What kind of democrat are you?

There seems to be some controversy here over what the mainstream of the Democrats is or more precisely, the mainstream of DU.

Which best describes you?

along the lines of Howard Dean I would say.

feel like he's yanking my chain.

I don't think any further adjectives would describe my positions any better.

Why did I say "sure i will check all of your signatures!"?

I used to considered myself to be a moderate before Bush came to office, but since than, the moderates ideology doesn't fit me any more, and I've become more and more progressive over the years.

Now it's life or death.

I hate labels and don't allow myself to be categorized into a bucket. I just believe in what I believe in and see what I see, and it just so turns out that those ideals and issues fall squarely in the side of democrats. In the end though, I'm just me :)

might need another poll.

they are indistinguishable from the Pukes right now IMO.



Keith’s Barbeque Central

democrats, please.

I consider myself to be pragmatic, so I would be willing to compromise if I were say an elected official. That may make me a little more moderate. I just think that I'd rather have a step in the right direction, rather than nothing at all. For instance, I advocate single-payer health care, however I would be willing to support or vote for other plans, rather than to have an all or nothing approach to that issue.

I am also religious. Not from an organized standpoint, I rarely attend church. But I pray constantly, read the bible from time to time and God is very important to me, in fact, the most important thing, I would say. I am personally Conservative on many issues. For example, I am celibate. Yet, I am politically very liberal. I separate my own personal choices from my political beliefs, because I think politically everything isn't a black and white dogmatic issue. There is nuance. Like on abortion. Personally, I am against it. (actually, I never met anybody who wasn't) Politically, I cannot support a movement that doesn't allow for the safety of women. Over a million women a year worldwide die from non-medical abortions. I cannot, in good conscience, demogogue those lives because of my own personal beliefs.

There are other things too. I believe in the principles of Gandhi, respect him and would apply that more to our approach to foreign affairs. Yet I am not a pacifist. Sometimes you gotta fight, I think. There has to be a good reason for it though. I am not a warmonger either. So to me, the world is much more complex and nuanced than the parameters that poltical parties define for us. I am a progressive Democrat, but, I am not just that alone.

So you know that there are some of us out here. There are points in early pregnancy where I don't see a woman choosing to terminate as anything different than if her body had done it naturally. I can guarantee you if I somehow got pregnant right now, (I say somehow because my husband had a vasectomy and I simply don't do extramarital sex), I would get an abortion. Nothing immoral about it at all. I'm not against it. There is a point in a pregnancy where that changes, but statistics show that those abortions are for medical reasons, which I also support. So there are very few situations where I would be against an abortion on moral grounds.

I can range from moderate to far left of the current party. Though I am much more in the left of the current party than DLCers.

I'm far left on most things, far right on a couple and in the middle on a couple. I guess that makes me a....moderate? Doesn't seem to fit really. Are moderates pro-gay marriage and pro-choice? Who knows? I don't think I can be pigeonholed into any category.

(you knew that already, didn't you?)

Those are my two conservative positions. A balanced budget used to be a conservative thing but it isn't anymore so I call that a centrist position.
Just about everything else I'm left on.

in the past he was for a balanced budget and that made him a conservative. Now it makes him a liberal.

I don't mind the death penalty as long as we take the precautions to maek sure we only execute the guilty.

On illegal immigration, I bet it would be less of a problem if we put the employers on the bus and threw them over the Mexican border too.

So I can safely call myself a liberal then. As I thought.

So far to the left of the Democrats.

Plus I'm a fucking militant conservationist. Not sure what label to use for that.

like "fucking militant" vegan or "fucking militant" cat lover.

or the GLBT community their civil rights, you are not a moderate. You are a conservative.

I think I am a practical leftie. I recognize that the schism between what I believe is right and what can be achieved at this moment is wide. I have very left views on most things. I am pro-choice, pro-gun control, anti-death penalty (I waffle on that one sometimes) and I believe that the measure of a society is not how the greatest of its members live, but how its least members live. I think that the only way to make the world a better place is to work to help people who live in poverty and ignorance have a chance to better their lives. I believe it is the responsiblity of every generation to try to make the world a better place. I believe that we must all look out for each other. I am anti-big business, but recognize that big business cannot be dismissed. I understand that there are less people that think like me than I would like and they have to be taken into account.

I am not sure what all that makes me.

now that makes you progressive because the party is being pulled to the right.

I liked Clinton, but on a lot of issues, he seemed to the right of Richard Nixon.

but practical, and a yellow dog

Basically a yellow dog but for the first time since JFK I've been inspired beyond just voting.

Dem candidates usually get my vote in the battle between the lesser of two evils. Occasionally vote Green or some other third party.

I am moderate on fiscal issues and very liberal on social issues.

Democratic-Farmer-Labour all the way. (I'm a Minnesota girl)!

ever heard of a socialist?

I remember doing research on Scoop Jackson in middle school. The only guy who is close now is Lieberman. Why can't we agree to defend the US anymore?

It's ironic that these guys who are "strong on defense" have actually harmed our reputation in the world and our military by pursuing wars more motivated by corporate profits than actual threats to our security going back to at least Vietnam, and apart from Korea, World War II, and the Civil War, all of our other military actions were about hostile take overs of country's assets.


