Jump to content
270soft Forum
Conservative Elector 2

POLL: How conservative are you?

How conservative are you?  

23 members have voted

  1. 1. Which statements do you support?

    • I oppose abortion except in the case the mother's life is threatened (repealing Roe v. Wade)
    • I support the death penalty
    • I oppose same-sex marriage (repealing Obergfell v. Hodges)
    • I support deporting illegal immigration
    • I recognize Juan Guaidó as president of Venezuela
    • I support an intervention in a foreign country if US interests are threatened
    • I oppose affirmative action
    • I support the 2nd amendment
    • I support repealing Obamacare
    • I support reducing taxes
    • I support deregulating banks
    • I support withdrawing from the Iran-Deal and the Paris Climate Agreement
    • I support Israel and it's government
    • I support increasing the military budget
    • I support keeping the electoral college
    • I oppose the decriminalization of marijuana
    • I support making flag desecration a criminal offense
      0
    • I oppose to worry about climate change as a top priority
    • I support right-to-work laws
    • I agree with none of these statements
  2. 2. How conservative do you view yourself?

    • 1 - I am a staunch liberal and proud of it.
    • 2 - I am clearly on the left but I cannot accept some far-left policies.
    • 3 - I am pretty much a centrist.
    • 4 - I am clearly on the right but I cannot accept some far-right policies.
      0
    • 5 - I am a staunch conservative and proud of it.


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Patine said:

Although, notably, even early on, you never did tell me, or even try, why the Iraq War was so "justified" in your view. You basically took the "you had to have been there, now don't question it approach," which is, in a broad sense, actually quite weak and arrogant, assuming only one form of viewpoint on a an issue looked at from many angles is even possibly valid.

thepoint.gif.ea4c4b721cc7db9408c8d1eddbd6aa2f.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Patine said:

Although, notably, even early on, you never did tell me, or even try, why the Iraq War was so "justified" in your view. You basically took the "you had to have been there, now don't question it approach," which is, in a broad sense, actually quite weak and arrogant, assuming only one form of viewpoint on a an issue looked at from many angles is even possibly valid.

No, I’ve simply heard it all before.  If you think you are the first person I’ve encountered who is against the war, you would be mistaken.  

In reality, I’ve simply accepted that I hold a minority point of view, and that’s okay.  I do credit that to the fact that I had the unique, minority experience of actually being in the war instead of reading about it or watching it on tv — both of which are highly edited points of view, unlike being there yourself.

But the simple truth is that Bush has been gone for more than a decade now, and I simply see more value of trying to change minds about the present and the future than in re-debating something from almost two decades ago now.

And when your opening statement is the reasons you want to hang Bush from the nearest tree, I’m struck by the fact that yours is not the most open mind I’m likely to encounter on this topic.

So I just don’t see the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

In reality, I’ve simply accepted that I hold a minority point of view, and that’s okay.

You know what's funny. I feel exactly this way on a lot of the beliefs I hold. Amazing, isn't it.

4 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

And when your opening statement is the reasons you want to hang Bush from the nearest tree, I’m struck by the fact that yours is not the most open mind I’m likely to encounter on this topic.

And I suppose anyone who wanted to hang Goering, Pol, (Charles) Taylor, Milosavic, or bin Biden for being war criminals were far too closed minded to have reasonably been discussing the issue either?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Patine said:

You know what's funny. I feel exactly this way on a lot of the beliefs I hold. Amazing, isn't it.

And I suppose anyone who wanted to hang Goering, Pol, (Charles) Taylor, Milosavic, or bin Biden for being war criminals were far too closed minded to have reasonably been discussing the issue either?

Of course.  Nobody who was interested in hanging Bin Laden was interested in his point of view, same as you with Bush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Of course.  Nobody who was interested in hanging Bin Laden was interested in his point of view, same as you with Bush.

I was for a while after his election. But he kept getting worse and worse. I almost felt like he might go all out as the Star War Prequels Palpatine (which were hot and new movie releases at the time - and seemed uncannily reflective of what he was doing - short of an outright analog to an "Order 66" and "Declaration of the Empire"). When he made his speech on 9/11, he seemed like an admirable and strong leader. Then there was the "Patriot Act." Then the Iraq War. Then he started alienating his traditional allies. His 2004 Presidential Election GE opponent seemed very dubious to me - he only disagreed with Bush meaningfully on domestic issues (other than the "Patriot Act"), but made no meaningful dissent on foreign or military affairs - and both Bush and Kerry were alumni of the same sinister, powerful, and politically-active ivy-league fraternity, the Skull-and-Bones. But, no, I did not judge him sight unseen upon election. I actually expected a more pragmatic, unambitious, and bland Presidency (by modern U.S. standards) like his father had presided over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Patine said:

