USA poll - Red, Blue, or Purple?

[Omy]

I'm hoping this won't turn into a crazy political discussion. I'm just curious how mustachians identify as a group. Let me know if I need more options.

[MonkeyJenga]

With this group? Libertarian probably needs its own option.

[Omy]

Thanks...added it to the poll.

[EvenSteven]

I think it's healthier and more productive to construct your views as positive statements. However, right now I think the best way to describe my political views are anti-Republican. Not sure how I should vote here.

[Omy]

I guess I should add 2 more options!

[RetiredAt63]

And maybe add [USA] to the heading so the rest of us can just sight-see?

[Omy]

Good point!

[js82]

I chose independent/lean democrat since that's probably the closest descriptor of my personal views.  Never have had any formal party affiliation, but my views are much closer to those of the Democratic party than the Republicans.

My views as a whole could generally be described as "liberal" (or "center-left", depending on your frame of reference), but not all of them fit neatly within the 2019 definition of a "mainstream liberal" in the USA.  My list of things I care about/problems that I feel need to be addressed align pretty well with the Democrats/Left, but my preferred methods of addressing them frequently differ from the Democratic/Liberal norm - typically in the direction of being subtler and less bureaucratic, and particularly with the objective of winning the long game, which I feel the Democrats do very poorly.

Some might consider me a liberal with a libertarian streak.

[ctuser1]

Very difficult to answer!!

I like smallest possible government that provides adequate social insurance delivered via market mechanisms with an aim to maximize economic efficiency, socially liberal but fiscally conservative, support government monetary expansion during bust times while pulling the reins during the boom times.

Lincoln to Eisenhower - I'd have called myself a republican, who sometimes provides issue-based support to democrats, e.g. New Deal, provided it was driven in a pragmatic, and not ideological, fashion. FDR passes the bar there since he was entire deliberative instead of being prescriptive there. So for at least one federal election cycle I would have supported FDR over any republican nominee.

During-and-post-Nixon, alas, Republicans stopped electing anybody any sane human being could support.

Democrats are not quite so far gone, but I don't particularly like some of their normative instincts wherever they gain power (e.g. DeBlasio attempting to eliminate standardized testing for competitive NYC schools - because apparently in his opinion people in certain demographics can't compete on standardized tests!! WTF!!).

So I don't quite know who/what to choose in the options given, so didn't.

[KBecks]

It's interesting to see the anti- categories.  I wonder if this is a new sentiment because of greater polarization.
When do people think it is more important to be anti- than for something?  Why would a person choose to be anti- ?
Maybe this is made popular by ANTIFA?

[EvenSteven]

It's interesting to see the anti- categories.  I wonder if this is a new sentiment because of greater polarization.
When do people think it is more important to be anti- than for something?  Why would a person choose to be anti- ?
Maybe this is made popular by ANTIFA?

I first mentioned this so I can explain my view of it, which will not necessarily extend to others.

I don't think it's more important to be anti something. I mentioned that it was a flaw, but upon introspection, an honest description of reality. I don't really view my political views as something I choose, they are an emergent property of my values.

I look at the Democratic platform, and I see lots to agree with, and a few things to disagree with. I see the way Democrats govern, and I see them not quite living up to the standards set forth in their platforms.

I look at the Republican platform, and I see almost nothing to agree with. I see the way Republicans govern, and it ends up worse than their platforms.

[Omy]

I wasn't sure about adding the anti- categories, but I'm glad I did. It's interesting that 15% identify that way.

[OtherJen]

In principle, I am non-partisan to the extent that all of my political volunteer work is with a non-partisan organization (voter education and voting rights advocacy). In practice, I haven't seriously considered voting for a Republican since John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate in 2008.

[Indexer]

Independent.  Socially liberal, fiscally conservative.

I've voted R, D, and Libertarian. I agree most with moderate Libertarians, but they normally aren't real contenders in elections.

