COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Political party lines and affiliations . Where do the lines blur?

ThatsTheGuy

ThatsTheGuy

Literotica Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2018
Posts
4,029
Do you know what political party you support?

Are you wrongfully dubbed as something different?

Will the lying and false accusations end?

Do you really care so long as you vote?

Only recently have I decided to do more than vote. I don't go around shouting to the world at every store, street corner, or restaurant. I no longer sit on the sidelines. So thank you world - for backing me into a corner. I'm tired of the BS and am reciprocating smartly and intelligently in a non violent manner.


I do have one question specifically for myself and to anyone who wishes to answer it:

Are Conservatives and Old school Liberals really that different?

Old school Liberals (some of those in major/minor political parties that don't simply "go where the wind blows") often see eye to eye on some issues. Even when we disagree - we simply agree to disagree to 'do battle' another day. No biggie right?

I am a Conservative and never shy away from it - there are conservatives in most every major political party.
 
I guess it depends upon the viewpoint of the reader, if they agree with you on how far L-R you are and they are. The fringes of each mania are not strictly two dimensional.

What are you Conservative about? Rule of Law? Rights of Man? Real Estate?

Lay on McDuff.:)

Here is an example:
‘Feeling high tonight’: Internet cheers McConnell’s ‘level 10 trolling’ of Trump-backing WV candidate

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) team made it very clear on Tuesday where the congressman stands on Don Blankenship, the convicted criminal and former Republican Senate candidate who called McConnell “Cocaine Mitch.”

Blakenship on Tuesday conceded the West Virginia Senate race after trailing in third place.

Borrowing from a promotional image for the Netflix drama Narcos, Team Mitch sent out a remarkable tweet telling Blankenship, “thanks for playing.”
Click to expand...

mitch-300x161.png

God! , It irks me to like this. :D:D
 
Last edited:
ThatsTheGuy said:
Are Conservatives and Old school Liberals really that different?

Old school Liberals (some of those in major/minor political parties that don't simply "go where the wind blows") often see eye to eye on some issues. Even when we disagree - we simply agree to disagree to 'do battle' another day. No biggie right?
Click to expand...

Generally speaking Liberalism and Conservatism (in the USA) see eye to eye on capitalism...kinda.

And once again, generally speaking, that's where the similarities end.

A large portion of conservatives tend to have a puritanical Christian spin on their politics, even their capitalism.

Gawd said no fun, so ban all the good stuff!!

Marriage is a Christian thing for Christians, invented by Christ for straight men and women and it sayz so in the Cawnstertewshun which Christ also wrote!!!

etc.

So yea, there is a pretty wide rift between conservatism and actual liberalism and it's just largely in the social aspects of politics.
 
BotanyBoy said:
...

Marriage is a Christian thing for Christians, invented by Christ for straight men and women and it sayz so in the Cawnstertewshun which Christ also wrote!!!

etc.

...
Click to expand...

The King James Bible and the US Constitution were written by committees.

They are probably the only two effective products of committees known to man.

So perhaps they were inspired by God. :D
 
oggbashan said:
The King James Bible and the US Constitution were written by committees.

They are probably the only two effective products of committees known to man.

So perhaps they were inspired by God. :D
Click to expand...

Considering "progress" seeks to eradicate both...probably. :)
 
Political parties are teams, and there is competition to win and/or have the other team lose. So with that in mind, it's no surprise that many of the same big hot button issues have been advocated for by both at different times. Universal health care is an example of that, advocated by both R and D presidents (not currently, but I digress), but if proposed by the other "side" it must be defeated. That's politics.

Beyond teams, I used to think that most people are pretty much within a band of agreement. Among my acquaintances, that would mean not super partisan, mostly fiscally conservative and mostly social moderates.

Pew Research has studied national attitudes for decades, and the most recent findings say while historically there were lefties and righties there was also about 30-35% pretty much in the middle. That group could trend a bit one way or the other, from election to election, based on a wide range of issues, mood, economy, etc.

But the most recent study said that the middle group has shrunken dramatically (I can't remember the exact number, but I think it is 18%). In other words, we are more polarized and distant on issues now than before. That is apparent, and those numbers bear it out.
 
