The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: arachnyd on September 01, 2012, 04:12:26 PM
-
I've been working hard to understand the liberal/progressive mindset, and I find the liberal/progressive mindset is based on completely different principles than the conservative mindset. (Now I'm talking about intelligent liberals, which are the rare-ones. I dont think most liberals have a mindset, but those who are semi-intelligent (even if they are wrong) at least have a basis for the liberal/progressive theory.)
I disagree with them, but I kind of understand them- but what I'm starting to have a more difficult time understanding is "independents" and "Moderates". When I say independents, I dont just mean someone who isnt a republican or democrat. Heck, I consider myself technically an independent as I'm too conservative for the Right of Middle GOP, But I mean those who are real moderates. Who don't know who they are going to vote for each election and swing the elections. What the heck do THEY believe in... nothing?
I first thought it could be someone who is say, fiscally conservative but socially liberal, but all those people identify themselves as a fiscally conservative liberal or a libertarian. So what makes up these masses that ultimately sway elections? What do they believe in and how do they base their beliefs? How do they determine who or what they are going to vote for?
I'm just guessing they are mostly lazy people who just don't take the time to think about what they believe in, so they simply vote on this issue vs. that issue, but I haven't been able to find any resources that actually support it, but I'd love to learn more about how they think and behave.
Anyone have any resources or ideas in how to understand them, or any thoughts or ideas??
-
Give me a break already on the lazy people. I don't give a flying fig about social issues - they aren't on my radar. I am a Republican because of taxes, spending, foreign policy and strong national defense -- most of which is not in line with the loony tune libertarians.
Just worry about what you think, and what is important to you.
-
I've been working hard to understand the liberal/progressive mindset, and I find the liberal/progressive mindset is based on completely different principles than the conservative mindset. (Now I'm talking about intelligent liberals, which are the rare-ones. I dont think most liberals have a mindset, but those who are semi-intelligent (even if they are wrong) at least have a basis for the liberal/progressive theory.)
I disagree with them, but I kind of understand them- but what I'm starting to have a more difficult time understanding is "independents" and "Moderates". When I say independents, I dont just mean someone who isnt a republican or democrat. Heck, I consider myself technically an independent as I'm too conservative for the Right of Middle GOP, But I mean those who are real moderates. Who don't know who they are going to vote for each election and swing the elections. What the heck do THEY believe in... nothing?
I first thought it could be someone who is say, fiscally conservative but socially liberal, but all those people identify themselves as a fiscally conservative liberal or a libertarian. So what makes up these masses that ultimately sway elections? What do they believe in and how do they base their beliefs? How do they determine who or what they are going to vote for?
I'm just guessing they are mostly lazy people who just don't take the time to think about what they believe in, so they simply vote on this issue vs. that issue, but I haven't been able to find any resources that actually support it, but I'd love to learn more about how they think and behave.
Anyone have any resources or ideas in how to understand them, or any thoughts or ideas??
Independents: People with their own opinions of political issues, who believe no party represents them enough to affiliate. May be anywhere on the political landscape. More likely to support candidate based on number of positions with which they agree. More common in liberal Democrat states.
Moderates: People who perceive themselves to be between Left and Right on the political spectrum, more likely to vote Democrat without declaring Democrat party affiliation. Common in conservative Republican states.
-
How do they determine who or what they are going to vote for?
Call me cynical but after knocking on doors for years and years, they are the people who determine which candidate has the best slogan/commercial/B-S pitch.
Kinda like the twelve people (jury) who determine who has the best lawyer.
.
-
Call me cynical but after knocking on doors for years and years, they are the people who determine which candidate has the best slogan/commercial/B-S pitch.
Kinda like the twelve people (jury) who determine who has the best lawyer.
.
I've been on a couple of juries.
It's fortunate for the defendant on my last sitting that I paid attention to the actual evidence. His lawyer sucked.
-
Give me a break already on the lazy people. I don't give a flying fig about social issues - they aren't on my radar. I am a Republican because of taxes, spending, foreign policy and strong national defense -- most of which is not in line with the loony tune libertarians.
Just worry about what you think, and what is important to you.
I dont care about the social issues either to the disappointment of many "conservatives" but it sounds like if I asked you "why" a few times it sounds like it would boil down to some basis. Your not an independent/moderate because you believe in something.
What I think doesn't really matter. Thats the problem. The elections are won by swaying this group of people "in the middle" to one side or the other. Therefore to win an election, you have to sway the people in the middle. While this is typically done on surface issues, I was just wondering what is the basis of most of these "independent moderates" ? They control the country, yet I never hear anyone discussion who they are, what they believe, what their basis is.
I think that IS important.
-
If elections were decided by party affiliation then you wouldn't need to have them - just count up the registered democrats, republicans etc and the party with the most wins.
Party affiliation plays into donations and some primaries. That's it.
The candidate who wins is the candidate who speaks to the problems everyday civilized tax paying voters have.
To me it's the economy - gas, groceries, utilities, taxes, our municipalities are bleeding out from decades of pension and benefits abuse due to union stranglehold.... this is the stuff we care about.
Paul Ryan lied about his marathon time 20 years ago??? Are you freaking kidding me right now? Good luck with that Obama, and keep telling us how our taxes are going to make it all better while I pay $50 for 13 gallons of gas.