Marine Corps General and Medal of Honor winner Smedley Butler said:



Our lack of success in occuppying Iraq tells us exactly what the threat is of another country invading and successfully occuppying the US. China, Russia, and the EU would be the only entities even remotely capable of trying, and they would have supply lines stretching across oceans, and at the end of them would be 290 million well-armed civilians who would make the Iraqis look quakers and Gandhi.

To calculate the odds of someone invading us, consider how gingerly we tiptoe around getting into a land war with China after Korea. In Korea, they were poorly armed and technologically well behind us, but they came close to chasing us off the Korean peninsula, and invading China itself would have been impossible.

We were so chastened by the experience that in Vietnam we didn't send ground troops into the North for fear of triggering another conflict with China.

Hitler and Napoleon had similar experiences with Russia. It was easy to invade and impossible to occuppy--and they had the advantage of being able to walk there. If someone tried to invade us, they would have those oceans to contend with. And for what? Our oil supplies are declining, and if they want our coal, I think most countries have plenty of their own. The cost of trying to occupy us would break them if we can't afford to occuppy a country the size of California.


The only reason another country would attack us is they perceive us as a threat to them. If communists (a boogey man still pulled out from time to time) or terrorists attacked the US, they would win no sympathy for their ideology, and in the case of terrorists, outright occupation would be impossible anyway. The terrorist threat is at best like a neighbor's rabid chihuahua. It might bite your ankle, but it aint going to take you down and kill you. No amount of terrorist attacks will take down the US.

Those who are strong on defense are more worried about securing and occuppying the world's oil reserves, making sure the banana pickers in Central America and the sweatshop workers in Haiti don't demand a living wage, and that all accept the privatization and corporate control of their electricity, water, and probably the hole they shit in.

I have great respect for the military, their patriotism, and the sacrifices they are willing to make for us. I wish the civilians who are so eager to use them and profit from their efforts were as admirable.

on economics?

degree of government involvement in the economy.

A more in depth and clearer way to describe my view is that a mixed market works well, provides for innovation and social security, and moderates the brutality of both pure capitalism or pure communism.

By a mixed market I mean that government enterprise and private enterprise exist side by side, with government reserving the sectors that are most easily monopolized by capitalism and/or are traditional government functions, such as utilities, mass trasportatio9n systems, health insurance, defense, policing and courts and incarceration, etc.

Manufacturing, raw material exploitation, the service industry, construction, farming, financial services, etc. should remain primarily in the private sector with appropriate government over site, as relates to a compelling social interest such as health and safety, consumer protection, or environmental concerns, etc.

This kind of mixed market works pretty well for the most people, tends to level out the huge disparities between the wealthiest and the poorest, and allows the practical application of both the best of pure capitalism and pure communism without most of the inherent drawbacks of either system.

the GOP doesn't want ANY government function except military and they'd be just as happy if mercenaries did that.

and very proud of it! :D

A cautious hawk, a reasonable pro-lifer, not big on gun control...Moderate to liberal on economic issues. Liberal on civil rights. Moderate on the social issues. Moderate on foreign policy.

BTW: Right of the Republicans? I doubt anyone that extreme would dare show up here. They do exist. though.

Registered Democrat since 1965 and usually hold my nose and vote for them as the lesser of two evils.

it kind of made sense and has nothing intrinsically to do with violence (at least not any more than other ideologies).

Gandhi was inspired by, and a friend of, the Anarchist Leo Tolstoy. Both of whom decried violence as the means to the end of social justice. Both on moral and practical grounds.

meaning i believe in equal representation adn equal rights for every god-blessed American alive... and believe that our taxes SHOULD pay for services that secure the general welfare (including our defense) and should NOT pay for corporate welfare. those do-or-die business leaders should DO or DIE. I'm so sick of their willingness to have it both ways: THEY get help from the gov't but WE shouldn't unless it will line THEIR pockets. Bastards.

No death penalty - not because I value the lives of murderers as much as because I value a JUST system of justice, which we DO NOT HAVE!!!

And I don't care about how YOU feel about abortion or religion. Do (or don't do) what you want. Just leave me the hell alone, to do as I do (or don't) want.

I agree with the lefties on social issues, but not necessary economic issues.

:hide:

To be honest I sometimes have to bite my tongue on this forum. I personally believe that taking the extreme on both sides without seeing the middle is a problem. I also don't believe a person has something fundamentally wrong with them if they are a Republican. I am acquainted with plenty of republicans who don't side with the religious right or the neo-cons.

So I have to compromise.

My own personal ideals are very leftist, but I realize the rest of the country is way more moderate than me, so I'll bite the bullet and work for change incrementally.

I am against the death penalty. I am pro-choice (pro-reproductive rights). I support "socialist" programs like public schools. I believe in offering a helping hand to those who need it, regardless of why they need it. I support giving homosexual couples the same rights and privileges of marriage that heterosexual couples enjoy.

but at heart, my politics are best represented by Scandinavian-style Social Democracy.

Almost Marxist.

No options for those of us who are not registered with any politcal party?

Generally progressive, I believe in universal education, healthcare, and environmental protection.

Have no issues with responsible gun use. Parental notification for abortion is fine as long as there is an exception to deal with abusive parents (I mean truly abusive, not parents just getting mad, the girl may get physically beaten by her parents) and I support abortion rights till fetal viability (about 7-8 months). School prayers are for Sunday school.

Conflicted on mandatory reading of the bible becasue it is a religious text but I don't see anyone can truly understand western literature with it.

:headbang:

a dangerous radical