Is the Two-Party System Doomed?
"A new study shows us what observation should already have made clear: a messy restructuring of America's political parties is coming"
Piketty... writes that across all three countries [US, UK, France], we've seen the evolution of the same trend. Fifty or sixty years ago, voting with the "left-wing" side (which he terms the socialist/labour/democratic parties) tended to be associated with low income and low education. Conversely, high education and high-income voters in all three countries voted right.

Over the years, however, the "left-wing" has become more and more associated with higher-education voters, giving rise to what he calls a "multiple-elite" party system.

According to Piketty, in 2016, for the first time – and of course some of this has to do with the unique repugnance of Donald Trump – the upper 10% of voters, sorted by income, voted Democratic.

Piketty just puts numbers behind an observation that anyone covering recent American presidential elections could have made: That huge pluralities of voters on both sides of the aisle feel unrepresented and even insulted, and increasingly see both major parties as tools of the very rich.

His belief is that a major reordering of the political landscape is coming. It will be based less on traditional notions of right and left, and more along the lines of what he describes as "globalists (high-education, high-income) vs. nativists (low- education, low-income)."

...having two parties sponsored by the same donors simply can't work in the long-term. The situation ends up being what a Colombian politician once deemed "two horses with the same owner."

...[this is] a warning that if the intellectuals in both parties don't come up with a real plan for dealing with the income disparity problem before someone smarter than Donald Trump takes it on, they're screwed. Forget nativists vs. globalists. Think poor vs. rich. Think 99 to 1. While Washington waits with bated breath for the results of the Mueller probe, it's the other mystery – how do we fix this seemingly unfixable economic system – that is keeping the rest of the country awake at night.
Click to expand...
Can corporate parties survive if Bernicats and Trompniks unite? Will the poor rise up to slaughter the rich?
 
I've been pretty sure since about 2006 that the days of the two-party system were numbered. They really only exist anymore as fundraising machines.

Ideologically speaking, America is going through some interesting changes. The left isn't very liberal anymore, and the right is such a hodge-podge of people from all over the political spectrum that it doesn't even seem to have any core principles beyond preferring free market capitalism. The old-guard Christian conservatives are fewer and fewer every year. They couldn't withstand Trump.

I've always been independent, and tended towards liberalism. Lefty friends thought I was too conservative. Righty friends thought I was too liberal. And I could see the good in both.

But I see far more problems on the left than the right these days. The right might be confused about their identity, and the left is too, to an extent, but what they do and say are often so antithetical to liberal values that it's as if I don't even know them anymore.

Watcher on the Wasatch Front,
Ellie
 
I believe the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution means exactly what it says--that it sanctions a regulated armed militia, which doesn't mean that it blanket sanctions guns for all and just any sort of guns they want. I supposed then, as a strict constructionist of that amendment, I'd be taking the conservative line on that. So, it depends on the issue whether I'm liberal or conservative. The NRA is taking an extremely liberal position on gun ownership--also not a conservative stand on patriotism, as it's acting as a funnel for Russian money to support disruption of the American system of government.
 
KeithD said:
I believe the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution means exactly what it says--that it sanctions a regulated armed militia, which doesn't mean that it blanket sanctions guns for all and just any sort of guns they want.
Click to expand...
The 2nd, or any constitutional or legislative text, means only what those interpreting and enforcing that text WANT it to mean. Courts have long ignored the 2nd's first two 'qualification' clauses and eviscerated the third "money-shot" clause by allowing bans on all sorts of weapons.

So there's no militia; militia is unneeded for national security; and arms-bearing is severely infringed. What's not to like about that? :rolleyes:

I supposed then, as a strict constructionist of that amendment, I'd be taking the conservative line on that. So, it depends on the issue whether I'm liberal or conservative. The NRA is taking an extremely liberal position on gun ownership--also not a conservative stand on patriotism, as it's acting as a funnel for Russian money to support disruption of the American system of government.
Click to expand...
The terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' are meaningless now in USA politics. Both major parties, non-profits incorporated in Delaware as per some obscure Constitutional provision that's hard to find, are supported by the same corporate 'donors' -- two race horses with one owner. The parties seek support from varying underclasses; at that level, 'liberal' means "tolerance and support despite whatever," while conservative means "kill the libs and nigs," not "keep what works."

