Nonsense. Everyone knows that every issue neatly fits into monolithic, mutually exclusive categories.

Or more likely they have no views at all and are the cattle of today's society.

Or, as most of you call them: Trolls

"fiscally conservative and socially tolerant" was the phrase the article used.

I'm pretty sure we have already have a word for that, a word conspicuously absent from the article.

I hate people who whine about media bias, but it seems fairly obvious that the chunk of voters they're talking about are, if not libertarian per se, then certainly libertarian-leaning.

In other news, the middle:


left------------is here-------------right

Churchill2004:"fiscally conservative and socially tolerant" was the phrase the article used

Wow, that's so me. But everyone who disagrees with me seems to call em a libtard so all these years I thought I was a Secret Democrat.

Stop confusing me.

Blasphemy!

Next we'll be hearing that a single-dimensional figure based around centuries-old terminology describing class relations can't adequately convey the full spectrum of political thought! HIDE YUOR CHILDREN!!1

There are Americans who prefer not to be farked over by smug corporate whores who try to buy them off with trinkets paid for by massive national debt. Maybe 5%.

OK, that was optimistic...

You mean I can actually make up my own mind about how a feel on individual issues and I don't have to follow just one party's platform? Huh. Who knew?

Churchill2004:I hate people who whine about media bias, but it seems fairly obvious that the chunk of voters they're talking about are, if not libertarian per se, then certainly libertarian-leaning.

True. The Party could probably get some nice traction with these people if their candidates didn't dye themselves blue with colloidial silver and stuff.

FireBreathingLiberal:In other news, the middle:

left------------is here-------------right

We should look at how Authoritarian and Libertarian people are as well.

This site explains it. (may have been on Fark before)

I show up as a center libertarian when I take the test. Got a good laugh when our office resident hardcore Republican scored almost exactly the same as Obama.

Duh

A note to all those who cling to the title, 'fiscally conservative,' I hate to inform you that the so-called 'right-wing' is no longer the party of fiscal conservatism.

What the article actually says;

The shocking conclusion? Undecided voters tend to have some conservative views and some liberal ones. They also have a healthy distrust of politicians in general.

In other words, they're not SOLIDLY Republican or Democrat*, but they SHARE views with each.

Which is actually a lot different from what the headline says.

*_{Actually, there's a LOT of people with both liberal and conservative views who identify themselves as "Rebublican" and "Democrat", but God forbid we try to impede our nation's ever-spiraling downfall into an "Us vs. Them" mindset.}

Diogenes:Nonsense. Everyone knows that every issue neatly fits into monolithic, mutually exclusive categories.

That's such a typical Right/Left (Please circle all that apply) wing statement, you're all the same.

Churchill2004:I hate people who whine about media bias, but it seems fairly obvious that the chunk of voters they're talking about are, if not libertarian per se, then certainly libertarian-leaning.

Yeah, after a fashion.

That said, libertarians (I'm talking about people who refer to themselves as such) can't really decide what they stand for. Half of them are like the Reason magazine Randian types, and the other half are neoconfederate buttholes who wish they could still own negroes.

Then there are people like me--I think that the government should work for us, but we should carefully guard against an expansion of governmental power. You won't see me compaining if my tax money is used to build infrastructure or fund research that ends up helping our people and giving our businesses an edge over the rest of the world. I'm not a libertarian, but a moderate. HUGE difference.

CustomAndy Quote 2008-07-03 04:17:24 PM
A note to all those who cling to the title, 'fiscally conservative,' I hate to inform you that the so-called 'right-wing' is no longer the party of fiscal conservatism.


starve the beast! how can you get rid of the burden of social security if you don't bankrupt the nation?
true conservatives understand this.

Churchill2004:"fiscally conservative and socially tolerant" was the phrase the article used.

I'm pretty sure we have already have a word for that, a word conspicuously absent from the article.

I hate people who whine about media bias, but it seems fairly obvious that the chunk of voters they're talking about are, if not libertarian per se, then certainly libertarian-leaning.

