does anyone else not fall into the left-right paradigm?

Originally posted by rubbertramp
i am pro-choice, yet think the borders should be locked down.
i tend to look at issues individually and refuse to tow a part line.

May I ask you a question, then, based solely on the two issues you've pointed out?

Candidate #1 is "pro-choice", but wants open borders.
Candidate #2 is "pro-life", but wants to secure the borders.

For which would you vote?

Originally posted by MMPI2
reply to post by rubbertramp

 

well, since the issue really started coming to a head in late 2009 & 2010, a "progressive" has held the mantle of "CNC" over the United States military, and has done little to nothing other than give lip service to "providing for the common defense" of the nations' security in this regard.

additionally, this very weak and obviously compromised president has been empowered by a legislative branch that has been comprised of a leftist do-nothing majority. since the border issue has really heated up, you have gang and guerrilla warfare leaking like sewage across the texas, arizona, california borders, and mexican paramilitary forces have made armed and fatal incursions into sovereign U. S. territory, trafficking high volume narcotics, killing on-duty, uniformed border patrolmen, and kidnapping and murdering American citizens.

so, in a sense, you are right. the so-called conservative "right" hasn't been able to do much substantive to address the issue other than at a very local level. progressive activist groups, the obama justice department and very liberal federal district judges have done essentially everything they can to defeat these local initiatives designed to do what the federal government refuses to do...all because of leftist/"progressive" mindset.

i disagree to a point.
i basically split the year between arizona and new mexico.
it has not so much heated up, it's just that the cartel war has been heading north.
bush did nothing, absolutely nothing. the only real difference is that the media has been covering the issue more since the arizona bill hit the news.
bush's big push to secure the border was to build a few miles of fence and talk.
in way i give the left more respect for being open about their open border stance.
the right talks and does nothing.
they wouldn't dare, the money that puts and keeps them in office comes from corps who benefit from illegal workers.
cheap labor wins the prize.
it's to easy to just say that the left is to blame.
obama has continued and expanded on everyone of bush's policies.

another example is social security.
i like the idea, it's a shame both parties have borrowed money from the coffers and not paid it back.
if the money that was put in was still there it would not be a problem.
like i tell the right in discussion, if you're truly against s.s., then don't pay into it, and if need be just donate the money after retirement to your favorite cause.
yea, right, ain't gunna' happen.

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by rubbertramp
i am pro-choice, yet think the borders should be locked down.
i tend to look at issues individually and refuse to tow a part line.

May I ask you a question, then, based solely on the two issues you've pointed out?

Candidate #1 is "pro-choice", but wants open borders.
Candidate #2 is "pro-life", but wants to secure the borders.

For which would you vote?

reasonable question with a simple answer.
#2, borders trumps abortion.
hits me more in a personal way due to where i live.

edit to add,
once the borders are shut, it's a matter of tearing them down.
making abortion illegal is a constitutional issue.
to quote myself for the 3rd time.

what shall the punishment be for a woman that has one? life in prison, murder one, or would that only be regarding whomever performed it? if a woman said she wanted one shall she be locked up till she gives birth? wouldn't it be unconstitutional to create a law making abortion illegal without a penalty?

reply to post by rubbertramp

#2, borders trumps abortion.
hits me more in a personal way due to where i live.

Ah-Ha!, You right wing nutjob, you!

Just kidding, but that is how most people look at it. Regardless of you saying you are "pro-choice", you favored a candidate who is "pro-life", so by default you are considered "pro-life" as well. I know it's ridiculous, but that's the way almost every "pro-choice" advocate will view it.

I know it was an extremely simplistic experiment, and it really is a no-win question. Had you answered the opposite, I would have pointed out that left would embrace you as one of their own. And, because you voted "against" securing the borders, the right will consider you a left wing loon.