I was for a while after his election. But he kept getting worse and worse. I almost felt like he might go all out as the Star War Prequels Palpatine (which were hot and new movie releases at the time - and seemed uncannily reflective of what he was doing - short of an outright analog to an "Order 66" and "Declaration of the Empire"). When he made his speech on 9/11, he seemed like an admirable and strong leader. Then there was the "Patriot Act." Then the Iraq War. Then he started alienating his traditional allies. His 2004 Presidential Election GE opponent seemed very dubious to me - he only disagreed with Bush meaningfully on domestic issues (other than the "Patriot Act"), but made no meaningful dissent on foreign or military affairs - and both Bush and Kerry were alumni of the same sinister, powerful, and politically-active ivy-league fraternity, the Skull-and-Bones. But, no, I did not judge him sight unseen upon election. I actually expected a more pragmatic, unambitious, and bland Presidency (by modern U.S. standards) like his father had presided over.

...John Kerry?

You saw no difference between Bush and Kerry?

On the Iraq War, of all things?

That is an absence of intelligence that I was unprepared for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

That is an absence of intelligence that I was unprepared for.

Ho-holy shit

uh-oh oh God, this is the nuclear detonation for which we've prepared, it's been an honor serving with you gentlemen, now batten down and take cover!

Image result for eating popcorn gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

...John Kerry?

You saw no difference between Bush and Kerry?

On the Iraq War, of all things?

That is an absence of intelligence that I was unprepared for.

Absence of intelligence? That's a bit gratuitously harsh, even for your general attitudes toward me. I don't recall him directly or overtly condemning the Iraq War. Now, understand that was 15 years ago, and the 2004 Presidential elections aren't the sharpest in my memory (and I had a great distaste for both him and Bush). But I remember him focusing on domestic issues. Though I will admit, I am capable of error and misremembering things - an admission that, strangely, for all the "arrogance and self-righteousness" I'm accused of, I make more often than a lot of posters on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

Absence of intelligence? That's a bit gratuitously harsh, even for your general attitudes toward me. I don't recall him directly or overtly condemning the Iraq War. Now, understand that was 15 years ago, and the 2004 Presidential elections aren't the sharpest in my memory (and I had a great distaste for both him and Bush). But I remember him focusing on domestic issues. Though I will admit, I am capable of error and misremembering things - an admission that, strangely, for all the "arrogance and self-righteousness" I'm accused of, I make more often than a lot of posters on this forum.

I mean...you accuse him of being a puppet (a sinister, powerful puppet, no less)...and then literally 15 minutes later, you don’t even remember the god damned election at all???

His whole fucking CAMPAIGN was “War Is Bad.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

I mean...saying Bush and Kerry were in kahoots on the Iraq War is like me accusing Bernie Sanders of being in the pocket of Big Pharma.

Bernie Sanders is not a member of a sinister college fraternity with a bunch of pharmaceutical corporate CEO's. But, now that I think back, I believe it was his continued support, more or less, with a few very flimsy "amendments" for the "Patriot Act" and other "national security" measures I'm thinking of. I just conflating that with the Iraq War as the "Evils of the Bush Regime" as one phenomenon. I was much younger then. I realize I have spoken in error. It's not like you, or anyone else on this forum, haven't ever either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

Bernie Sanders is not a member of a sinister college fraternity with a bunch of pharmaceutical corporate CEO's. But, now that I think back, I believe it was his continued support, more or less, with a few very flimsy "amendments" for the "Patriot Act" and other "national security" measures I'm thinking of. I just conflating that with the Iraq War as the "Evils of the Bush Regime" as one phenomenon. I was much younger then. I realize I have spoken in error. It's not like you, or anyone else on this forum, haven't ever either.

At this point, I think it would be more productive to debate a random word generator.  I’m going to call it a night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

At this point, I think it would be more productive to debate a random word generator.  I’m going to call it a night.

It's very difficult to debate someone who has decided in advance everything I will say is automatically and pre-emptively wrong, as far as they're concerned. Have a good night!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Patine said:

It's very difficult to debate someone who has decided in advance everything I will say is automatically and pre-emptively wrong, as far as they're concerned. Have a good night!

I love it when we agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I love it when we agree.

