I used to be moderate leaning towards conservative, but through more research and time invested into things, I've become very conservative. Where do you stand?
I don't find labels useful. People tend to assume that if you are liberal or conservative, you believe in a certain set of things. I have my own opinions on issues and find agreement and disagreement with both liberals and conservatives.
I don't think that people who work more than one job and still can't support their family without assistance are lazy. I don't think people who are worth $billions work harder than working class people. I think they make their money dishonestly by doing evil things. The system benefits the well connected and well to do and rapes those who have little. In other words, the system is FUBAR. Were the people of Michigan lazy for becoming unemployed when corporations moved their jobs off shore? Was it due to laziness that their once prosperous neighborhoods turned into slums? Are people who go bankrupt and lose everything due to circumstances beyond their control like major illness lazy? 65% of all bankruptcies are due to medical bills. Why do banks receive $1000 per month of our tax money for every home they foreclose upon and keep empty while there are far more empty homes than there are homeless? Why not put homeless in empty houses and pay THEM, instead of banks, $1000 per month?
I am all in favor of social safety nets to help people to get back on their feet. I'm in favor of universal health care and affordable education. This country was prosperous until people like Reagan ushered in neoliberalism and began deregulating and privatizing. This country was prosperous under Eisenhower era tax policy. 70% of countries have a more equal income distribution than the U. S. The bottom 50% of Americans combined, earn less than 13% of the nation's income. Are 50% of Americans lazy or are they just getting screwed? People want opportunity, not "free stuff".
I am 1000% opposed to U. S. imperialism and all the horrors it causes. The U. S. has no right to monopolize the earth's resources. If we ended our insane foreign policy, we could cut military spending and use the money to benefit this country. But if we did that, the oligarchs wouldn't get richer.
I place a high value on liberty. For that reason, I oppose the war on drugs and gun control schemes. I support women's rights and oppose discrimination. I strongly support the Bill of Rights and, therefore, oppose such things as mandatory vaccinations; civil forfeiture; no knock raids; stop and frisk; searches of people's cars, homes and persons without a warrant; monitoring of electronic communications without a warrant; facial recognition cameras; and secret no-fly lists.
I support free speech regardless of whom it offends. I support separation of church and state. I absolutely oppose Israeli control over our government and tax dollars being sent Israel.
I think the government should be kept out of individual's lives as much as possible, but I think it should regulate the shit out of major corporations and industries. Corporations are not people and are not entitled to the same legal protections. Fuck tax breaks, tax credits and tax loopholes for those major corporations and industries and wealthy individuals who can hide their wealth off shore to keep from paying taxes that could benefit this country. Companies who externalize their costs by polluting should be charged the full cost of their actions. All those things equal socialism for corporations while citizens get no such beneficial treatment.
So how am I defined by those views? Who can be defined by a label?
Voted "Conservative," but I always, when I see this kind of question, have to put an asterisk over it. My conservatism is not what Americans typically call conservative. Because what Americans call conservative is, historically speaking, not conservatism but is, rather, classical liberalism.
My conservatism, which for convenience I will call classical or Tory conservatism, traces its intellectual pedigree through Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas - and probably most importantly - the 18th century British statesman and political philosopher, Edmund Burke, and also the British Prime Minsiters Benjamin Disraeli and Lord Salisbury.
In an American context, it shows up in the thinking of Alexander Hamilton and then - almost by historical accident, the American Whig Party, and the former Whig turned Republican, Abraham Lincoln. (It is a great historical "what if" as to what the GOP would have looked like had Lincoln lived and the radical Republicans not gained the ascendancy.)
Classical conservatives believe, unlike American conservatives and liberals, that the purpose of government is to answer Aristotle's first questions of politics, "How ought we to live? What kind of a people do we wish to be?"
To which classical conservatives respond that the purpose of government is to nurture civic virtue. To reinforce those habits and customs, legitimized by historical usage over time, that make a harmonious and stable social order possible.
Classical conservatives believe in the free market as a tool, rather than an end in itself. They recognize that it is a powerful wealth creator, efficient to some degree, and a guard against an overweening state. However, they believe, as Burke said, "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please. We ought see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations."