Earlier this year I would have described myself as leaning Democrat. I am not a fan of Trump. However, the way the Democrat primaries are going I'm having to come to terms with whether I'm more anti-Trump or anti-Warren. I'll vote for Biden, Buttegieg, or Gabbard in a heartbeat. Warren or Sanders? That becomes a hard decision.

[Milizard]

I'm in the middle--a moderate. That makes me a flaming lib according to modern yardsticks.

[Raenia]

I picked Independent - lean Democrat.  Just voted this morning, and I voted for 6-7 Dems, 2 Republicans, a Libertarian, and 2 Independents for local elections.  State and National I'm more likely to vote Democrat, at least until (if?) the current craziness at the national level clears up.  I don't trust Republicans at the national level to actually make their own decisions instead of sticking to the party line.  Of course, I don't trust Democrats to do that either, but in the current situation, I'll take the Democrat party line over the Republican one.  Hopefully that'll change soon and I can go back to assessing each candidate on their own individual merits, as I do for local seats.

I am registered Democrats despite preferring to self-label Independent, because my city always goes Democrat and has closed primaries.  The Republicans didn't even run a candidate for Mayor, Sheriff, etc, this year, so the primary is the real election, and I'd like to have a say.

[maizefolk]

Independent.  Socially liberal, fiscally conservative.

I've voted R, D, and Libertarian. I agree most with moderate Libertarians, but they normally aren't real contenders in elections.

Earlier this year I would have described myself as leaning Democrat. I am not a fan of Trump. However, the way the Democrat primaries are going I'm having to come to terms with whether I'm more anti-Trump or anti-Warren. I'll vote for Biden, Buttegieg, or Gabbard in a heartbeat. Warren or Sanders? That becomes a hard decision.

Out of curiosity, would you vote for Yang?

(Not trying to proselytize, just interested which group of democratic candidates he falls into from your perspective as someone whose identity isn't strongly aligned with any one political party.)

[Samuel]

This year I'm basically anti-Republican. Trumpism must die.

I've always thought of myself as a solid center left Democrat but with recent shifts in the party I'm probably closer to a Democrat leaning Independent now. I will vote for the eventual Democrat nominee but am really hoping it's not Sanders or Warren.

[Indexer]

Independent.  Socially liberal, fiscally conservative.

I've voted R, D, and Libertarian. I agree most with moderate Libertarians, but they normally aren't real contenders in elections.

Earlier this year I would have described myself as leaning Democrat. I am not a fan of Trump. However, the way the Democrat primaries are going I'm having to come to terms with whether I'm more anti-Trump or anti-Warren. I'll vote for Biden, Buttegieg, or Gabbard in a heartbeat. Warren or Sanders? That becomes a hard decision.

Out of curiosity, would you vote for Yang?

(Not trying to proselytize, just interested which group of democratic candidates he falls into from your perspective as someone whose identity isn't strongly aligned with any one political party.)

It's a good question. I hadn't looked at him that much. All I remember from the first two debates was that he talked about UBI a lot. However, I took one of those who-you-side-with quizzes a couple days ago and the results were Weld & Johnson(Libertarian VP and Presidential candidates in 2016) for 1-2, and then Yang, so I need to look at him more.

[Scandium]

With this group? Libertarian probably needs its own option.

Libertarian also needs a 28 page thread to define what that means...

[Kris]

With this group? Libertarian probably needs its own option.

Libertarian also needs a 28 page thread to define what that means...

I have a pretty simple definition, which I typed out into a reply. But it was pretty snarky so I deleted it.

[Scandium]

With this group? Libertarian probably needs its own option.

Libertarian also needs a 28 page thread to define what that means...

I have a pretty simple definition, which I typed out into a reply. But it was pretty snarky so I deleted it.

May I guess "FYGM"?

[Kris]

With this group? Libertarian probably needs its own option.

Libertarian also needs a 28 page thread to define what that means...

I have a pretty simple definition, which I typed out into a reply. But it was pretty snarky so I deleted it.

May I guess "FYGM"?

I mean, that's the Republicans, for sure.

And yeah, it's probably an addendum to what I wrote. With some clarifications.