That's the ticket.
-
Independents: People with their own opinions of political issues, who believe no party represents them enough to affiliate. May be anywhere on the political landscape. More likely to support candidate based on number of positions with which they agree. More common in liberal Democrat states.
Moderates: People who perceive themselves to be between Left and Right on the political spectrum, more likely to vote Democrat without declaring Democrat party affiliation. Common in conservative Republican states.
What is "in between" the left and the right may be a better way of framing your question? If there aren't any bases for their beliefs, they either support a believe without officially labeling themselves, or just vote in the wind dependent on some surface issues which they think effects their daily lives, but isn't based on any core belief sets? (or once again, doesn't this mean they are too lazy to determine what they believe?) or is it status-quo preservation? (the absence of progressivism is conservatism, right? however most conservatives could arguably be towards reducing past progressivism, which would suggest moderates would be those preserving the status quo as is (moderate-conservative, or progressivism in a limited capacity (which would be a moderate-liberal)? What is in between that wouldn't follow either conservatism or progressivism as a principle?
you can call yourself a moderate, or an independent all you want. I dont care WHAT someone calls themselves (I mean I call myself an independent although I am ultra-conservative), my question is what is a moderate. What IS being between the left and the right on the political spectrum? What could someone's basis possibly be if its not progressivism or the absence thereof?
-
I dont care about the social issues either to the disappointment of many "conservatives" but it sounds like if I asked you "why" a few times it sounds like it would boil down to some basis. Your not an independent/moderate because you believe in something.
What I think doesn't really matter. Thats the problem. The elections are won by swaying this group of people "in the middle" to one side or the other. Therefore to win an election, you have to sway the people in the middle. While this is typically done on surface issues, I was just wondering what is the basis of most of these "independent moderates" ? They control the country, yet I never hear anyone discussion who they are, what they believe, what their basis is.
I think that IS important.
You are combining Independents (a political affiliation, or deliberate non-affiliation) with moderates (a political position). That is a mistaken notion.
Also, you have failed to consider "unaffiliated", "undecided", or "apathetic" as targets of campaigning.
Re-examine your premise.
-
What is "in between" the left and the right may be a better way of framing your question? If there aren't any bases for their beliefs, they either support a believe without officially labeling themselves, or just vote in the wind dependent on some surface issues which they think effects their daily lives, but isn't based on any core belief sets? (or once again, doesn't this mean they are too lazy to determine what they believe?) or is it status-quo preservation? (the absence of progressivism is conservatism, right? however most conservatives could arguably be towards reducing past progressivism, which would suggest moderates would be those preserving the status quo as is (moderate-conservative, or progressivism in a limited capacity (which would be a moderate-liberal)? What is in between that wouldn't follow either conservatism or progressivism as a principle?
you can call yourself a moderate, or an independent all you want. I dont care WHAT someone calls themselves (I mean I call myself an independent although I am ultra-conservative), my question is what is a moderate. What IS being between the left and the right on the political spectrum? What could someone's basis possibly be if its not progressivism or the absence thereof?
Are you trying to reframe a question I didn't ask, or are you asking your own question?
-
If elections were decided by party affiliation then you wouldn't need to have them - just count up the registered democrats, republicans etc and the party with the most wins.
Party affiliation plays into donations and some primaries. That's it.
The candidate who wins is the candidate who speaks to the problems everyday civilized tax paying voters have.
To me it's the economy - gas, groceries, utilities, taxes, our municipalities are bleeding out from decades of pension and benefits abuse due to union stranglehold.... this is the stuff we care about.
Paul Ryan lied about his marathon time 20 years ago??? Are you freaking kidding me right now? Good luck with that Obama, and keep telling us how our taxes are going to make it all better while I pay $50 for 13 gallons of gas.
That's the ticket.
I agree with the party affiliation. I am not a republican, but I am a conservative.
Tell me if I'm right in interpreting what your saying, but in other words these moderates have no foundational basis for their beliefs, they just vote on whatever surface issues they feel are important at the moment?
That's what I was assuming going into this, I'm just trying to make sure that understanding was correct, as I can't figure out what would be moderate between progressivism and conservatism. I CAN see moderate between Republican and Democrat because those are just two parties working to get votes, not two thought bases.
-
What is "in between" the left and the right may be a better way of framing your question? If there aren't any bases for their beliefs, they either support a believe without officially labeling themselves, or just vote in the wind dependent on some surface issues which they think effects their daily lives, but isn't based on any core belief sets? (or once again, doesn't this mean they are too lazy to determine what they believe?) or is it status-quo preservation? (the absence of progressivism is conservatism, right? however most conservatives could arguably be towards reducing past progressivism, which would suggest moderates would be those preserving the status quo as is (moderate-conservative, or progressivism in a limited capacity (which would be a moderate-liberal)? What is in between that wouldn't follow either conservatism or progressivism as a principle?
you can call yourself a moderate, or an independent all you want. I dont care WHAT someone calls themselves (I mean I call myself an independent although I am ultra-conservative), my question is what is a moderate. What IS being between the left and the right on the political spectrum? What could someone's basis possibly be if its not progressivism or the absence thereof?