In reality, we need to consider how a candidate's position, based on his/her voting record rather than campaign rhetoric, will affect the country as a whole. I know it is almost impossible for most of us to keep our personal opinions out of our political decisions, but the single issue voter is really what has brought us to where we now find ourselves. Particularly, how do you think the Republicans wound up with McCain as the nominee, being who I consider to have been the weakest candidate of the bunch?

Originally posted by rubbertramp
ooppss, wrong key.
anyhow, to use myself as an example.
i am pro-choice, yet think the borders should be locked down.
i tend to look at issues individually and refuse to tow a part line.
i think this is a major issue that should be discussed.
i don't understand how an individual can basically not think for themselves and just fall into a category.

edit on 1-3-2011 by rubbertramp because: (no reason given)

It sounds like we are opposites but I can at least respect your opinions as they seem to be yours and not a product of whatever talking heads are around you. I know how you feel:

I'm for protecting the civil liberties of all humans, regardless of their stage in life (thus pro-life)
I am extremely anti-war.
I believe in completely open borders.
I'm for gay marriage.
I do not believe religion is the root of all evil.
I am against corporate capitalism.
Against the death penalty.
Support Ron Paul's vision for giving sovereignty back to the states (even though I don't agree with his personal values).

Etcetera, etcetera... needless to say (and I'm sure you understand), you often get accused of being something you are not by both sides. I've been called a socialist commie and a religious right-wing nut case in the same conversation. People have difficulty wrapping their heads around the concept of cherry picking your values and not taking the whole package.

I follow my own path.. Have neither a need nor use for governments or leaders and acknowledge none.. Its my life I live it on my terms.

reply to post by WTFover


Therein lies the issue with our party-line system of voting. You vote with the candidate that most reflects your views to best represent you, it's rare-to-impossible to find any candidate that agrees 100% with their constituents, or a majority of them.

This, in turn, leads independent voters (who outnumber the party line voters combined) to either join in the voting or abstain. It helps none of us to pigeon-hole each other for a single issue vote, the practice only divides us. There is a level of responsibility to voting, which unfortunately, has led to widespread non-involvement in voting. If you vote for candidate #2 in your example you need to be prepared to accept their other policies as well.

I always encourage people to vote for those they mostly agree with. However, voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. It doesn't solve the problem, one or the other will win. Not participating does NOT stop one of them from taking office. I could go on and on about this...

Onto the OP, I don't tow the democratic party line. I'm a democratic socialist, a progressive leftist liberal. There are still democrats I disagree with...lending myself to my above advice however, I will tend to vote for the democrat over the republican. I do my research though, I figure which candidate mostly holds my views, regardless of party.

thanx to all, turned into an interesting thread.
kinda' funny though, i've received a couple of messages concerning my abortion questions.
seems no one wants to answer them in public.
i still have a problem with punishing the woman though, i've stated a few reasons so far, and this is what my basic reply is.

i can respect your opinion. i always do when it's obviously thought out. i still have a problem with the idea of murder charges and punishment. i tend to think punishing the doctor if a law is passed would be more in line. the reason i think this is that people tend to lay the blame entirely on a woman. i could even support such a thing if the majority of americans agreed, yet, what about the males? pregnancy is a 2 way street, and i think that if the woman was to be punished the man would also need to be. what would be fair, an equal prison term, chemical or physical castration? there are many issues regarding this beyond just being pro-life or pro-choice. i will continue my pro-choice stance solely on the fact that i do not have the answers, only an opinion. i do refuse to lay the blame entirely on the woman though, and it would seem that those of you who did answer these questions do. i mean no offense by that, really i don't, i respect all opinion even if i do disagree. thanx for the message.

it would seem that most who are pro-life are male, although i can't state that as fact beyond my opinion.
is punishing the other party involved beyond being reasonable, or does the woman hold all responsibility for a pregnancy?