Consequently, classical conservatives support an ameliorative welfare state. (The welfare state was invented by two conservatives - Disraeli and Bismarck.) The purpose such a welfare state being to reconcile the public to the dynamics of a free market economy by alleviating the negative impact of old age, illness and temporary unemployment.
In this they differ from American liberals who see the welfare state as a lever to engineer social transformation. That is, to restructure society according to some abstract a priori vision. Classical conservatives argue that such a vision is ultimately going to be oversimple and will lead to adverse and unintended consequences.
Tories believe that political philosophy should take as it starting point not human reason, but human nature. That political rights are developed through historical usage, and are not abstract pre-existing. Which is to say that they don't deny that such abstract rights exist. Merely that they are of no practical benefit or use in civil society and law. As Burke put it, "Their abstract perfection is their practical defect."
In all this, then, classical conservatives tend to see less difference between American conservatives and liberals than they see between themselves. Albeit that classical conservatives are more likely to align with their American counterparts insofar as American liberals tend to be more deeply hostile to custom and tradition.
@TITAN-IDC That's bs. Honor killings are not legal in iran. I am not saying they have never happened, but india, Pakistan, turkey and many other places have a far higher incident than iran. I find it particularly funny coming from a Pakistani woman. We still haven't forgotten about quandeel balouch!
@Glue-Sniffer Honour killings are LEGAL in Iran. And I hate how Muslims are indenial. They care about their country's image more than living breathing human beings. How can a doctor treat his patient without telling him about his disease? You can be patriotic and criticise your country at the same time.
Glue sniffing iran muslims are in denial about a lot of things. Including glue sniffing.. Does to your brain..😨 I posted link proving its legal and muslims who have died.
In Iran, honor killings occur primarily among tribal minority groups, such as Kurdish, Arab, Lori, Baluchi, and Turkish-speaking tribes, while honor-related crimes are not a tradition among Persians who are generally less socially conservative. Honor killings are particularly prevalent in the provinces of Kordistan and Ilam, Iran. Discriminatory family laws, articles in the Criminal Code that show leniency towards honor killings, and a strongly male dominated society have been cited as causes of honor killings in Iran. It was reported that in 2001, 565 women lost their lives in honor-related crimes in Ilam, of which 375 were reportedly staged as self-immolation. In 2008, self-immolation, "occurred in all the areas of Kurdish settlement (in Iran), where it was more common than in other parts of Iran".[
Neither!!! There's always more tgan Two Options!!! Your Truth, Their Truth, then The Truth... Anyone that says just one option is a Limited Closed Minded Person!!!
As in Closed Minded? I don't think that's true of everyone. I know probably more are than aren't especially as of recent years. But there are those like me than can havecan open minded political conversation and be swayed.
even though trump is anti america after they refused his families eugenical status and bullied him all his life. grandfather just a lowly pimp who had to seek asylum and none of them too bright headed.
I was raised conservative and bought into it all because of the religious b. s. After I abandoned religion, I discovered libertarians and clung onto it, thinking it was definitely the way to go. Then I got a job and realized how ridiculously untrustworthy large businesses were and became liberal. And, after some 'research' realized how entirely conservatives depend on insecure, naive people like I was to survive, and figured out that democrats are actually two parties and republicans are a financially parasitic apolitical entity that is forcing democrats to be one party.
It really has nothing to do with political leanings - it's simple math. There is no benefit of republican politicians to anyone who doesn't have over a billion in an offshore account. Not only do we not need republicans, their only purpose is to redirect as much of our tax money to these offshore accounts as possible. They are hurting us - not maliciously (though, they are happy to employ malicious methods, as long as it works), but just because our quality of life is in the way of their having more money. Like any tick or mosquito, they need to be extracted from our political system entirely. Give the democrats the space they need to separate into their conservative and liberal sub-components, and things can become vastly improved almost instantly. It's just such a train wreck to back out of at the moment, though..
Why the would i want to give everything away and bitch when things aren't handed to me or want no borders or become pussified or believe everything that the media says which most of the time been cut and pasted to fit what they want or spew info out that they have no idea about. I want to keep everything i earn l, earn everything i want and do my own research about anything and i want borders and i dont believe in fairies and unicorns and peace love and happiness and i piss standing up and not confussed if im a male or female.