[MasterStache]

Independent.  Socially liberal, fiscally conservative.

I've voted R, D, and Libertarian. I agree most with moderate Libertarians, but they normally aren't real contenders in elections.

Earlier this year I would have described myself as leaning Democrat. I am not a fan of Trump. However, the way the Democrat primaries are going I'm having to come to terms with whether I'm more anti-Trump or anti-Warren. I'll vote for Biden, Buttegieg, or Gabbard in a heartbeat. Warren or Sanders? That becomes a hard decision.

Just pointing this out with no intention to discuss further but socially liberal while also being fiscally conservative is not really a viable ideology. I understand what you are trying to represent and it sounds great in theory. But you really need to understand how social programs, social issues etc. are deeply intertwined with fiscal issues. For example the poverty cycle is greatly influenced by fiscal issues. I am only bringing his up because I used to claim to be "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" until I truly understood that you can't really be both. It's ripe for discussion in another thread. Don't want to thread hijack.

As far as this thread is concerned I am an independent, I guess. I don't like labels and simply vote for who I think the best candidate is. Labels just lead to division.

[maizefolk]

Just pointing this out with no intention to discuss further but socially liberal while also being fiscally conservative is not really a viable ideology. I understand what you are trying to represent and it sounds great in theory. But you really need to understand how social programs, social issues etc. are deeply intertwined with fiscal issues. For example the poverty cycle is greatly influenced by fiscal issues. I am only bringing his up because I used to claim to be "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" until I truly understood that you can't really be both. It's ripe for discussion in another thread. Don't want to thread hijack.

I have seen the same sort of response you wrote up here when other folks talk about being fiscally conservative but socially liberal, but I think it really depends on how one defines socially liberal.

It's quite possible to be fiscally conservative and still completely fine with (or advocate for) gay marriage, support anti discrimination legislation on the basis of race/creed/color/sex/sexual orientation, think abortion is a decision to be made between a woman and her doctor, be protective of civil liberties generally, advocate to both adaption to climate change and efforts to mitigate the size of climate change, think marijuana should be legalized and many other drugs should be decriminalized.

The above is my own mental definition of socially liberal (they certainly aren't socially conservative values), but I'd be curious to hear how you define the term yourself?

[MasterStache]

Just pointing this out with no intention to discuss further but socially liberal while also being fiscally conservative is not really a viable ideology. I understand what you are trying to represent and it sounds great in theory. But you really need to understand how social programs, social issues etc. are deeply intertwined with fiscal issues. For example the poverty cycle is greatly influenced by fiscal issues. I am only bringing his up because I used to claim to be "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" until I truly understood that you can't really be both. It's ripe for discussion in another thread. Don't want to thread hijack.

I have seen the same sort of response you wrote up here when other folks talk about being fiscally conservative but socially liberal, but I think it really depends on how one defines socially liberal.

It's quite possible to be fiscally conservative and still completely fine with (or advocate for) gay marriage, support anti discrimination legislation on the basis of race/creed/color/sex/sexual orientation, think abortion is a decision to be made between a woman and her doctor, be protective of civil liberties generally, advocate to both adaption to climate change and efforts to mitigate the size of climate change, think marijuana should be legalized and many other drugs should be decriminalized.

The above is my own mental definition of socially liberal (they certainly aren't socially conservative values), but I'd be curious to hear how you define the term yourself?

I don’t try to “define it” since it includes many aspects of society. I try to look at all societal issues and examine how each is affected by fiscal policy. Some are certainly affected far more than others. Perhaps that is where we differ. Those in poverty only struggle more when you make it more difficult for them to pull themselves out of the vicious cycle.

[maizefolk]

I'm only trying to understand what political positions you think a person would need to hold in order to be considered socially liberal, since you asserted that Indexer cannot be socially liberal if he or she is fiscally conservative.

Apologies if I have offended by asking that question.

[waltworks]

Can we have an "evidence based" option?

I like to, you know, use data to make decisions. Neither major party (nor any of the minor ones) regularly likes to do that.

