Based on these political positions, would you call me a conservative, a liberal, or something else?

[Skald the Rhymer]

I am against gun control. The Second Amendment means what it says, in my opinion, and if people oppose its provisions they should work to repeal that amendment, not pretend it means something else. I'm very tempted to say that every adult should be strongly encouraged to know how to use at least one sort of small arm safely.

I am in favor of abortion rights, at least up to very late in the pregnancy, and at any point in the pregnancy if the mother's life or health is at risk.

Ideally I'd want the government to have no say whatsodamnever in who may marry whom solong as all parties are adults, but if government is going to stick its nose in, same-sex marriage should be allowed. I can't think of a good reason to prohibit polygamy but I think it's a bad idea, at least as manifested by the likes of Warren Jeffs.

I'd like there to be considerable federal involvement in education, both funding it and setting standards. I don't want those standards tested only or even primarily by standardzied tests, though. And I think charter schools are often a stealth attempt to defund the public schools, which I don't like; it's in society's interest to provide competent K-12 education for as many people as possible.

I think the death penalty is theoretically just but, practically speaking, impossible to administer justly and at a reasonable price, so I'd ban it.

I think anyone who wants to teach creationism or intelligent design in the public schools is either a nitwit, a liar, or an ignoramus.

Vaccines for diseases like measles, chicken pox, and so forth should be mandatory.

Seat-belt use should NOT be mandatory; nor should wearing a motorcycle helmet.

Single-payer universal health care is probably the best way to go.

While I concede the power to tax is the power to destroy, it's silly to think that lowering taxes is always the correct response to an economic situation, and people who say so are either disingenuous or fooling themselves. And a tax code that allows General Electric to pay zip in taxes on billions of revenue is broken.

Medical marijuana should be legal in all states. In fact, marijuana should be legal; it's no more dangerous than alcohol, and clearly of greater benefit that tobacco (which, incidentally, should nnot be banned.)

Prostitution as it exists in the United States is almost always the result of very unpleasant exploitation, but it shouldn't be outlawed so long as both parties are adults. It should be regulated to control STD spreads and to ensure that any prostitute is working of his or her own volition, supported by taxes on the exchange. Prostitutes should be licensed in teh same way insurance agents are.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is fine the way it is; the EPA should have more power; there should be more regulation of certain dangerous industries.

No Xmas trees, menorahs, crosses, or Decalogue tablets in government buildings; no religious symbols at all. And remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

A brief stint in government service should be required to obtain the franchise, at least in theory. In practice that may well not work, so I don't insist.

My votes in presidental electiosn have been thus: Bush I, Dole, Gore, Kerry, Obama.

How would you classify me politically?

[Oakminster]

You're kinda hard to pigeonhole. Got some good conservative/libertarian ideas in there, but you're also willing to cede more power to the feds in certain areas. Guess I'd call you a centrist overall, with some positions that shade right or left depending on the issue.

[Skald the Rhymer]

You're kinda hard to pigeonhole. Got some good conservative/libertarian ideas in there, but you're also willing to cede more power to the feds in certain areas. Guess I'd call you a centrist overall, with some positions that shade right or left depending on the issue.

Though the other items on the list are in no particular order, it's not an accident that I list gun rights first; it's the most important one to me. Does that change your assessment?

[Oakminster]

Though the other items on the list are in no particular order, it's not an accident that I list gun rights first; it's the most important one to me. Does that change your assessment?

No. I find that to be consistent with other libertarian-leaning positions like marijuana, abortion, gay marriage.

[Regallag_The_Axe]

I'm not sure what you are either, but you're very, very similar to whatever I am.

[jsgoddess]

Other than my belief that the death penalty is theoretically AND practically flawed and my utter indifference to people being versed in the use of guns, your beliefs match mine pretty closely. I consider myself a liberal.

[Skald the Rhymer]

I'm not sure what you are either, but you're very, very similar to whatever I am.

Which reminds me: I'd meant to encourage others to list political positions they find important so they too could be assessed.

I also realized that I left out my vote in my very first presidential election, which was for Bush I. I only voted for him because I was trying to get laid, though. I should also add that I've never smoked marijuana, either as recreation or as medicine, and think doing so is silly; I''m just not willing to ban it.

Other than my belief that the death penalty is theoretically AND practically flawed and my utter indifference to people being versed in the use of guns, your beliefs match mine pretty closely. I consider myself a liberal.

When I say that the death penalty is theoretically justifiable, I mean that some people need killing. For instance, somebody (Annie Xmas?) started a thread some months back about a couple of guys who invaded a family's home, raped & killed the mother and her daughters, and set the place aflame. Those guys deserve death. But as I cannot construct a system in which I believe the DP would be administered justly and without any possible error, I have to oppose it in practice.

[Chronos]

It looks like guns are the only issue on which you fall solidly on the conservative side of the American political divide: All of your other views are either low-profile points that neither side really makes a big deal about, or distinctly liberal (by American standards). So the question then is basically whether you put a high enough priority on guns to outweigh everything else combined.

Note, by the way, my usage of "American political divide" and "American standards". I know of no particular reason why, say, support of guns, opposition to abortion, and opposition to taxes should all be associated with the same political party, but for whatever reason, that's the way it's worked out.

[Jas09]

To me your a classic liberal with some libertarian leanings (not unlike myself).

It's pretty obvious that with respect to current political parties you would be much more likely to support a Democratic candidate than a Republican one. This is clearly pointed out in your actual presidential votes.