To those calling themselves politically conservative, liberalism is dissent. To those seeing themselves politically liberal, conservatism is fear and hate.

"The opposite of 'liberal' is not 'conservative' but 'enslaved'."
--anon.
 
Hypoxia said:
Will the poor rise up to slaughter the rich?
Click to expand...

No, you'll not be getting your communist revolution fantasy.

KeithD said:
I believe the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution means exactly what it says--that it sanctions a regulated armed militia,
Click to expand...

It's giving reason of a militia being necessary, is secondary to it's explicit intention of protecting a right of the people from the government.

Hypoxia said:
The 2nd, or any constitutional or legislative text, means only what those interpreting and enforcing that text WANT it to mean. Courts have long ignored the 2nd's first two 'qualification' clauses.
Click to expand...

That's because there is no such thing as a qualification clause in 2A.

Hypoxia said:
The terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' are meaningless now in USA politics.
Click to expand...

Only if you're a moron.
 
Last edited:
Hypoxia said:
The 2nd, or any constitutional or legislative text, means only what those interpreting and enforcing that text WANT it to mean. Courts have long ignored the 2nd's first two 'qualification' clauses and eviscerated the third "money-shot" clause by allowing bans on all sorts of weapons.

So there's no militia; militia is unneeded for national security; and arms-bearing is severely infringed. What's not to like about that? :rolleyes:


The terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' are meaningless now in USA politics. Both major parties, non-profits incorporated in Delaware as per some obscure Constitutional provision that's hard to find, are supported by the same corporate 'donors' -- two race horses with one owner. The parties seek support from varying underclasses; at that level, 'liberal' means "tolerance and support despite whatever," while conservative means "kill the libs and nigs," not "keep what works."

To those calling themselves politically conservative, liberalism is dissent. To those seeing themselves politically liberal, conservatism is fear and hate.

"The opposite of 'liberal' is not 'conservative' but 'enslaved'."


--anon.
Click to expand...

Madison said its he ratifiers who determine the meaning.
 
There is no "liberal" or "conservative" view of the constitution. It all depends on how you want the outcome to go. For example, 2nd amendment. If a "conservative" believes in "strict construction" based on the "founders" and hates "liberal judges who use judicial review to make laws they like", then the qualification clauses would severely restrict gun ownership. Since we don't have militias, you'd have to get a new constitutional amendment to protect guns generally. The point is, where we are now is not a result of "strict construction"; it is outcome based.

An interesting thing to me is that the Heller decision (5-4 SCT vote, Kennedy the swing) is really important, but almost no one arguing the issue has actually read it.

It was written by Scalia. Now we can all agree that Scalia was a conservative, hard core, strict constructionist, right? He was the darling and the example of a "pure" Supreme Court justice that the conservatives want. Likewise, the "liberals" hated him, etc.

Now here's the point. What he says in Heller, right there for all to read, is that the 2nd amendment in the Court's view does provide protection for commonly used guns for personal use and self defense. However, he then goes on to say that the 2nd amendment does not protect guns or armaments that are for military or military-like use. So where he ended up, and this is the law at this point, is that - strict construction be damned, it was sure enough based on outcome - handguns and shotguns are protected, AR15s aren't and may be regulated or banned.

Pretty reasonable interpretation I think. The constitution was deliberately crafted in a way that it could and would respond to a changing country in the future. So was Scalia abandoning strict construction, or was he "legislating from the bench"? Regardless I think that was a correct decision. I think 4 Circuit Courts now have followed Heller and allowed state law restrictions on assault rifles and such.
 
richmondman said:
However, he then goes on to say that the 2nd amendment does not protect guns or armaments that are for military or military-like use. So where he ended up, and this is the law at this point, is that - strict construction be damned, it was sure enough based on outcome - handguns and shotguns are protected, AR15s aren't and may be regulated or banned.
Click to expand...

AR-15's are just semiautomatic rifles.

They might be fucked with but they can't be banned, just like shotguns and pistols.
 