-W

[MasterStache]

I'm only trying to understand what political positions you think a person would need to hold in order to be considered socially liberal, since you asserted that Indexer cannot be socially liberal if he or she is fiscally conservative.

Apologies if I have offended by asking that question.

That's not the question you asked. You asked me how I define "socially liberal." I don't try to define it, as I stated, but based on how you try to define it, you and I differ. I think there are more social issues than you do. And I think fiscal policy affects those issues. Pretty simple really. It's much easier to maintain the "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" position if you condense the social issues. It just seems too much like confirmation bias. Again that is simply my own experience and conclusions I've drawn.

[maizefolk]

Maizeman: "I'm only trying to understand what political positions you think a person would need to hold in order to be considered socially liberal"

MasterStashe: "That's not the question you asked. You asked me how I define "socially liberal.""

You are clearly are seeing a difference between these two statements. I am afraid I cannot understand what that distinction is.

[MasterStache]

Maizeman: "I'm only trying to understand what political positions you think a person would need to hold in order to be considered socially liberal"

MasterStashe: "That's not the question you asked. You asked me how I define "socially liberal.""

You are clearly are seeing a difference between these two statements. I am afraid I cannot understand what that distinction is.

Perhaps because you are stuck on labeling everything instead of trying to find distinctions/variations in thought processes. The distinction is you focus on certain social issues to justify your claim (Confirmation bias). Whereas I focus on all social issues which led to me realizing my position was invalid. You can maintain that position all you want.

[Davnasty]

Maizeman: "I'm only trying to understand what political positions you think a person would need to hold in order to be considered socially liberal"

MasterStashe: "That's not the question you asked. You asked me how I define "socially liberal.""

You are clearly are seeing a difference between these two statements. I am afraid I cannot understand what that distinction is.

Perhaps because you are stuck on labeling everything instead of trying to find distinctions/variations in thought processes. The distinction is you focus on certain social issues to justify your claim (Confirmation bias). Whereas I focus on all social issues which led to me realizing my position was invalid. You can maintain that position all you want.

This conversation started because you said that someone can't hold two labels at the same time. Now you're criticizing someone for trying to label everything?

I also disagree with your stance that one cannot be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Perhaps if you define socially liberal as someone who always votes in favor of government intervention with regard to social and economic issues regardless of the cost, then no, that person cannot also be fiscally conservative. But that's not how I would define socially liberal. If the majority of someone's opinions qualify as socially liberal, its probably fair to label them that way. The total of one's political views cannot be expressed in a label, but it's still a useful way to get an idea of how they generally feel.

Do you think we should only use these labels on individuals who meet every criteria of fiscally conservative or socially liberal?

[MKinVA]

What Davnasty said. You can be pro choice without being in favor of the government paying for it. You can be in favor any number of historically "liberal" issues without being in favor of the government going into debt to pay for it. Where I am confused is the seemingly new definition of conservative. Donald Trump is the darling of the conservatives. He stakes out not a single historically conservative position and he is their man. It is obviously not about the definition of conservative/liberal.

[Bateaux]

I chose anti-Republican.  Even though I'mnow 3 years a registered Democrat, I'm not a huge fan of everthing Democrat.  After nearly 3 decades as a Republican, the party has gone rogue.  So, I'm anti-Republican post 2016.  I'm more a Libertarian-Socialist.  I want my personal freedoms protected, but realize that government must play a role in many things.

[MasterStache]

Maizeman: "I'm only trying to understand what political positions you think a person would need to hold in order to be considered socially liberal"

MasterStashe: "That's not the question you asked. You asked me how I define "socially liberal.""

You are clearly are seeing a difference between these two statements. I am afraid I cannot understand what that distinction is.

Perhaps because you are stuck on labeling everything instead of trying to find distinctions/variations in thought processes. The distinction is you focus on certain social issues to justify your claim (Confirmation bias). Whereas I focus on all social issues which led to me realizing my position was invalid. You can maintain that position all you want.

