The Glade 4.0

if the cannidates self-identify, then yes.

That is why policy surveys ask how people identify themselves, not what others would call them. This avoids the whole 'no true Scotsman' debate.

That depends on where you are, some liberals are very conservative and vice versa but they choose the label that is most likely to get them voted in based on the ignorance of their constituencies.

_________________

We should all self-identify our social, fiscal and political ideologies.

THEN we can argue about it.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

This "new tack" is a complete failure, and never had any chance to resolve what you think it will.

So what DO you propose? Khross has made the (rather absurd in my view, but YMMV) statement that the board is weighted liberal.

So someone propose a methodolgy for testing this hypothisis, I've thrown out two ideas, but we can't settle on the questions and the way they're worded on this side of eternity, and my 'new tack' you're rejecting as too simplistic.

So what do you propose?

I say everyone who is liberal joins the super-douchey people with purple names group and everyone who is conservative joins the blues brothers group.

Then the groups can vote people out of their club into either the opposing group or if neither group wants to be associated with them then they default to the category of weirdoes known as people with orange names.

_________________

It depends.

Using the last election as an example, I was honestly torn between Kasich and Strickland. Strickland had much better ratings from the NRA and was very positive on a number of issues. Kasich's only major positive was a desire to trim budget items.

Differences between D and R are mostly imaginary in this country, and its a choice between a statist who wants to give my money to poor people and unions and a statist who wants to take my civil liberties.

You seem to be wanting to break this down into must vote for one party must vote for another, that's false. Furthermore, it colors one's opinion of the posters here into "us v. them." It isn't "us v. them" here, it's usually rational viewpoints versus irrational viewpoints.

However, when both sides hold rational viewpoints, that's when solid debate can happen, but we don't get that very often just because of the nature of some of the society norms in regard to certain issues.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

This.

_________________

TheRiov:

You need to provide a definition of liberal that's both meaningful and substantive before you get to call my assertion "absurb" ...

I have, quite politely, asked you what makes this forum "not liberal"; you have, as of yet, still refused to entertain those questions. What about the Glade is particularly conservative? What about Hellfire is particularly conservative?

_________________

That depends. Is the "liberal" candidate mislabeling himself by hijacking the English language in order to appear more broadly appealing?

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

I find this really funny because the original link wouldn't have happened if the person had not concluded that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" were not enough to describe American political culture.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

First rule of middle school writing: Question all definitions and deny all terms


That said, liberal has so many definitions that you can twist it however you want it, and claim that so-and-so fits X defintion of Liberal. However, the term, as it is generally applied in the American lexicon, implies a slant toward a greater federal role in education, taxation, social welfare, health care, and economic polices designed to put greater wealth in the hands of the bottom half of the population and allow them to drive the economy as opposed to allowing the upper half of the population to employ the lower half.

I expect you to "Gotcha" with any definition I give of course



and fyi, I "Get" to call your assertion absurd whenever I darn well please. (particularly if you're making statements without any evidence to back it up.)

Based on that definition, I'd suggest those who qualify as "liberals" should be kept as far away from any decision-making position as possible. Every single part of that is a terrible idea. However, I'd also argue that those people would be at the extreme fringe of the "liberal" crowd, as it's only a small step away from outright marxism. Regardless of one's position on those issues individually, we need to get the fed out of everything. Decentralize power to the state/provinces and municipalities as much as possible. This is the only reason Canada has working universal health care, btw. There's no way the fed could do it. Universal Healthcare and greater federal involvement are mutually exclusive options.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

TheRiov:

How much did it cost you to have that hand re-attached? More specifically, are you familiar with Arthur Schlesinger and the Progressive/Liberal conflation post-JFK?

_________________

Notoriety, fame, same genera, different species.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Is that a Grimace? How appropriate, perhaps he can be your mascot?

_________________

LMFAO

Why are you laughing? I mean, other than your habitual trolling of late, why are you laughing.

_________________

That's not a false dilemma. He asked what you'd be more likely to do. Presumeably there is some likelyhood one way or the other even if it is miniscule.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The false delimma is that those are the only choices. He's omitted at least 2 choices I can think.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

That would be true if he were only asking which you would vote for. He didn't; he asked which you would be most likely to vote for.

Let me illustrate it another way. If you would be 1% likely to eat Dominos Pizza, 2% likely to eat Pizza Hut and 97% likely to eat East of Chicago Pizza, the question "Would you be more likely to eat Dominos or Pizza Hut" is not a false dilemma because it's not presuming that you eat either. You can still state which you'd be more likely to eat even though you're overwhelmingly more likely to eat something else entirely.

Same thing here. "Are you more likely to vote conservative or liberal" doesn't preclude you being 99% likely to vote libertarian; it's not asking that. It's asking purely your preference between the two choices presented.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Without an option for "neither," your analogy is just as false a dilemma as the actual scenario.

Let me illustrate it another way: would you be more likely to eat a pile of horseshit or eat a pile of cowshit?

I sure hope the answer is "false dilemma."

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Not really. The fact that I'd rather eat horseshit over cowshit does not imply I actually want to eat either one.

Read up on what a false dilemma actually is.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Even if it is a false dilemma, you can still answer the question. You're just using semantics to avoid an interesting question.

edit:

It's like asking someone, "If you had to choose, would you use a crossbow or a longbow"? It's an interesting question when in reality he would use a modern weapon or not be involved in combat at all.