BotanyBoy said:
No, you'll not be getting your communist revolution fantasy.



It's giving reason of a militia being necessary, is secondary to it's explicit intention of protecting a right of the people from the government.



That's because there is no such thing as a qualification clause in 2A.



Only if you're a moron.
Click to expand...

And all Amerixans belong to the militia.
 
I had a chance to view this Documentary about Reconstruction and... Well here
Aftershock: Beyond the Civil War

And I had the thought that we might be witnessing another
"Reconstruction" period; as the base elements of society (Trump Chumps) supported by the political class (Trump Lickers) advance a change in society to limit basic rights to a "Select Few" ( or many depending upon how many Trump actually needs to pay off. This is a rather flexible number and many have lost their asses relying on Trump's Word. :D

Will the Rednecks rise again or will the American voters turn out to drop these dip shits and elect some rational, ethical, educated representatives ?

Is the American Voter's Bull Shit Filter so defective, or is it that the sheeple are full belled and warm in the spring sun of the Trumpian Soaring market?

Left or Right, Up or Down political discourse is too volatile to accomplish anything meaningful. I mean look that this board!:D
 
EllieTalbot said:
I've been pretty sure since about 2006 that the days of the two-party system were numbered. They really only exist anymore as fundraising machines.

Ideologically speaking, America is going through some interesting changes. The left isn't very liberal anymore, and the right is such a hodge-podge of people from all over the political spectrum that it doesn't even seem to have any core principles beyond preferring free market capitalism. The old-guard Christian conservatives are fewer and fewer every year. They couldn't withstand Trump.

I've always been independent, and tended towards liberalism. Lefty friends thought I was too conservative. Righty friends thought I was too liberal. And I could see the good in both.

But I see far more problems on the left than the right these days. The right might be confused about their identity, and the left is too, to an extent, but what they do and say are often so antithetical to liberal values that it's as if I don't even know them anymore.

Watcher on the Wasatch Front,
Ellie
Click to expand...

I put great thought and consideration into how and whom I place my vote. Right or wrong then no worries. I don't cry over 'spilled milk' - but if it's shoved in my face - the asshole in me shows in striking back. Can't control the candidates and there are times I do agree with some issues the opposition represents.

I've often considered myself an Independent when it comes to voting. My actions dictate different and it shows. I also believe Trump to be Independent, but chose Republican as his vehicle for becoming POTUS.

Anyone who knows me will agree I'm conservative. Not necessarily a Christian conservative - though I go heavily in that direction. And this is often where I'm argumentative w/other conservatives. I've leaned Democrat or Repub - but always as a conservative. I'm among many who supported the change to a more lenient voting ticket that doesn't adhere to strict party lines.

I have leaned Liberal on rare occasion, but never swayed my POV as is common among liberals these days.

Today, too many confuse conservatives with GOP and/or constitutionalists. I have been viewed as a liberal during times of disagreement with card carrying Republicans.

My thoughts are my own and I rarely let emotions dictate actions in the voting booth. I look at what traditionally works and apply it to the future. If whatever is traditionally accepted as the norm and it's totally fucked - then I'm all in for radical change. I don't like "going against the grain" - when I do it's all or nothing and I don't rebel for the sake of rebelling.

Radical change is something rare for me, yet it's often how I'm judged and seen among those who don't really know me.
 
Last edited:
JackLuis said:
Will the Rednecks rise again or will the American voters turn out to drop these dip shits and elect some rational, ethical, educated representatives ?
Click to expand...
Depends on gerrymandering and other voter suppressions. Gups know they can't win free and fair elections. Disenfranchisement is necessary for their regressive minority rule.

Is the American Voter's Bull Shit Filter so defective, or is it that the sheeple are full belled and warm in the spring sun of the Trumpian Soaring market?
Click to expand...
I don't think Tromp's popularity has risen much. A soaring market hasn't boosted wages. Stuff ain't getting cheaper. Voodoo economics still doesn't work. And the media Tromp attacks are doing great; citizens WANT informed critique and real news. He's shilling for The Enemy.