This conversation started because you said that someone can't hold two labels at the same time. Now you're criticizing someone for trying to label everything?

Fair enough

I also disagree with your stance that one cannot be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Perhaps if you define socially liberal as someone who always votes in favor of government intervention with regard to social and economic issues regardless of the cost, then no, that person cannot also be fiscally conservative.

Who does it have to be always? Again I'll go back to the poverty cycle. Hopefully we can agree poverty is indeed a social issue. I didn't see Maizeman include it in his/her definition so that is where we disagree.
https://www.alternet.org/2014/01/8-ways-being-poor-wildly-expensive-america/

If one were to vote for reduced government spending, would the poverty cycle get better or worse?

[MasterStache]

What Davnasty said. You can be pro choice without being in favor of the government paying for it. You can be in favor any number of historically "liberal" issues without being in favor of the government going into debt to pay for it. Where I am confused is the seemingly new definition of conservative. Donald Trump is the darling of the conservatives. He stakes out not a single historically conservative position and he is their man. It is obviously not about the definition of conservative/liberal.

I agree with a caveat. I have a niece who got pregnant at 14. She wasn't exactly in any position to be able to afford a choice she was considering if you totally remove government intervention. I am all for her and others like her having a choice without worry of finances.

But yes there are "any number" of historically liberal issues where you can also be fiscally conservative with as well. But there are also many historical and current issues where removing funding/government intervention leads to greater social problems.

[Norioch]

Friendly reminder to everyone identifying as "anti-Republican" that the Democratic candidate will be the only viable opposition to Trump in 2020, and voting third-party or staying home is not an efficient means of opposing Trump. Voting Democrat is the rational voting strategy even if the nominee doesn't end up being your personal #1 choice from the primary.

And by all means, please vote in the Democratic primary too.

[maizefolk]

Okay, I've been thinking about this thread for a couple of days now, and it's got me worried. Was I being a jerk in my original post?

Usually I try to be unoffensive and it works. Sometimes I intentionally try to be offensive and that also works. Sometimes I try to be unoffensive, give offense, and then, with the benefit of hindsight can go back and see how what I wrote gave offense.

Here, even with the benefit of several days of hindsight I really cannot figure out how what I wrote I provoked such a vehement reaction. Since asking MasterStashe for their perspective went so violently off the rails, I'm a little worried to ask a similar question of others, but I would honestly appreciate any insight anyone could offer on what went wrong here.

[Davnasty]

Okay, I've been thinking about this thread for a couple of days now, and it's got me worried. Was I being a jerk in my original post?

Usually I try to be unoffensive and it works. Sometimes I intentionally try to be offensive and that also works. Sometimes I try to be unoffensive, give offense, and then, with the benefit of hindsight can go back and see how what I wrote gave offense.

Here, even with the benefit of several days of hindsight I really cannot figure out how what I wrote I provoked such a vehement reaction. Since asking MasterStashe for their perspective went so violently off the rails, I'm a little worried to ask a similar question of others, but I would honestly appreciate any insight anyone could offer on what went wrong here.

I don't think you were being a jerk and I wouldn't describe the reaction as vehement or off the rails. By "arguing anonymously online" standards, it all seemed pretty tame to me.

[Steeze]

Assuming Libertarian here is the modern right-libertarian party in the US and not the left socialist libertarian party the rest of the world would associate with the word?

[trollwithamustache]

Assuming Libertarian here is the modern right-libertarian party in the US and not the left socialist libertarian party the rest of the world would associate with the word?

American Libertarianism... since they aren't very well organized to an official ideology, its any view you want to beat up with a straw man argument!

[MasterStache]

Okay, I've been thinking about this thread for a couple of days now, and it's got me worried. Was I being a jerk in my original post?

Usually I try to be unoffensive and it works. Sometimes I intentionally try to be offensive and that also works. Sometimes I try to be unoffensive, give offense, and then, with the benefit of hindsight can go back and see how what I wrote gave offense.