Politics is not religion. This isn't an all or nothing stance. Lord help us if that were true.
-
You are combining Independents (a political affiliation, or deliberate non-affiliation) with moderates (a political position). That is a mistaken notion.
Also, you have failed to consider "unaffiliated", "undecided", or "apathetic" as targets of campaigning.
Re-examine your premise.
I said in the original post " When I say independents, I dont just mean someone who isnt a republican or democrat. " I didn't mean a "registered independent" or someone who doesn't affiliate with the parties. I stated the above quote with my intent to say I didn't mean this group of people, but maybe I used the wrong word. I meant more of the "people in play". What is their basis for beliefs?
Apathetic- Their beliefs make sense. Not who I'm trying to refer to.
unaffiliated- I wasn't inquiring about republican/democrat affiliations, so I don't mean to refer to this group either.
the Undecided- maybe that is a better term. From a philosophy standpoint, are they all "progressives" just maybe not to the extent of the democrat-progressives? or is there something I'm missing in between.
Are you trying to reframe a question I didn't ask, or are you asking your own question?
Sorry, I meant my own question. That is my question, not trying to put words in your mouth. This is the question I'm trying to ask, is if you are not a progressive or a conservative, what are you essentially. I apologize if I confused you.
-
I agree with the party affiliation. I am not a republican, but I am a conservative.
Tell me if I'm right in interpreting what your saying, but in other words these moderates have no foundational basis for their beliefs, they just vote on whatever surface issues they feel are important at the moment?
That's what I was assuming going into this, I'm just trying to make sure that understanding was correct, as I can't figure out what would be moderate between progressivism and conservatism. I CAN see moderate between Republican and Democrat because those are just two parties working to get votes, not two thought bases.
Of course there is a foundation - I work hard for all I have, pay my taxes, am a contributing member to my community, and care very deeply about issues that affect my family, my local community, and my country. If that isn't a core, solid foundation I don't know what is.
-
Of course there is a foundation - I work hard for all I have, pay my taxes, am a contributing member to my community, and care very deeply about issues that affect my family, my local community, and my country. If that isn't a core, solid foundation I don't know what is.
Those appear to all be conservative cores.. however without understanding the "why" behind the issues and community components, maybe you have some socially progressive ideation? I dont know without more details, but those are both rooted in either conservatism or progressivism, and is based on a core foundation. This means you are either fiscally conservative and socially progressive, or conservative on both fronts, which makes sense if that is your beliefs.
Are you trying to say that "moderates" have the same beliefs as you (or similar)? If so that's answering my question and I appreciate it? are you the type of person that might vote for obama? If so that does help me understand a little bit and I'd like to ask you a few more questions.
-
Those appear to all be conservative cores.. however without understanding the "why" behind the issues and community components, maybe you have some socially progressive ideation? I dont know without more details, but those are both rooted in either conservatism or progressivism, and is based on a core foundation. This means your not a "true moderate" you are either fiscally conservative and socially progressive, or conservative on both fronts.
Are you trying to say that "moderates" have the same beliefs as you (or similar)? If so thats answering my question and I appreciate it.
:rotf:
Being a very active member of my community (i.e. town) is most certainly NOT a progressive quality.
What fun this is.
-
I think the issue here is that you have preconceived notions that belief systems fit squarely into prefabricated boxes.
I am a Republican who doesn't care if a candidate supports gay unions or even abortion because that isn't in my top ten concern list. That makes me a RINO to purest conservatives - and while they have a right to their beliefs, it won't get my vote for their candidate.
Folks care about stuff the affects them personally. Trying to paint that as shallow or surface shopping is nonsense.
-
I said in the original post " When I say independents, I dont just mean someone who isnt a republican or democrat. " I didn't mean a "registered independent" or someone who doesn't affiliate with the parties. I stated the above quote with my intent to say I didn't mean this group of people, but maybe I used the wrong word. I meant more of the "people in play". What is their basis for beliefs?
Apathetic- Their beliefs make sense. Not who I'm trying to refer to.
unaffiliated- I wasn't inquiring about republican/democrat affiliations, so I don't mean to refer to this group either.
the Undecided- maybe that is a better term. From a philosophy standpoint, are they all "progressives" just maybe not to the extent of the democrat-progressives? or is there something I'm missing in between.
Sorry, I meant my own question. That is my question, not trying to put words in your mouth. This is the question I'm trying to ask, is if you are not a progressive or a conservative, what are you essentially. I apologize if I confused you.
You have postulated a false dichotomy: politics are more complex than left vs. right, Democrat vs. Republican. Some Democrats are more conservative than some Republicans on certain issues.
You also continue to make errors in labeling: Progressivism is a middle-left American political ideology, but not the only one on the left side. Conservatism is not the only right-of-center ideology.
Check your premises.
-
I am an Independent / Social Moderate. Till recently I thought I was an Independent / Social Conservative; but looking at my 'Compromising' stances on abortion (Only acceptable if it is a case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother is in danger) and gays (I don't agree with gay marriage, but I am o.k with civil unions), I found that I am actually a Social Moderate.
I am an independent because there are things on both sides I like, and there are things on both sides I do not like. I like to try and reach a compromising ground where both sides can be happy. I know that is impossible in this day and age, but there is always hope, right?