reply to post by WTFover

In reality, we need to consider how a candidate's position, based on his/her voting record rather than campaign rhetoric, will affect the country as a whole. I know it is almost impossible for most of us to keep our personal opinions out of our political decisions

yes, i agree with much of what you said in your reply.
the problem being, it goes beyond just a voting record.
take obama for instance.
dems thought he would get us out of these wars and do many other things that he campaigned on.
yet, what has he actually done beyond continue the policies that bush put in place.
in the long run there is very little difference beyond the rhetoric they spew.
even the health care bill, most of it was written by the pharma and medical community, these ideas were put into the political spectrum before obama was voted into office.
the only big difference is that they were put on the fast track once obama was put into office.
even regarding the wars, it's been building up for years, even bush senoir publicly allocated money for covert ops inside iran.
then it expanded through to bush jr. who made the wars official after 9/11.
now that obama is in office he is expanded them even more.
the thought that liberals would get us out is rediculous. imo, it does not matter who is next, they will just continue, without an end in site.

This is not limited just to left-right paradigm, it is an inherent feature of party system itself, altough much more prominent when there are just 2 parties to choose from. For example I am an atheist, I would describe myself even as an antitheist sometimes, but once I voted for a party that calls itself Christian, because I liked their economic policies. It was not one of those "evolution is not real, healthcare is for the rich" christian party as in the US, tough.

You would probably need as many parties as there are people to satisfy everyone..

reply to post by rubbertramp

true enough, my government is bought and paid for.
it's really not a left right issue as much as it is a lobbyist one.
he who has the most money wins.

Actually there ARE two parties, US and the guys who own the lobbyists!

Too bad the Sheeple haven't figured that out yet.

On Abortion, if you are male and you want the baby then YOU carry it! Otherwise I want the right to determine what I do with MY body, thank you very much.

Every time I run into the anti-abortion crap in real life it is some guy who can not keep his zipper zipped. And is horrified that his kids might have been aborted by a gal he never bothered to kept in touch with much less married!

reply to post by Cuervo

I'm for protecting the civil liberties of all humans, regardless of their stage in life (thus pro-life) I am extremely anti-war. I believe in completely open borders. I'm for gay marriage. I do not believe religion is the root of all evil. I am against corporate capitalism. Against the death penalty. Support Ron Paul's vision for giving sovereignty back to the states (even though I don't agree with his personal values). Etcetera, etcetera... needless to say (and I'm sure you understand), you often get accused of being something you are not by both sides. I've been called a socialist commie and a religious right-wing nut case in the same conversation. People have difficulty wrapping their heads around the concept of cherry picking your values and not taking the whole package.

in many ways i wish i could agree with much of what you said. really i do, but i have reasons for my stance that i am willing to explain.

abortion, i've covered my opinion, as nauseum.
'war, yes, extremely anti-war personally.

I believe in completely open borders.

this i disagree with, i wouldn't except for the fact that the cartel-drug-gang violence has migrated into the states. i've witnessed much first hand, and can not think of a way to stop the escalation besides locking down the borders. can you?

I'm for gay marriage.

as am i. to be honest, i lwaned more against for many years till my sister told me she was gay.
after much contemplation i could not bring myself to tell her that i didn't think her and her long time partner had no right to marry. first hand experience often opens my eyes.

I do not believe religion is the root of all evil.

nor do i. i do believe that religion should be kept out of politics, and i do have a problem with religious extremism if it is brought into the public, especially regarding violence.

gotta' run for a few, but will continue.

reply to post by rubbertramp


This is a thread to illustrate how we do not fall into the left/right illusion, not to debate our beliefs. I wouldn't normally just lay all my views on the table like that if I thought we were in "debate" mode. Not chastising, just reminding.

reply to post by Cuervo

This is a thread to illustrate how we do not fall into the left/right illusion, not to debate our beliefs.

maybe, but how am i to explain this without getting into explaining my beliefs?
the proof is in the pudding, is it not?
only way i can explain why id don't fall into either a strict left-right is to explain why i take each issue seperately.
is saying that i don't think i do, without explaining why enough?
maybe, but it doesn't say much.