Here, even with the benefit of several days of hindsight I really cannot figure out how what I wrote I provoked such a vehement reaction. Since asking MasterStashe for their perspective went so violently off the rails, I'm a little worried to ask a similar question of others, but I would honestly appreciate any insight anyone could offer on what went wrong here.

I don't think you were being a jerk and I wouldn't describe the reaction as vehement or off the rails. By "arguing anonymously online" standards, it all seemed pretty tame to me.

Good explanation. I never once felt offended nor responded violently or vehemently. That seems like a really extreme interpretation. It’s OK to disagree. Really it is. There are more impotent things in life. If you start to feel consumed by threads like this it's good to remember Circle of Control.

[Johnez]

Independent, leans republican.

The past 2 elections I voted Dem, however with these primaries I'm considering voting Trump. Problems with democrats:

-from free college, to college debt forgiveness, to being pro open borders, to M4A, I just don't feel they serve American interests. I scrapped my ass off to get my education, my SO paid her debt on a McDonald's salary. I just don't understand the need to burden the rest of America with paying off a loan that these people were not forced to take and who will end up earning more over their lifetime than the general population. Nuts. The Democratic party is the party of dependency. I'm sick of it.

-the party as a whole has not made a case against Trump in the impeachment hearings. I don't think Trump is an angel, and he has crossed many lines, but they have invested so much energy into tossing him that to not come out of this with a smoking gun is reprehensible. I mean, hell I didn't think Clinton should have been impeached at the time, but there was a hell of a lot of evidence to back up the claims. And it turns out he was a sick freak anyways that in 2019 would probably HAVE been removed. Anyways, the entire venture is a collosal waste of energy.

If Mayor Pete actually makes it, I'll consider voting for him. He's one of the few that seems to be an actual moderate.

[MKinVA]

Heard the last 10 minutes or so of a call in on Sirius Radio. A guy from Madison, WI called and said he was a Republican but never Trump. He said he wouldn't vote for Bernie or Warren, too liberal. He is happy to vote for Bloomberg, but said Buttigieg he didn't trust and thought he would turn out to be too liberal. So Bloomberg all of a sudden is a moderate Democrat? Still confused by these labels. Bloomberg has spent millions actually trying to control guns, he outlawed the Big Gulp, increased taxes on cigarettes, soda, plastic bags, and everything else he himself doesn't consume, etc. Is that moderate Dem? Does the fact that he is a bajillionaire simply mean he can't be called a liberal? Of course, I am old enough to remember that Bloomberg is a Republican so there is that.

[Indexer]

Just pointing this out with no intention to discuss further but socially liberal while also being fiscally conservative is not really a viable ideology. I understand what you are trying to represent and it sounds great in theory. But you really need to understand how social programs, social issues etc. are deeply intertwined with fiscal issues. For example the poverty cycle is greatly influenced by fiscal issues. I am only bringing his up because I used to claim to be "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" until I truly understood that you can't really be both. It's ripe for discussion in another thread. Don't want to thread hijack.

As far as this thread is concerned I am an independent, I guess. I don't like labels and simply vote for who I think the best candidate is. Labels just lead to division.

Maybe it isn't viable the way you think about it, but for me it's perfectly viable.

Socially liberal:  If gay people want to get married, women want abortions, people want to smoke pot, etc. etc. go for it....

Fiscally conservative: ... just don't ask me to pay for it.

I would also place getting the countries' fiscal house in order(not running record deficits to fund recurring expenses) as part of being fiscally conservative.

[MasterStache]

Just pointing this out with no intention to discuss further but socially liberal while also being fiscally conservative is not really a viable ideology. I understand what you are trying to represent and it sounds great in theory. But you really need to understand how social programs, social issues etc. are deeply intertwined with fiscal issues. For example the poverty cycle is greatly influenced by fiscal issues. I am only bringing his up because I used to claim to be "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" until I truly understood that you can't really be both. It's ripe for discussion in another thread. Don't want to thread hijack.

As far as this thread is concerned I am an independent, I guess. I don't like labels and simply vote for who I think the best candidate is. Labels just lead to division.