I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats through out my life time.
Recently, my votes have been going to the ones that are close with me on the social issues, domestic issues, religious issues, and foreign issues. I haven't found one that is a complete match, yet.
-
I have quite a bit of respect for someone who will take a stand. Moderates, and Independents are fence sitters, indecisive, unable to commit, unwilling to research issues and candidates.
It reminds me of a joke...
What is worse, ignorance or apathy ?
I don't know, and I don't care.
-
I am an Independent / Social Moderate. Till recently I thought I was an Independent / Social Conservative; but looking at my 'Compromising' stances on abortion (Only acceptable if it is a case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother is in danger) and gays (I don't agree with gay marriage, but I am o.k with civil unions), I found that I am actually a Social Moderate.
I am an independent because there are things on both sides I like, and there are things on both sides I do not like. I like to try and reach a compromising ground where both sides can be happy. I know that is impossible in this day and age, but there is always hope, right?
I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats through out my life time.
Recently, my votes have been going to the ones that are close with me on the social issues, domestic issues, religious issues, and foreign issues. I haven't found one that is a complete match, yet.
Me, I am a strict Constitutionalist with regard to the size and strength of the Federal government (if it ain't in the Constitution, the Federal government should not do it), a Flat Tax supporter (One man, one vote, one tax), a balanced budget supporter (don't borrow money you can't pay back, America!), a laissez-faire capitalist, and a Don't-Care-atarian on social issues.
-
Me, I am a strict Constitutionalist with regard to the size and strength of the Federal government (if it ain't in the Constitution, the Federal government should not do it), a Flat Tax supporter (One man, one vote, one tax), a balanced budget supporter (don't borrow money you can't pay back, America!), a laissez-faire capitalist, and a Don't-Care-atarian on social issues.
I too am a vast constitutionalists in regard to the same thing. We have rights, and no one should try to take them away. I also agree with the flat tax, and a balanced budget - this borrowing 40 cents for every dollar is ridiculous. We shouldn't have to borrow any money. But when you have a President who feels that the government should take care of everyone, that will happen.
I am a huge Capitalist - No one should ever try to take that away. As it is said: 'Socialism always works until you run out of other people's money.'
I have quite a bit of respect for someone who will take a stand. Moderates, and Independents are fence sitters, indecisive, unable to commit, unwilling to research issues and candidates.
It reminds me of a joke...
What is worse, ignorance or apathy ?
I don't know, and I don't care.
With being an independent you have to actually pay more attention to the issues. So you know what you like, and what not to like. In my case, I have to look at everything and figure out what can we do make it work?
-
Present company excepted.
-
I have quite a bit of respect for someone who will take a stand. Moderates, and Independents are fence sitters, indecisive, unable to commit, unwilling to research issues and candidates.
It reminds me of a joke...
What is worse, ignorance or apathy ?
I don't know, and I don't care.
Fence sitters? I do far more research on the candidates I support than probably 3/4 of the purest of pure conservatives.
[insert snob/elitist smiley here]
-
:rotf:
Being a very active member of my community (i.e. town) is most certainly NOT a progressive quality.
What fun this is.
ok, so then what makes you a moderate? If your saying your conservative on most if all fronts, then what makes you a moderate, that is my question. What ideas, thoughts, opinions, etc.?
-
I think the issue here is that you have preconceived notions that belief systems fit squarely into prefabricated boxes.
I am a Republican who doesn't care if a candidate supports gay unions or even abortion because that isn't in my top ten concern list. That makes me a RINO to purest conservatives - and while they have a right to their beliefs, it won't get my vote for their candidate.
Folks care about stuff the affects them personally. Trying to paint that as shallow or surface shopping is nonsense.
First of all, I don't know how that makes you a RINO if you don't share all the concerns... I think few do.
So do you consider yourself a moderate? (I'm not a Republican for example). I would be interested in understanding the "Whys" behind the "stuff that affects you personally". If your a Republican then it sure doesnt sound like your a moderate? Are you considering voting for Obama?
-
You have postulated a false dichotomy: politics are more complex than left vs. right, Democrat vs. Republican. Some Democrats are more conservative than some Republicans on certain issues.
You also continue to make errors in labeling: Progressivism is a middle-left American political ideology, but not the only one on the left side. Conservatism is not the only right-of-center ideology.
Check your premises.
I also don't think being a democrat or republican has anything to do with ideology. This is the point of my post? I am checking my premises. I'm asking for input and direction... asking for insights and information.... Thats why I posted. Of course I don't "know it all" or I wouldn't be asking to understand it better. So please enlighten me as that is my purpose of asking this question.
-
I have quite a bit of respect for someone who will take a stand. Moderates, and Independents are fence sitters, indecisive, unable to commit, unwilling to research issues and candidates.
It reminds me of a joke...
What is worse, ignorance or apathy ?
I don't know, and I don't care.
All I'd add is for the most part the true Moderate and/or Independent field is extremely small. The overall Moderate and/or Independent field is small and IMHO is over emphasized and exaggerated in importance. It consist of the truly Independent/moderate , the wishy washy what's in it for me mindset and the which way the political winds blowing folks and the"it's cool to be Independent/moderate mindset" .