Well, it's time for a lesson in life (you're never too old to learn). Just because some says things you strongly disagree with, don't like (even find repugnant), or are far too radical for your comfort all the time, does NOT mean they're always wrong or you're always right in relation to them. Believing you do always have a "rightness" or such people is the height of egotistical arrogance - the type that is a trademark of your archnemesis Donald Trump. Sweet dreams!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Patine said:

Bernie Sanders is not a member of a sinister college fraternity with a bunch of pharmaceutical corporate CEO's. But, now that I think back, I believe it was his continued support, more or less, with a few very flimsy "amendments" for the "Patriot Act" and other "national security" measures I'm thinking of. I just conflating that with the Iraq War as the "Evils of the Bush Regime" as one phenomenon. I was much younger then. I realize I have spoken in error. It's not like you, or anyone else on this forum, haven't ever either.

I was all of 8 years old when the 04 election happened and 8 year old me's only real grasp of the election was that Bush was for the war and Kerry was against it. Sometimes a quick google search saves you from speaking in error and then doubling down on it rather than just cut your losses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Patine said:

Well, it's time for a lesson in life (you're never too old to learn). Just because some says things you strongly disagree with, don't like (even find repugnant), or are far too radical for your comfort all the time, does NOT mean they're always wrong or you're always right in relation to them. Believing you do always have a "rightness" or such people is the height of egotistical arrogance - the type that is a trademark of your archnemesis Donald Trump. Sweet dreams!

I've said repeatedly that you are correct about your assessment of Trump -- which you always counter with saying "Nuh uh, I'm more right about Trump than you are" (I am paraphrasing, of course.)  That alone shows that I don't believe that you're always wrong -- and yet you try to find my errors even when I agree with you.

But seriously -- your memory of the 2004 election is 100% incorrect, just on a factual basis.  Your response is that you were too young to really be paying attention to it, which...fair enough, I guess...but you were OLDER by that point than you were when the War in Iraq began.  How much of what you think you know about that war is 100% wrong too?

You don't have to be radical for radical's sake.  Sometimes, you can take a step back and say...even just to yourself..."Oh shit, if I was wrong about that basic information...could I be wrong about the rest of it, too?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaaand that's why I sometimes don't like to post any ''real'' political stuff here. I don't like to provoke any discussions in which people tend to be - yeah I don't know how to put it, but you'll know anyway 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do remember 2004 quite well, and while I'm not really interested in getting into a heated debate over it this long after the fact, I share Patine's view of Kerry's 2004 campaign.

In 2002, many Democrats - a majority of them, in fact, in the Senate - voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.  Some of these Senate Democrats included John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.  I remember writing my members of Congress asking them to vote no back then, as even then I realized this was a horrible mistake and was not going to go as smoothly as the pro-war people were telling us.

Back to my earlier point that much of the mainstream, so-called "liberal" media, was sounding a very jingoistic tone over the prospect of war, painting any skepticism of the war as unpatriotic bordering on treasonous, and silencing any dissent on the issue.  MSNBC, now regarded as the supposed "left-leaning" network, silenced Phil Donahue, Ashleigh Banfield and Jesse Ventura for this very reason.

Kerry's stance on the war, at least in 2004, was that he was right to vote the way he did, and both he and Edwards were largely unapologetic about their votes until after the 2004 campaign was over.  His message became quite muddled when he later voted against the $87 billion supplemental bill, and Kerry only cemented his reputation as a "flip-flopper" by saying
"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."  This was, of course, long before Mitt Romney and later Donald Trump would take "flip-flopping" on issues to a whole new level.

This is largely why I was a Howard Dean supporter, as he had a clear anti-war message from the beginning, even though on domestic issues he was more centrist than Kerry.  I think Dean's anti-war stance was the main reason why he had momentum throughout much of 2003 before his campaign fell apart, as Dean was more or less a lone voice in the wilderness when it came to the main contenders (Kerry, Edwards and Gephardt all having been for it).  There was even a black-and-white poster being circulated at the time with the words "You can't vote against war", with pictures of both Bush and Kerry on it.  And for many in the US who either vote third party or don't vote at all, Bush and Kerry's initial support for the war was all the justification needed to stay home or vote third party, and to encourage others to do the same.  As Patine pointed out, the fact that both men were once members of Skull & Bones didn't help either.

It wasn't until after 2004 that public opinion started turning against the war, and the initial "rally 'round the flag" effect wore off.  Many came to the realization that Bush's "Mission Accomplished" declaration meant nothing of the sort, and the idea that Iraq had WMDs - the Bush administration's main justification for the war - was a complete lie.  All of the Democrats I mentioned above eventually got around to saying the war was a mistake and that they were wrong to vote for it, but in 2004 they were still very much gung-ho about the idea. 

I realized recently that I've never voted in the Democratic presidential primaries for any candidate that voted "yes" on the 2002 resolution (my primary votes were for Dean, Obama and Sanders), and I doubt I ever will - it's one of many reasons I prefer Warren over Biden.  I still see that vote as a grievous error in judgment, and it seems history has vindicated my view on the issue.