Maybe it isn't viable the way you think about it, but for me it's perfectly viable.

Socially liberal:  If gay people want to get married, women want abortions, people want to smoke pot, etc. etc. go for it....

Fiscally conservative: ... just don't ask me to pay for it.

I would also place getting the countries' fiscal house in order(not running record deficits to fund recurring expenses) as part of being fiscally conservative.

To be fair only the abortion issue is something your tax money would go towards. Tax money doesn't pay for gay marriage ceremonies nor for folks to smoke some pot. Fiscal conservatism would actually support banning abortions so money would not be designated for places like Planned Parenthood. Sure you can support their right to choose, but when they have no place to turn to or financial means to do so, then the choice was made for them.

FYI Bill and Melinda Gates pledged $2 billion dollars for access to birth control throughout the world. It's certainly not fiscally conservative by any means yet it's a great step in getting women out of poverty. And a great way to reduce abortion.

[Davnasty]

Just pointing this out with no intention to discuss further but socially liberal while also being fiscally conservative is not really a viable ideology. I understand what you are trying to represent and it sounds great in theory. But you really need to understand how social programs, social issues etc. are deeply intertwined with fiscal issues. For example the poverty cycle is greatly influenced by fiscal issues. I am only bringing his up because I used to claim to be "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" until I truly understood that you can't really be both. It's ripe for discussion in another thread. Don't want to thread hijack.

As far as this thread is concerned I am an independent, I guess. I don't like labels and simply vote for who I think the best candidate is. Labels just lead to division.

Maybe it isn't viable the way you think about it, but for me it's perfectly viable.

Socially liberal:  If gay people want to get married, women want abortions, people want to smoke pot, etc. etc. go for it....

Fiscally conservative: ... just don't ask me to pay for it.

I would also place getting the countries' fiscal house in order(not running record deficits to fund recurring expenses) as part of being fiscally conservative.

To be fair only the abortion issue is something your tax money would go towards. Tax money doesn't pay for gay marriage ceremonies nor for folks to smoke some pot. Fiscal conservatism would actually support banning abortions so money would not be designated for places like Planned Parenthood. Sure you can support their right to choose, but when they have no place to turn to or financial means to do so, then the choice was made for them.

FYI Bill and Melinda Gates pledged $2 billion dollars for access to birth control throughout the world. It's certainly not fiscally conservative by any means yet it's a great step in getting women out of poverty. And a great way to reduce abortion.

There are two separate issues here. Failing to provide funding for Planned Parenthood is not equivalent to banning abortion.

Generally fiscal conservatives aren't in favor of banning anything as bans require enforcement and enforcement costs money.

Which brings me to my next point, if we follow your strict requirement that fiscal conservatives always favor the short term* lower cost option, then social conservatives also cannot be fiscally conservative. If they are in favor of banning drugs and other things, enforcing those bans costs money.

So who is allowed to call themselves a true fiscal conservative? It seems like your requirements would narrow it down to strict libertarians only.

*I say short term because the argument can be made for many socially liberal programs that they cost money now but will save money in the long run, like rehab programs and planned parenthood. Some would argue that this makes them fiscally conservative but that's a separate point that I'm not getting into right now.

[MonkeyJenga]

Just pointing this out with no intention to discuss further but socially liberal while also being fiscally conservative is not really a viable ideology. I understand what you are trying to represent and it sounds great in theory. But you really need to understand how social programs, social issues etc. are deeply intertwined with fiscal issues. For example the poverty cycle is greatly influenced by fiscal issues. I am only bringing his up because I used to claim to be "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" until I truly understood that you can't really be both. It's ripe for discussion in another thread. Don't want to thread hijack.

As far as this thread is concerned I am an independent, I guess. I don't like labels and simply vote for who I think the best candidate is. Labels just lead to division.

Maybe it isn't viable the way you think about it, but for me it's perfectly viable.

Socially liberal:  If gay people want to get married, women want abortions, people want to smoke pot, etc. etc. go for it....

Fiscally conservative: ... just don't ask me to pay for it.