-
I am an Independent / Social Moderate. Till recently I thought I was an Independent / Social Conservative; but looking at my 'Compromising' stances on abortion (Only acceptable if it is a case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother is in danger) and gays (I don't agree with gay marriage, but I am o.k with civil unions), I found that I am actually a Social Moderate.
I am an independent because there are things on both sides I like, and there are things on both sides I do not like. I like to try and reach a compromising ground where both sides can be happy. I know that is impossible in this day and age, but there is always hope, right?
I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats through out my life time.
Recently, my votes have been going to the ones that are close with me on the social issues, domestic issues, religious issues, and foreign issues. I haven't found one that is a complete match, yet.
I am not trying to push any ideas or thoughts, but since you consider yourself a moderate I honestly want to understand (To understand the progressive agenda for example I was active reading books and talking to many people from that agenda- not debating or arguing, but honestly trying to understand).
I'm doing the same thing now. So as a moderate, I want to ask you "Why"? You can PM me if you don't feel comfortable posting it onhere, but you say there are things you like and don't like on both sides, and I'd love to know "what" and "why". Is it because you are paying attention to only the surface issues, and how it directly affects you? or is there an underlying reason you believe or don't believe them? Do they change dependent on your status in life? or do you have a set of core beliefs and it just depends which candidate is better aligned with your core beliefs? What is your basis for your fiscal beliefs- or do you not care? Why do you have the view you do about gays and abortion?
You can be "for" or "against" an issue for different reasons- for example, you can be FOR gay marriage for ultraconservative rationale, or against it for conservative rationale. You can be for it for progressive reasons, or against it for progressive reasons. I'm sure there could be other ideals as well, which is what I'm seeking to understand.
I'm not trying to call people names or have surface discussions, I'm trying to understand people and their bases.
-
First of all, I don't know how that makes you a RINO if you don't share all the concerns... I think few do.
So do you consider yourself a moderate? (I'm not a Republican for example). I would be interested in understanding the "Whys" behind the "stuff that affects you personally". If your a Republican then it sure doesnt sound like your a moderate? Are you considering voting for Obama?
I am a Republican. I am of the belief that the far right, "true conservatives" do not own the party. I believe using the word RINO is the height of political immaturity.
But that's just me.
-
Here is the thing,there are social conservatives that mostly care about those issues and there are fiscal conservatives that mostly care about those with a bunch in between.
Any and all can call the others moderates or RINOs but in the long run that really serves no point as the alternative is usually a social liberal and since McGovern a breath away from economic socialist.
If Romney wins do I expect him to do every last thing I would wish for?
No,that is the nature of politics and will accept happily every thing I do want.
That is not being a moderate,to me it is being a pragmatist.
-
I am not trying to push any ideas or thoughts, but since you consider yourself a moderate I honestly want to understand (To understand the progressive agenda for example I was active reading books and talking to many people from that agenda- not debating or arguing, but honestly trying to understand).
I'm doing the same thing now. So as a moderate, I want to ask you "Why"? You can PM me if you don't feel comfortable posting it onhere, but you say there are things you like and don't like on both sides, and I'd love to know "what" and "why". Is it because you are paying attention to only the surface issues, and how it directly affects you? or is there an underlying reason you believe or don't believe them? Do they change dependent on your status in life? or do you have a set of core beliefs and it just depends which candidate is better aligned with your core beliefs? What is your basis for your fiscal beliefs- or do you not care? Why do you have the view you do about gays and abortion?
You can be "for" or "against" an issue for different reasons- for example, you can be FOR gay marriage for ultraconservative rationale, or against it for conservative rationale. You can be for it for progressive reasons, or against it for progressive reasons. I'm sure there could be other ideals as well, which is what I'm seeking to understand.
I'm not trying to call people names or have surface discussions, I'm trying to understand people and their bases.
Moderate: A person who is a centrist. Not extreme to the left or extreme to the right. Someone who looks for common ground in the middle.
I am a against gay marriage for religious reason, but for civil unions for compromising reasons.
I against Abortions for religious reasons, but for it in cases of rape and incest for mental trauma reasons; and for it if the mothers life is in danger for continuance of life reasons.
Having an abortion just because it interferes with your lifestyle, or because you want to is murder...And those involved should be tried for such.
obama and most liberals are for abortions on demand (as well as euthanasia). That is a crime in the simplest sense.
-
Moderate: A person who is a centrist. Not extreme to the left or extreme to the right. Someone who looks for common ground in the middle.
I am a against gay marriage for religious reason, but for civil unions for compromising reasons.
I against Abortions for religious reasons, but for it in cases of rape and incest for mental trauma reasons; and for it if the mothers life is in danger for continuance of life reasons.
Having an abortion just because it interferes with your lifestyle, or because you want to is murder...And those involved should be tried for such.
obama and most liberals are for abortions on demand (as well as euthanasia). That is a crime in the simplest sense.
I guess I'm confused about what is common ground. Like on this forum two people could argue about whether gay marriage is right or not (an issue), and they could both support their sides with conservative ideals. I have no problem with disagreement- I like conversation about disagreement, and think disagreement is great....