Left or Right, Up or Down political discourse is too volatile to accomplish anything meaningful. I mean look that this board!:D
Click to expand...
Left-right is a distraction. The divide is rich-poor, 1% vs 99%. The major parties are both corporate-funded; "two horses with the same owner." If Berniecats and Trompniks unite, the parties are fucked.
 
Hypoxia said:
Depends on gerrymandering and other voter suppressions. Gups know they can't win free and fair elections. Disenfranchisement is necessary for their regressive minority rule.
Click to expand...
Dixiecrats or Nazi the forces of oppresion are on the rise.

Hypoxia said:
I don't think Tromp's popularity has risen much. A soaring market hasn't boosted wages. Stuff ain't getting cheaper. Voodoo economics still doesn't work. And the media Tromp attacks are doing great; citizens WANT informed critique and real news. He's shilling for The Enemy.
Click to expand...
Trump has about 32% approval or 1 in 3. I estimate his Masters are happy with that, but if a Story breaks and Cohen gets hoisted, how do we deal with Pence, short of gunfire?

Hypoxia said:
Left-right is a distraction. The divide is rich-poor, 1% vs 99%. The major parties are both corporate-funded; "two horses with the same owner." If Berniecats and Trompniks unite, the parties are fucked.
Click to expand...

We need the Fourth Estate to get serious and call BS on these Koch suckers! You would think that you could sell a lot of advertising on a Impeachment Channel?
:)
 
Also, Conservatives are in every political party. They are not the republican party.
 
ThatsTheGuy said:
I put great thought and consideration into how and whom I place my vote. Right or wrong then no worries. I don't cry over 'spilled milk' - but if it's shoved in my face - the asshole in me shows in striking back. Can't control the candidates and there are times I do agree with some issues the opposition represents.

I've often considered myself an Independent when it comes to voting. My actions dictate different and it shows. I also believe Trump to be Independent, but chose Republican as his vehicle for becoming POTUS.

Anyone who knows me will agree I'm conservative. Not necessarily a Christian conservative - though I go heavily in that direction. And this is often where I'm argumentative w/other conservatives. I've leaned Democrat or Repub - but always as a conservative. I'm among many who supported the change to a more lenient voting ticket that doesn't adhere to strict party lines.

I have leaned Liberal on rare occasion, but never swayed my POV as is common among liberals these days.

Today, too many confuse conservatives with GOP and/or constitutionalists. I have been viewed as a liberal during times of disagreement with card carrying Republicans.

My thoughts are my own and I rarely let emotions dictate actions in the voting booth. I look at what traditionally works and apply it to the future. If whatever is traditionally accepted as the norm and it's totally fucked - then I'm all in for radical change. I don't like "going against the grain" - when I do it's all or nothing and I don't rebel for the sake of rebelling.

Radical change is something rare for me, yet it's often how I'm judged and seen among those who don't really know me.
Click to expand...

^^^^^Read carefully. This is a conservative. ^^^^^
 
ThatsTheGuy said:
I am a Conservative and never shy away from it - there are conservatives in most every major political party.
Click to expand...

Political nomenclature resembles, in its inaccuracy, that of real estate reps. Example: a gated community named after the cedars that were all chopped down to build the central golf course. Similarly, the term conservative baffles. What is the most essential thing a reasonable person might want to conserve? Viability of life on what remains our only habitable planet, maybe?

I best loved the British Columbia NDP. They balanced budgets, invested in research and used that research to guide infrastructural spending. None of my logic, proofs or examples will sway a person who relies on logical fallacy, chiefly namecalling.

Which is a longwinded way of thanking the OP for a more sophisticated approach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

madelinemasoch
Political Affiliations?
2
Replies
44
Views
672
Chernosoth
Chernosoth
Rick345
Trump the Liar and Chief
Replies
0
Views
80
Rick345
Rick345
Rick345
Who do you think will be the up and comers in the Democratic Party?
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
1K
Shaglus_Ziegler
Shaglus_Ziegler
L
In the world of sexual fetishes, crossing the political aisle is a kink
2
Replies
44
Views
1K
PaxNurgle
P
A
Your political background and how it sculpts your views.
Replies
5
Views
137
Lazaran
L
Back
Top