I would also place getting the countries' fiscal house in order(not running record deficits to fund recurring expenses) as part of being fiscally conservative.

To be fair only the abortion issue is something your tax money would go towards. Tax money doesn't pay for gay marriage ceremonies nor for folks to smoke some pot. Fiscal conservatism would actually support banning abortions so money would not be designated for places like Planned Parenthood. Sure you can support their right to choose, but when they have no place to turn to or financial means to do so, then the choice was made for them.

FYI Bill and Melinda Gates pledged $2 billion dollars for access to birth control throughout the world. It's certainly not fiscally conservative by any means yet it's a great step in getting women out of poverty. And a great way to reduce abortion.

I disagree with the bolded. There is evidence that increased abortion access translates to higher levels of education and workplace participation, which strengthens the economy. It's also a lot cheaper to pay for birth control/abortions than it is to pay for prenatal care, delivery, postnatal care, and societal impacts of unprepared parents.

From the Gates foundation site:

Voluntary family planning is one of the most cost-effective investments a country can make in its future. Every dollar spent on family planning can save governments up to 6 dollars that can be spent on improving health, housing, water, sanitation, and other public services.

Regarding marriage equality - taxes may not pay for the ceremonies, but it does mean more access to marriage tax benefits.

[maizefolk]

FYI Bill and Melinda Gates pledged $2 billion dollars for access to birth control throughout the world. It's certainly not fiscally conservative by any means yet it's a great step in getting women out of poverty. And a great way to reduce abortion.

I disagree with the bolded. There is evidence that increased abortion access translates to higher levels of education and workplace participation, which strengthens the economy. It's also a lot cheaper to pay for birth control/abortions than it is to pay for prenatal care, delivery, postnatal care, and societal impacts of unprepared parents.

From the Gates foundation site:

Voluntary family planning is one of the most cost-effective investments a country can make in its future. Every dollar spent on family planning can save governments up to 6 dollars that can be spent on improving health, housing, water, sanitation, and other public services.

Regarding marriage equality - taxes may not pay for the ceremonies, but it does mean more access to marriage tax benefits.

This is a really good point. The financial benefits of improved family planning access take a while to kick in but they are quite large.

There are a lot of situations, like this one, where I think part of the problem is that people are bad at estimating or factoring in externalities. If externalities and delayed costs are taken into account, there are a lot of things -- like family planning or reducing/mitigating climate change or some types of early childhood support intervention that reduce crime rates as adults -- that make a lot of sense even from a purely dollars and cents fiscal conservative perspective.

[EvenSteven]

FYI Bill and Melinda Gates pledged $2 billion dollars for access to birth control throughout the world. It's certainly not fiscally conservative by any means yet it's a great step in getting women out of poverty. And a great way to reduce abortion.

I disagree with the bolded. There is evidence that increased abortion access translates to higher levels of education and workplace participation, which strengthens the economy. It's also a lot cheaper to pay for birth control/abortions than it is to pay for prenatal care, delivery, postnatal care, and societal impacts of unprepared parents.

From the Gates foundation site:

Voluntary family planning is one of the most cost-effective investments a country can make in its future. Every dollar spent on family planning can save governments up to 6 dollars that can be spent on improving health, housing, water, sanitation, and other public services.

Regarding marriage equality - taxes may not pay for the ceremonies, but it does mean more access to marriage tax benefits.

This is a really good point. The financial benefits of improved family planning access take a while to kick in but they are quite large.

There are a lot of situations, like this one, where I think part of the problem is that people are bad at estimating or factoring in externalities. If externalities and delayed costs are taken into account, there are a lot of things -- like family planning or reducing/mitigating climate change or some types of early childhood support intervention that reduce crime rates as adults -- that make a lot of sense even from a purely dollars and cents fiscal conservative perspective.

In related news a Republican president nominated and a Republican senate confirmed a new federal judge who is rated as unqualified, and is fiercely anti-contraception and anti-fertility treatment. Not just as a personal opinion but as a legal philosophy.