But even if you were FOR gay marriage because of conservative ideals for example, could you support the progressive rationale for gay marriage? and vice versus? Or do people simply look at it from an issue-standpoint. (and if they look at it just on the surface issues, is it because they have no underlying purpose? What is the "why" behind their belief?)
So I ask the "why". Your against gay marriage for traditionally socially conservative reasons. right? Your against Abortions for traditionally conservative reasons right? Which part of those align with a moderate?
I could give you conservative reasons for gay marriage and for abortions as well.
So I ask for clarification, are you saying a moderate is simply someone who only cares about surface issues and doesn't take the time to know the "why" behind it, is it someone who is mainly one belief but comes to different conclusions about issues and therefore votes on the issues not the underlying basis for the issues, someone who is maybe fiscally on side and socially the other, and decides which is more important election-by-election? or is there a different basis to their beliefs that I'm missing?
-
I guess I'm confused about what is common ground. Like on this forum two people could argue about whether gay marriage is right or not (an issue), and they could both support their sides with conservative ideals. I have no problem with disagreement- I like conversation about disagreement, and think disagreement is great....
But even if you were FOR gay marriage because of conservative ideals for example, could you support the progressive rationale for gay marriage? and vice versus? Or do people simply look at it from an issue-standpoint. (and if they look at it just on the surface issues, is it because they have no underlying purpose? What is the "why" behind their belief?)
So I ask the "why". Your against gay marriage for traditionally socially conservative reasons. right? Your against Abortions for traditionally conservative reasons right? Which part of those align with a moderate?
I could give you conservative reasons for gay marriage and for abortions as well.
So I ask for clarification, are you saying a moderate is simply someone who only cares about surface issues and doesn't take the time to know the "why" behind it, is it someone who is mainly one belief but comes to different conclusions about issues and therefore votes on the issues not the underlying basis for the issues, someone who is maybe fiscally on side and socially the other, and decides which is more important election-by-election? or is there a different basis to their beliefs that I'm missing?
I have found talking to numerous liberals that they are more in agreement with me when I say that I am against gay marriage but for civil unions. Even some of my gay friends are glad to hear that I am for some sort of union and not completely shutting it out. That is a common ground.
Some, not all, liberals are also in agreement with me when I say that I am against abortion except for the reasons I mentioned previously. That is a common ground.
The main point of a moderate, and me being an independent is that I see things on both sides that are good, and things on both sides that are bad (like No Child Left Behind by the Repubs). Common ground is to compromise.
It is the same thing when people talk about presidents becoming centrist. They become moderates and work with who they have in congress. I feel if obama would have done that, he would have gotten a lot more done. But he refuses to compromise. It has to be his way or the highway. You will never get anywhere without compromising.
-
The weak compromise. Winners do it their way.
:whistling:
-
The weak compromise. Winners do it their way.
:whistling:
Hey :killemall: :lmao: If that was the case, then obama would have gotten more done :rotf:
That makes me think of the nice guy finishing last :-)
-
That makes me think of the nice guy finishing last :-)
That's what she said!
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
-
That's what she said!
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
:lmao: :rotf: :rofl:
-
That's what she said!
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
Bad dog!
:cheersmate: :lmao: :rotf:
-
Hey :killemall: :lmao: If that was the case, then obama would have gotten more done :rotf:
That makes me think of the nice guy finishing last :-)
Prick!
You read that wrong and you know it!
:tongue:
-
Prick!
You read that wrong and you know it!
:tongue:
:whistling:
-
I have found talking to numerous liberals that they are more in agreement with me when I say that I am against gay marriage but for civil unions. Even some of my gay friends are glad to hear that I am for some sort of union and not completely shutting it out. That is a common ground.
Some, not all, liberals are also in agreement with me when I say that I am against abortion except for the reasons I mentioned previously. That is a common ground.
The main point of a moderate, and me being an independent is that I see things on both sides that are good, and things on both sides that are bad (like No Child Left Behind by the Repubs). Common ground is to compromise.
It is the same thing when people talk about presidents becoming centrist. They become moderates and work with who they have in congress. I feel if obama would have done that, he would have gotten a lot more done. But he refuses to compromise. It has to be his way or the highway. You will never get anywhere without compromising.
Doesn't the "Why" matter? Or am I the only one that things the why is more important than the "what"? I mean a liberal and a conservative who agree to an issue often do so for different reasons, right?
So even if someone finds themselves agreeing on specific issues falling "in the middle", their rationale for those beliefs, or the "why" as I keep asking, would seem to root them in one type of ideaology or another.
I mean I disagree with the GOP on more things than I agree with, but all for conservative rationale. I have a friend who is a liberal and can agree with me on a lot of things, but its all from liberal rationale...
Thats where I continue to be confused... I mean your talking about issues here but not talking about the "why" behind the issues, and when asking the "why" behind the issues, I'm honestly trying to figure out how a moderate stands... or do they not think about the "why" behind the issues, in which case one of my initial suggestions was that they don't think about the reasons, they just worry about the surface issues.
Thats why I said I don't want to look at this as republican vs. democrat, because I understand being an independent... republican and democrats are parties, not bases for beliefs (although they tend to follow certain ideologies), but what is the beliefs behind a so-called moderate who can swing from one party to the next election-to-election. What is the "why" behind their issues?