That's hard for me to say. Socially I'm conservative, however that is a conservative view that pertains to me only. I would say I'm pretty libertarian in most respects (though I think we do need some rules while libertarians seem to think we can just be anarchist and still function (a notion that I find to be laughable)) as I think people should be allowed to live their lives as they see fit as long as they are not preventing others from doing the same. However from a political standpoint (as well as many other aspects in my life) I do not trust myself nor do I particularly trust others to know that is best for anyone so I go by data. That said, most data, at the moment, does show that a more conservative view is preferable to the current progressive/democrat one. Socialism and welfare states fail, fewer business restrictions means a better economy and better society etc. So I suppose I would be conservative in deed and libertarian in principles (if that makes sense).
@daftwous Data. Their is just data. When you look at data that spans 100 years and it shows that raising taxes on the rich has no positive impact, that the US government only gets 17% of the GDP no matter what (the rich find loopholes stop investing etc. in order to avoid paying) that's not a claim, that's just data. When you look at history and see every single socialist system fail every single time without a single exception, that's just data their is no spin. So data, that's what I look at.
I’m always going to be in between because I will accept or reject any idea based on evidence or calm discussion. I will not let emption or political party platform (which changes every year) control how I view myself.
I think there’s good qualities to both sides but that extremism on both sides is wrong. Also I agree with Jordan Peterson who says liberals are good at innovating and conservatives are good at managing & you need both to run a country.
Libertarian. I am very much a "don't care what consenting adults do" person and think that government should be limited to protecting people and their property and little else. That currently seems to be considered as part of the conservative wing, but to me both labels are just different flavors on the authoritarian side. Currently the :"liberals" seem to be more authoritarian, with their socialism pushes, gun-grabbing, and SJWism, but most conservatives are still on that side of the divide in my opinion.
Conservative and liberal are such vague words that mean different things in different places. Liberal means pro-civil liberties and pro-capitalism (expect in the US where liberal just means everything that isn't right of the "center")
"Economically conservative" somehow means "capitalism" in the US when actually, capitalism is economic liberalism. In most other places "economic conservatism" would mean something with more government control.
I'm socially liberal/proggressive/whatthefuckever and economically mixed, pro social democracy with a mix of capitalism and socialism.
I am a nationalist instead of a globalist. A progressive instead of a conservative (Which means i rather strive to something better than keep things as they are, but the direction i push to is the opposite of the marxist progressives so i seem conservative). A capitalist instead of a communist. A democrat instead of a theocrat. Liberal instead of Authoritarian.
So in the modern day spectrum that makes me align most with the conservatives which means i voted that in the poll.
I began as a Conservative, but then I realized that some of the things I was helping to "conserve" weren't necessarily things that were good for all of Americans. So I slowly began reevaluating my hang-ups and now, with the exception of the Second Amendment, I'm pretty Liberal.
In hindsight, I was liberal as a teenager (calling myself a feminist & ranting about sexism, etc) just to appeal to girls I liked who had such views. But since then, I’ve developed a sense of both pride and logic (& misanthropy due to growing liberalism around me), which naturally led me to becoming the conservative I am 👌🏻
@Hanzyxw you see? he loves me😊and i love him sooooo much❤❤❤please don't bother us anymore. cos we're madly in love❤find yourself a another man who doesn't love any girl😉
Haha he didn’t said your name yet by the way You sounds like crazy woman if he is smart he will keep single and not involved with ya bye I have better stuff to do
Very liberal. Essentially the conflict between them is about community/liberalism vs individuality/conservatism. I call on the side of we are better and stronger together and while I understand that some level is self service is requisite for survival I feel that the good of many outweighs the needs of the one.
... Neither. I'm smart enough to realize that the term "conservative," and "liberal," as well as "centrist," "moderate," "left," and "right" are erroneous and stupid and no one should use them, is the only real answer here. They tell you nothing about any person's ability to use reason, logic, or evidence to solve problems and offer complex solutions to issues that face our selves and our world.
Anyone who uses these labels to label themselves is doing so foolishly. That is all.
I side with liberals due to the fact they anger me less and are the least hypocritical.
As for actually looking into what a problem is, i would argue i am none. A problem needs to be looked at with care and thoughtful foresight. With all data in front of you. Saying this or that works because one is liberal conservative or anything else is just insane.
Most Helpful Opinions