You mean WERE libertarian-leaning.

Don't forget that over the past 8 years, the Libertarian party has lost all resemblance to its former self and has become a haven for Randian sociopaths and Republican's-In-Denial.

Could they be referring to realists?

Nah, couldn't be... those are make believe, like unicorns and midgets.

Hideously Gigantic Smurf:Churchill2004:"fiscally conservative and socially tolerant" was the phrase the article used.

I'm pretty sure we have already have a word for that, a word conspicuously absent from the article.

I hate people who whine about media bias, but it seems fairly obvious that the chunk of voters they're talking about are, if not libertarian per se, then certainly libertarian-leaning.

You mean WERE libertarian-leaning.

Don't forget that over the past 8 years, the Libertarian party has lost all resemblance to its former self and has become a haven for Randian sociopaths and Republican's-In-Denial.

We have a name for that.

Second article today saying if you're not a d or r then your a lost soul....

the machine is spinning up fast in this election


how about we grow that 15% of the mush middle and "fiscally conservative and socially tolerant" group of voters and toss out the 2 criminal organizations currently ruining the country.

I find that I am a moderate in the sense that I find some of the promises from both parties appealing.

For instance, I like both pancakes and rainbow-shiatting unicorns.

/what's a Fark Independent to do????

sonnyjrob:Second article today saying if you're not a d or r then your a lost soul....

the machine is spinning up fast in this election


how about we grow that 15% of the mush middle and "fiscally conservative and socially tolerant" group of voters and toss out the 2 criminal organizations currently ruining the country.

WITCH!!!Burn him!!!

Sonnyjrob:

I agree. When the baby is as diseased as the bathwater, it is time to throw it all out and start over. Mush Middle. Sounds like a great name for a band too. Or a snack.

7of7:Or more likely they have no views at all and are the cattle of today's society.

You know, in the past I've found your posts to be mostly narrow-minded. You've done nothing here to change that.

Poopspasm:Reason magazine Randian types

reason is by no stretch of the imagination "Randian". "Moderate libertarian" would be a much more accurate term.

Hideously Gigantic Smurf:You mean WERE libertarian-leaning.

Don't forget that over the past 8 years, the Libertarian party has lost all resemblance to its former self and has become a haven for Randian sociopaths and Republican's-In-Denial

1) Ideologically libertarian is obviously not the same as being a member/supporter of the Libertarian Party, though there's of course a lot of overlap.

2) Up until this election cycle, the LP has been more or less the same since the CATO-type moderates were forced out of the party in 1983- a radical, dogmatic niche party. The reason Barr's a good thing for the party is because he's not- as some have accused- pulling the party to the right, but rather trying to broaden the party into more of a libertarian-leaning coalition rather than an anarchocapitalist church.

Hideously Gigantic Smurf:What the article actually says;

The shocking conclusion? Undecided voters tend to have some conservative views and some liberal ones. They also have a healthy distrust of politicians in general.

In other words, they're not SOLIDLY Republican or Democrat*, but they SHARE views with each.

Which is actually a lot different from what the headline says.

*Actually, there's a LOT of people with both liberal and conservative views who identify themselves as "Rebublican" and "Democrat", but God forbid we try to impede our nation's ever-spiraling downfall into an "Us vs. Them" mindset.

Okay, I'm one of these people.

Who here is saying they are going to do anything meaningful about the travesty that is our criminal justice system? How about our "corrections industry?
Who is going to FIX our educational system - and yes that means dismantling the Reacher's union as well as paying REAL money to attract excellent educators.
Who is going to fix our crumbling infrastructure? Roads, bridges, telecommunications, water, sewers, this country is falling apart everywhere youlook.
Health care, I don't care whether you call it universal health care or what but the prices we are paying for the lack if service too many people are getting needs to be fixed. FIX IT.

And I know I'm going to get flamed for this - cut the military budget by 75%. Get rid of our superpower fleets which are next to useless in this new world where terrorists are the way to wreak havoc.