There have been a few people in this post which have claimed to be moderates. Thats good. I dont want to change your beliefs or anything, I just want to know the "why" behind the issues.
(for example, I am a constitutional conservative, and due to my christian beliefs I am strongly against abortion, but legally I am not against abortion for the simple fact that currently in the constitution, rights only apply to citizens, and an unborn baby is not yet a citizen, so has no rights. While a socially conservative individual can argue that life is a god-given right, and therefore we have a necessary need to preserve it even for those who are not citizens- and that is a valid argument- a fiscally conservative basis may conflict with it by saying The government shouldn't spend money in ways not explicitly set up in the constitution for necessary government spending, or argue individual rights - both also a valid argument). I know I made this overly simplistic, but the point I'm trying to make is that whether your for or against an issue, there has to be a reason "why" and if the reason "why" isn't what most people believe is right-leaning or left-leaning, then what is it? And if it IS "right leaning" or "left leaning" then what makes them really a moderate?
-
:whistling:
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
-
Doesn't the "Why" matter? Or am I the only one that things the why is more important than the "what"?
Maybe not the only one, but you are in a very small minority.
"It's not who you are underneath. It's what you do that defines you."
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GurL-EflShY[/youtube]
-
What you do is a continuum that flows inexorably from what you say...
The hierarchy is
Thoughts lingered upon beget words
Words repeated beget actions
Actions form habits
Habits control your destiny.
In order to change your destiny you must change your mind, your thoughts, and to do that, you must change what goes into your mind.
-
Doesn't the "Why" matter? Or am I the only one that things the why is more important than the "what"? I mean a liberal and a conservative who agree to an issue often do so for different reasons, right?
So even if someone finds themselves agreeing on specific issues falling "in the middle", their rationale for those beliefs, or the "why" as I keep asking, would seem to root them in one type of ideaology or another.
I mean I disagree with the GOP on more things than I agree with, but all for conservative rationale. I have a friend who is a liberal and can agree with me on a lot of things, but its all from liberal rationale...
Thats where I continue to be confused... I mean your talking about issues here but not talking about the "why" behind the issues, and when asking the "why" behind the issues, I'm honestly trying to figure out how a moderate stands... or do they not think about the "why" behind the issues, in which case one of my initial suggestions was that they don't think about the reasons, they just worry about the surface issues.
Thats why I said I don't want to look at this as republican vs. democrat, because I understand being an independent... republican and democrats are parties, not bases for beliefs (although they tend to follow certain ideologies), but what is the beliefs behind a so-called moderate who can swing from one party to the next election-to-election. What is the "why" behind their issues?
There have been a few people in this post which have claimed to be moderates. Thats good. I dont want to change your beliefs or anything, I just want to know the "why" behind the issues.
(for example, I am a constitutional conservative, and due to my christian beliefs I am strongly against abortion, but legally I am not against abortion for the simple fact that currently in the constitution, rights only apply to citizens, and an unborn baby is not yet a citizen, so has no rights. While a socially conservative individual can argue that life is a god-given right, and therefore we have a necessary need to preserve it even for those who are not citizens- and that is a valid argument- a fiscally conservative basis may conflict with it by saying The government shouldn't spend money in ways not explicitly set up in the constitution for necessary government spending, or argue individual rights - both also a valid argument). I know I made this overly simplistic, but the point I'm trying to make is that whether your for or against an issue, there has to be a reason "why" and if the reason "why" isn't what most people believe is right-leaning or left-leaning, then what is it? And if it IS "right leaning" or "left leaning" then what makes them really a moderate?
I think the best way to describe it is to simply say that you have to give some get some. You will find that people can compromise more if they agree to let something go to gain something. What makes people a moderate is knowing that, and acting on it. All a moderate really is, is just another name for a centrist.
Look here -> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=moderate
-
Doesn't the "Why" matter? Or am I the only one that things the why is more important than the "what"? I mean a liberal and a conservative who agree to an issue often do so for different reasons, right?
So even if someone finds themselves agreeing on specific issues falling "in the middle", their rationale for those beliefs, or the "why" as I keep asking, would seem to root them in one type of ideaology or another.
I mean I disagree with the GOP on more things than I agree with, but all for conservative rationale. I have a friend who is a liberal and can agree with me on a lot of things, but its all from liberal rationale...
Thats where I continue to be confused... I mean your talking about issues here but not talking about the "why" behind the issues, and when asking the "why" behind the issues, I'm honestly trying to figure out how a moderate stands... or do they not think about the "why" behind the issues, in which case one of my initial suggestions was that they don't think about the reasons, they just worry about the surface issues.
Thats why I said I don't want to look at this as republican vs. democrat, because I understand being an independent... republican and democrats are parties, not bases for beliefs (although they tend to follow certain ideologies), but what is the beliefs behind a so-called moderate who can swing from one party to the next election-to-election. What is the "why" behind their issues?
There have been a few people in this post which have claimed to be moderates. Thats good. I dont want to change your beliefs or anything, I just want to know the "why" behind the issues.
