, and we can punish. We can go anywhere in the world to do it, and we have amply proven that we will do it. I've heard people say, "You didn't defeat AQ. You can't defeat an ideology." But that is not how we should judge victory. "Victory" was answering back. It was killing tens of thousands of them. It was shooting Osama bin Laden and taking his carcass with us and dumping it in the ocean. The world already knows that the U.S. is a loyal ally to its friends. Our enemies have learned that we can also be a patient, determined, and lethal enemy if they choose to make us their enemy. This is the victory.

A salute to our young men and women who defended our country.

But ....

I specifically do not want our military, covertly or overtly, interfering in the internal struggles and civil wars of countries that are no threat to us and who are not our friends. The internal affairs of Libya were none of our business, and our destruction of that country was a disaster. The internal affairs of Syria were none of our business, and the outcome of our involvement there - taking sides and providing arms and training - was a disaster that continues to this day. These are two good examples of the wrong use of our military that were perpetrated by our leaders, and I am ashamed of these actions. As president, I am confident that Hillary Clinton will continue to make these terrible choices, and my only hope is that the Congress and the American people will oppose this madness. It is a dim hope, sadly. We are on the verge of electing one of the most reckless and irresponsible warhawks ever. Not that it matters in the big picture, but I will vote against her, and I will bear no responsibility for the inevitable consequences of this mistake America is about to make.

You asked me about the Gulf War, but I'm not sure which one you meant. Did you mean the first one where we expelled the Iraqis from Kuwait, or the second one in 2003? Briefly, I thought the first one was within the spirit of the UN charter. It was conducted relatively quickly, with low casualties on our side, and it was stopped immediately when the mission was accomplished. I have mixed emotions about 2003's Operation Iraqi Freedom, but, on balance, if we could go back in time with 20/20 hindsight, I think we would choose to deal with Saddam Hussein differently than we did. What I find particularly disturbing is that our leaders - especially our president who ran on a platform that the Iraq war was the wrong war and one he was going to end ASAP - took no lessons from that war. Almost as soon as the last troops were out of Iraq, he attacked Libya. After he effectively assassinated Gaddafi and destroyed all governance in that country, then he demanded "regime change" in Syria and attacked them, albeit through proxies this time. And our president in waiting, Hillary Clinton, supported all of this. She is said to have been a driving force behind these two wars, and she supports them to this day. I honestly can't decide if she is just a moron or if she's just evil. Take your pick. Maybe she's an evil moron. Congress is also fully culpable in all of this, as are the American people for their ignorance and apathy.

I read through all of your remarks, and if you think I passed over something, tell me, and we can go back to it.

Cheers.

 

That's a very good post, Seth, and we're not a million miles apart.