One more - cut every god damn program out of the federal government that doesn't make sense. If we look at the overhead for the welfare department - so that some biatch doesn't steal a few grand - screw it - get rid of all the useless case workers and give the poor people a 75% raise in benefits.

Obama? - No thanks?
McCain - You have to be joking.
Can we get a do over?

Given this shocking news, why is it that every single third party that has come along is composed almost entirely of fringe-a-zoid wackoes?

Any third party that appealed to the people who live mostly under the bulgiest part of the bell curve (sorry for the technical jargon) could really give both the Dems and Repubs fits. Instead were are stuck with Greens, Libertarians, Vegans, and assorted other hooples.

Churchill2004:reason is by no stretch of the imagination "Randian". "Moderate libertarian" would be a much more accurate term.

I meant that more in a "the philosophy that informs their views" way than a "they're hardline Objectivists" way. But yeah, you're right that they aren't as dogmatic as the folks who typically get saddled with the adjective "Randian."

Incidentally, if I'm wrong in that, feel free to correct me. I've always gotten that John Galt-ish feel from their articles, but I'll be the first to admit that they apply a generous dose of common sense to their views.

Churchill2004:1) Ideologically libertarian is obviously not the same as being a member/supporter of the Libertarian Party, though there's of course a lot of overlap.

2) Up until this election cycle, the LP has been more or less the same since the CATO-type moderates were forced out of the party in 1983- a radical, dogmatic niche party. The reason Barr's a good thing for the party is because he's not- as some have accused- pulling the party to the right, but rather trying to broaden the party into more of a libertarian-leaning coalition rather than an anarchocapitalist church.

Yeah, but if we've learned anything over the past 30 years it's that it is a lot easier to have your ideology hijack one of the 2 major parties than make a "third" party which is politically viable.

AP reveals that moderate voters have (SHOCK) political views that don't fit into either Dem or Repub category

And I'm bitter about it. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to finish my tofu sandwich as I have to be at the shooting range in 26 minutes...

choice and consequence:There are Americans who prefer not to be farked over by smug corporate whores who try to buy them off with trinkets paid for by massive national debt. Maybe 5%.

OK, that was optimistic...

No, that's about right. Nader's polling at 6% according to a recent CNN poll. (new window)

/ZOMGspoiler!`!@

Poopspasm:Churchill2004:reason is by no stretch of the imagination "Randian". "Moderate libertarian" would be a much more accurate term.

I meant that more in a "the philosophy that informs their views" way than a "they're hardline Objectivists" way. But yeah, you're right that they aren't as dogmatic as the folks who typically get saddled with the adjective "Randian."

Incidentally, if I'm wrong in that, feel free to correct me. I've always gotten that John Galt-ish feel from their articles, but I'll be the first to admit that they apply a generous dose of common sense to their views.

Rand's a big influence on them, but more in making them, broadly speaking, rationalists rather than dogmatic Objectivists. They accept a lot of her basic ideas about individual liberty being a rational concept that can be derived from observation of human nature rather than mysticism, but they'll also not hesitate to differ with her and mock dogmatism of any stripe.


doyner:Yeah, but if we've learned anything over the past 30 years it's that it is a lot easier to have your ideology hijack one of the 2 major parties than make a "third" party which is politically viable

Part of that is because, up until now, the two parties have generally been smart enough to nip any growing third party movement in the bud through triangulation. The GOP, though, instead of trying to appeal to libertarian-leaning types, has done everything it can to piss them off and run them out of the party. And the Dems are doing nothing to appeal to them except some very half-assed civil libertarianism. Which most people correctly feel is more tied to being out of power more than any fundamental principles.

oldebayer:
see post by lordargent, specifically the part about generalizations

oldebayer:Given this shocking news, why is it that every single third party that has come along is composed almost entirely of fringe-a-zoid wackoes?

The two party hegemony plays the biggest part. From that you have the secondary effect that a viable and effective politician is going to gravitate to one of the parties. History, pragmatism, an unnecessary consistency...?

And the parties are going to want to suck in an effective politician, leaving the fringe-a-zoid wackos out in the cold.