(for example, I am a constitutional conservative, and due to my christian beliefs I am strongly against abortion, but legally I am not against abortion for the simple fact that currently in the constitution, rights only apply to citizens, and an unborn baby is not yet a citizen, so has no rights. While a socially conservative individual can argue that life is a god-given right, and therefore we have a necessary need to preserve it even for those who are not citizens- and that is a valid argument- a fiscally conservative basis may conflict with it by saying The government shouldn't spend money in ways not explicitly set up in the constitution for necessary government spending, or argue individual rights - both also a valid argument). I know I made this overly simplistic, but the point I'm trying to make is that whether your for or against an issue, there has to be a reason "why" and if the reason "why" isn't what most people believe is right-leaning or left-leaning, then what is it? And if it IS "right leaning" or "left leaning" then what makes them really a moderate?
I have read all your "questions" with a level of curious aloofness but now you have seemed to tip your hand and are what I suspected.
This to me is an exercise in gotcha trolling as regardless of whether one considers an unborn child a person and having enumerated rights (show me where in the Constitution they are not) the assertion that Roe v Wade somehow adhered to conservative Constitutional theory is absurd.
It is the equivalent of saying that since the Constitution does not specifically state that theft is illegal all laws pertaining to that issue do not apply.
No court would rule as thus but essentially to overturn state legislation the SCOTUS did just that.
Understanding however that despite a flawed decision it nevertheless is now the accepted and enforced law of the land does not make one a moderate,however stating what I bolded is far from any conservative principle I know of.
-
I said in the original post " When I say independents, I dont just mean someone who isnt a republican or democrat. " I didn't mean a "registered independent" or someone who doesn't affiliate with the parties. I stated the above quote with my intent to say I didn't mean this group of people, but maybe I used the wrong word. I meant more of the "people in play". What is their basis for beliefs?
Apathetic- Their beliefs make sense. Not who I'm trying to refer to.
unaffiliated- I wasn't inquiring about republican/democrat affiliations, so I don't mean to refer to this group either.
the Undecided- maybe that is a better term. From a philosophy standpoint, are they all "progressives" just maybe not to the extent of the democrat-progressives? or is there something I'm missing in between.
You're problem is that you're trying to ask these questions...and seem to look at politics as if it's a zero sum game or something conducted in a vacuum.
It's a typical mistake by college students that use Conservative websites to help write a poll-sci paper and Liberals.
-
Maybe not the only one, but you are in a very small minority.
"It's not who you are underneath. It's what you do that defines you."
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GurL-EflShY[/youtube]
I guess I disagree with Batman! haha ;) or maybe its considering the context of a quote that matters?
I think its much more important why you believe something than if you believe something, because if you believe something for no reason, then why believe it anyway? because its "easy" or "Just because"?
I think the biggest problem with a lot of politics talk is it is just about surface issues, but two people can fight forever about a surface issues if they never take the time to look into "why" they believe it. In contract negotiations for example, you determine what does each side truly want and why, and see if you can craft a contract that is mutually beneficial, that satisfies both groups. I've found in politics when you get to the core reasons people believe things, often you can agree to a conclusion or decision. In psychology, business, and even biology you see this from a day-to-day basis.
Quite frankly it scares me quite a bit that people would just vote on something because of some arbitrary thought without someone thinking about why they believe it, and I am still in denial that most people have opinions on things with no basis. thats like me saying I hate white people just because they are white? or I want to vote for an education bill just because it means my paycheck will go up? That doesn't scare anyone else? I do consider that superficiality at its finest, and it is the scariest thing I've ever heard, HONESTLY.
Is it true that you and maybe a few other people believe the what is more important than the "Why"? If so I am truly astonished, but its good to know I guess.... but then I'd also wonder "why" is the "why" not important? (I know thats an odd question)
I'm truly intrigued and blown away by the way, and now I'm eager to learn more.
-
I guess I disagree with Batman! haha ;) or maybe its considering the context of a quote that matters?
I think its much more important why you believe something than if you believe something, because if you believe something for no reason, then why believe it anyway? because its "easy" or "Just because"?
I think the biggest problem with a lot of politics talk is it is just about surface issues, but two people can fight forever about a surface issues if they never take the time to look into "why" they believe it. In contract negotiations for example, you determine what does each side truly want and why, and see if you can craft a contract that is mutually beneficial, that satisfies both groups. I've found in politics when you get to the core reasons people believe things, often you can agree to a conclusion or decision. In psychology, business, and even biology you see this from a day-to-day basis.
Quite frankly it scares me quite a bit that people would just vote on something because of some arbitrary thought without someone thinking about why they believe it, and I am still in denial that most people have opinions on things with no basis. thats like me saying I hate white people just because they are white? or I want to vote for an education bill just because it means my paycheck will go up? That doesn't scare anyone else? I do consider that superficiality at its finest, and it is the scariest thing I've ever heard, HONESTLY.
Is it true that you and maybe a few other people believe the what is more important than the "Why"? If so I am truly astonished, but its good to know I guess.... but then I'd also wonder "why" is the "why" not important? (I know thats an odd question)
I'm truly intrigued and blown away by the way, and now I'm eager to learn more.
What in the what?
When do I get to vote on an education bill? Imagine if I could what those amendments to that bill would look like?
I vote for the candidate who is strong on the issues that I care about. Good luck saving the world looking for the purest crap. You let me know how that works out for you.