Partisan bickering over non essential issues are what divide this country and keep those in power secure. The fact of the matter is USA is a huge country with differing view points and will always be that way. I think we should all vote independently and screw this two party dictatorship. Pigeon holing yourself is a mistake IMO because it limits your choices and keep your mind closed to other arguments.

Originally posted by rubbertramp
ooppss, wrong key.
anyhow, to use myself as an example.
i am pro-choice, yet think the borders should be locked down.
i tend to look at issues individually and refuse to tow a part line.
i think this is a major issue that should be discussed.
i don't understand how an individual can basically not think for themselves and just fall into a category.

edit on 1-3-2011 by rubbertramp because: (no reason given)

You are no different than anybody else:

" all teabaggers eat children"/ Every liberal is a marxists "are blatantly untrue sound bites; thrown around to incite emotional response.I consider myself a "constitutionalist" ,not a" religious right winger"... I've said repeatedly no political issues are strictly black and white. the "partisan players use creative accounting to lay "blame" back and forth like a ping pong match.

For example: Monsanto has been vilified as the ultimate evil in corporations.As they go around the farmbelt persecuting farmers for not using their seed.and I feel the same way on that particular issue..
To be fair though: modern corp agriculture HAS increased yields immensely which makes food cheaper and more readily available worldwide.
less hunger
But:
more food increases births( population rises to levels previously unsustainable).

So look at the poor starving African child on t.v. who's to "blame"? the parents? The corporations? the catholic church discouraging birth control? the evil IMF providing loans for farmers to upgrade from the ox pulled plow to expensive modern equipment that out produces the ox by 1000's to one?
complicated aint it?
.I get so worked up at the idiocy of the first volley:" Evil republican cuts will end 700,0000 "jobs" ping...
dragging us away from working on issues Pong...
I don't hate individual people; I hate the game.
Added: O.P.You realize you grouped everybody else into a category with that last line: the few People like me( versus all other "unthinkers")

reply to post by rubbertramp


i think anybody who thinks for themself falls to the left or right on different subjects, morons pick a side and fight for it no matter what. and only somebody with an agender trys to lable someone for a single view point

apparantly i`m right wing because i say immigration is intended to destroy europe yet i dislike all the new powers the aurthoritys have, talk to anybody from a new place i don`t know about and attend pride with my girl every year

I'm glad to see this thread and a lot of the responses. Left-right is an industrial-age, 19th-century conceptual framework. We need something that fits the 21st century intellectual and social millieu. It's been a while since we changed our entire political and economic conceptual framework as a society, and the change is overdue IMHO.

The biggest challenge going forward is to craft a concrete alternative to the left-right paradigm. I no longer believe it is enough merely to reject it: it must be actively replaced with something. But what? If all ideologies are inherently limited (something I tend to believe), then how in good faith can we merely swap one defective ideology for another? Perhaps the solution lies in identifying what human needs are served by having an ideology, and then seeking healthier, more sane, more effective, and more realistic alternatives. This would allow us to get to the heart of the matter, beyond politics. Just a thought. Anyway, interesting thread, please continue everyone.

My favorite is the left-right lover in denial.

I'm sure you've seen their posts.

They go something like this:

"These politicians are so corrupt and running us all into the ground. Now let me tell you why the Democrats are awesome and the Republicans are bad."



They're peppered through this site in all sorts of threads.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Yes, there are lots of people who "skew left" or "skew right," but may hold one or two opinions from the "other side." And many of these people wish to deny this for not-altogether-honest reasons. So yeah, you are correct to call them out on this, its very annoying.

On the other hand, even when I don't particularly agree, I like to see people piecing together bits and pieces of various ideologies rather than following a single ideology whole-cloth, because it means they are thinking critically and carefully. Provided they are sincere, of course.