Even if you could successfully pull off a viable third party run in the national election, you would almost certainly need to come up through the ranks as a Republican or Democrat first.

I get rich people who vote democrat

I get poor people who vote democrat

I get rich people who vote republican

But I don't get gay people or poor people who vote Republican. I mean it just prevents them from potentially bettering their situation.

Maynard G. Muskievote:choice and consequence:There are Americans who prefer not to be farked over by smug corporate whores who try to buy them off with trinkets paid for by massive national debt. Maybe 5%.

OK, that was optimistic...

No, that's about right. Nader's polling at 6% according to a recent CNN poll. (new window)

/ZOMGspoiler!`!@

Barr's polling anywhere from 2-8%, too. But those polls are really meaningless this far out, particularly when so few are including their names.

Churchill2004:Part of that is because, up until now, the two parties have generally been smart enough to nip any growing third party movement in the bud through triangulation. The GOP, though, instead of trying to appeal to libertarian-leaning types, has done everything it can to piss them off and run them out of the party. And the Dems are doing nothing to appeal to them except some very half-assed civil libertarianism. Which most people correctly feel is more tied to being out of power more than any fundamental principles.

I agree. And this doesn't refute my post one iota.

doyner:Churchill2004:Part of that is because, up until now, the two parties have generally been smart enough to nip any growing third party movement in the bud through triangulation. The GOP, though, instead of trying to appeal to libertarian-leaning types, has done everything it can to piss them off and run them out of the party. And the Dems are doing nothing to appeal to them except some very half-assed civil libertarianism. Which most people correctly feel is more tied to being out of power more than any fundamental principles.

I agree. And this doesn't refute my post one iota.

lol, I wasn't really trying to refute it.

oldebayer:Given this shocking news, why is it that every single third party that has come along is composed almost entirely of fringe-a-zoid wackoes?

Given the destruction of the country under the pretend 2 party system, I'd have to wonder where the wackoes are really gravitating towards.

Churchill2004:lol, I wasn't really trying to refute it.

Oh yeah? Well, Dracula called and he's coming over.

Churchill2004:Maynard G. Muskievote:choice and consequence:There are Americans who prefer not to be farked over by smug corporate whores who try to buy them off with trinkets paid for by massive national debt. Maybe 5%.

OK, that was optimistic...

No, that's about right. Nader's polling at 6% according to a recent CNN poll. (new window)

/ZOMGspoiler!`!@

Barr's polling anywhere from 2-8%, too. But those polls are really meaningless this far out, particularly when so few are including their names.

Yeah... Imagine how well they could do if they were actually heard.

Random Reality Check:
And I know I'm going to get flamed for this - cut the military budget by 75%. Get rid of our superpower fleets which are next to useless in this new world where terrorists are the way to wreak havoc.


I don't disagree with the rest of your post -- but this would be a very, very bad idea. Mothball the fleet now, and we'll just have to play catch-up later when China steps in to fill the void. And who's gonna keep the Spanish Armada in check?

doyner:Churchill2004:lol, I wasn't really trying to refute it.

Oh yeah? Well, Dracula called and he's coming over.

I'm a libertarian. You think I don't have silver bullets?

I like the a la carte option.

I'll take whatever from any ideology that which I like.

Andric:I don't disagree with the rest of your post -- but this would be a very, very bad idea. Mothball the fleet now, and we'll just have to play catch-up later when China steps in to fill the void. And who's gonna keep the Spanish Armada in check?

We wouldn't need to compete with China if we didn't have such an aggressive foreign policy involving dominating the whole world.

submitter:AP reveals that moderate voters have (SHOCK) political views that don't fit into either Dem or Repub category

Everyone is already aware of this.

But in a democracy you must compromise. Only one person can be president and he needs a plurality and 50% of US does not believe in the same things. Therefore you must compromise for what you care about the most.

If you don't understand this then you are the one confused not other people.

This idea that a politician should stand for 100% of what you do is naive and not what democracy is about.