That all being said, I realize not everyone shares my views, and that any two people, if they talk long enough, are going to find an area of disagreement, so I'll leave it there.  I'm content to let someone else have the last word if they so choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Actinguy said:

I mean...you accuse him of being a puppet (a sinister, powerful puppet, no less)...and then literally 15 minutes later, you don’t even remember the god damned election at all???

His whole fucking CAMPAIGN was “War Is Bad.”

 

No idea what you're talking about here... Kerry voted FOR the invasion, and then defended his vote while running for President. The idea that his whole campaign was "War is Bad" is factually incorrect and a disgustingly wrong oversimplification.

https://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/09/kerry.iraq/

Quote

Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said Monday he would not have changed his vote to authorize the war against Iraq

The only "but" Kerry gives is that he wishes Bush "brought other countries to the table". He still supported the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jnewt said:

No idea what you're talking about here... Kerry voted FOR the invasion, and then defended his vote while running for President. The idea that his whole campaign was "War is Bad" is factually incorrect and a disgustingly wrong oversimplification.

https://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/09/kerry.iraq/

The only "but" Kerry gives is that he wishes Bush "brought other countries to the table". He still supported the war.

 

8 hours ago, darkmoon72 said:

I do remember 2004 quite well, and while I'm not really interested in getting into a heated debate over it this long after the fact, I share Patine's view of Kerry's 2004 campaign.

In 2002, many Democrats - a majority of them, in fact, in the Senate - voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.  Some of these Senate Democrats included John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.  I remember writing my members of Congress asking them to vote no back then, as even then I realized this was a horrible mistake and was not going to go as smoothly as the pro-war people were telling us.

Back to my earlier point that much of the mainstream, so-called "liberal" media, was sounding a very jingoistic tone over the prospect of war, painting any skepticism of the war as unpatriotic bordering on treasonous, and silencing any dissent on the issue.  MSNBC, now regarded as the supposed "left-leaning" network, silenced Phil Donahue, Ashleigh Banfield and Jesse Ventura for this very reason.

Kerry's stance on the war, at least in 2004, was that he was right to vote the way he did, and both he and Edwards were largely unapologetic about their votes until after the 2004 campaign was over.  His message became quite muddled when he later voted against the $87 billion supplemental bill, and Kerry only cemented his reputation as a "flip-flopper" by saying
"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."  This was, of course, long before Mitt Romney and later Donald Trump would take "flip-flopping" on issues to a whole new level.

This is largely why I was a Howard Dean supporter, as he had a clear anti-war message from the beginning, even though on domestic issues he was more centrist than Kerry.  I think Dean's anti-war stance was the main reason why he had momentum throughout much of 2003 before his campaign fell apart, as Dean was more or less a lone voice in the wilderness when it came to the main contenders (Kerry, Edwards and Gephardt all having been for it).  There was even a black-and-white poster being circulated at the time with the words "You can't vote against war", with pictures of both Bush and Kerry on it.  And for many in the US who either vote third party or don't vote at all, Bush and Kerry's initial support for the war was all the justification needed to stay home or vote third party, and to encourage others to do the same.  As Patine pointed out, the fact that both men were once members of Skull & Bones didn't help either.

It wasn't until after 2004 that public opinion started turning against the war, and the initial "rally 'round the flag" effect wore off.  Many came to the realization that Bush's "Mission Accomplished" declaration meant nothing of the sort, and the idea that Iraq had WMDs - the Bush administration's main justification for the war - was a complete lie.  All of the Democrats I mentioned above eventually got around to saying the war was a mistake and that they were wrong to vote for it, but in 2004 they were still very much gung-ho about the idea. 

I realized recently that I've never voted in the Democratic presidential primaries for any candidate that voted "yes" on the 2002 resolution (my primary votes were for Dean, Obama and Sanders), and I doubt I ever will - it's one of many reasons I prefer Warren over Biden.  I still see that vote as a grievous error in judgment, and it seems history has vindicated my view on the issue.

That all being said, I realize not everyone shares my views, and that any two people, if they talk long enough, are going to find an area of disagreement, so I'll leave it there.  I'm content to let someone else have the last word if they so choose.

That was what I remembered, more or less. But @Actinguy, gave me a moment of doubt, mostly with his fervent attitude, and I didn't have data on hand to support myself, and the Wikipedia article seems to be crap in whichever of indy contributors wrote it. But I KNEW I was remembering something like that, and @Actinguy's portrayal did seem "wrong" somehow, although, again, I lacked data on hand. Thank-you, there @darkmoon72 and @jnewt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...