[Skald the Rhymer]

To me your a classic liberal with some libertarian leanings (not unlike myself).

It's pretty obvious that with respect to current political parties you would be much more likely to support a Democratic candidate than a Republican one. This is clearly pointed out in your actual presidential votes.

Well, I'd have voted for McCain in 2000 if he'd won the Republican nomination. I was voting against Bush II both times. And I think his father is quite underrated as president.

[missred]

You're pretty close to what I am politically. In fact, if you were to move to my county, you would find a lot of kindred spirits in the county Democratic Party (this is TN, where many Dems tend to be more centrist).

I consider myself a moderate.

ETA: Other than voting for Nader once, I've voted straight D for president since '84. Local elections there are a lot of Independents (we all know which way they lean anyway. :p) and congresscritters have an occasional R or L among them.

[Jas09]

Well, I'd have voted for McCain in 2000 if he'd won the Republican nomination. I was voting against Bush II both times. And I think his father is quite underrated as president.Yes, and I have to say I'm not sure I can reconcile your stated positions with a vote for Dole over Clinton (unless perhaps the gun control issues was primary - but I would think that the anti-abortion stance would outweigh any marginal gun control measures).

It's a bit hard to evaluate your political alignment without seeing a "relative weighting" of your positions - is medical marijuana more or less important to you than gay rights, for example? Nobody can find a candidate or party that agrees with them on everything, obviously...

I would agree that GHWB was and is underrated, but it is equally clear that he has no place in today's GOP.

I just find it hard to believe that a proponent of abortion rights, gay marriage, universal single-payer health care, increased environmental regulation, and a complete removal of religion from the public sphere could vote for anything other than the Democratic candidate these days.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Yes, and I have to say I'm not sure I can reconcile your stated positions with a vote for Dole over Clinton (unless perhaps the gun control issues was primary - but I would think that the anti-abortion stance would outweigh any marginal gun control measures).


You seem to be assuming that my positions have been static. They haven't been, and that election was 15 years ago.

[Boyo Jim]

I have a method for fairly administering the death penalty, though I can't say how effective it might be. Make it voluntary -- you can have a choice between life in prison with no chance of parole, or you can choose to be executed. You can also decide this at any time during your sentence -- if you wake up with a bad hair day, you can choose to be dead by the afternoon.

I think I might choose death as preferable to life in a box, but of course you can never really know that in advance.

[Regallag_The_Axe]

Which reminds me: I'd meant to encourage others to list political positions they find important so they too could be assessed.
I'll give it a shot then.

A brief stint in government service should be required to obtain the franchise, at least in theory. In practice that may well not work, so I don't insist.
This is the only point of yours that I disagree with, and even here I might neither support nor oppose it, depending on how 'A brief stint in government service' is defined.

As for other issues: I think the government should take a large role in supporting renewable/alternate energy sources.

I think our military is bigger than it needs to be, and that it should be slowly reduced so we can spend that money elsewhere.


I have a method for fairly administering the death penalty, though I can't say how effective it might be. Make it voluntary -- you can have a choice between life in prison with no chance of parole, or you can choose to be executed. You can also decide this at any time during your sentence -- if you wake up with a bad hair day, you can choose to be dead by the afternoon.

I think I might choose death as preferable to life in a box, but of course you can never really know that in advance.

This is an interesting idea. I'll have to give it some thought.

[Simplicio]

I have a method for fairly administering the death penalty, though I can't say how effective it might be. Make it voluntary -- you can have a choice between life in prison with no chance of parole, or you can choose to be executed. You can also decide this at any time during your sentence -- if you wake up with a bad hair day, you can choose to be dead by the afternoon.

I think I might choose death as preferable to life in a box, but of course you can never really know that in advance.

People sentenced to death kind of do have this option already. They can stop appeals after they're convicted, and hence end up being executed decades earlier then otherwise. Timothy McVeigh, to cite a famous case, did this.

My impression is that McVeigh is something of an outlier though, and that most people end up fighting to the bitter end. So I suspect under your plan, the vast majority would choose life imprisonment.

As to Skald, the OP is kinda weird, since it seems to me your pretty clearly liberal. You have one view thats a mild oulier (gun control), but that seems to be a pretty common one amongst liberals (which is why Dems have largely dropped it as an issue, at least at the federal level).

To use my homestate as an example, Vermont tends to be strongly in favor of gunrights, but I don't think anyone would call Vermont anything but a liberal state.

[Jas09]

You seem to be assuming that my positions have been static. They haven't been, and that election was 15 years ago.Of course... :smack: sorry about that.

Seeing as how when I was a younger man I voted for GWB (the first time around, and my first presidential election), I certainly understand how opinions change as time goes by.

A rundown of my current political position preferences is rather dull - it's pretty standard liberal fare, with an isolationist and free-trade side, and libertarian stances on things like recreational drug use. Economically perhaps a bit more free-market oriented than some liberals, in areas where free markets have proven their worth (i.e., I'd support cap and trade over a straight CO2 cap or tax but am not at all convinced that a free-market solution exists for health care).

[Boyo Jim]

People sentenced to death kind of do have this option already. They can stop appeals after they're convicted, and hence end up being executed decades earlier then otherwise. Timothy McVeigh, to cite a famous case, did this.

My impression is that McVeigh is something of an outlier though, and that most people end up fighting to the bitter end. So I suspect under your plan, the vast majority would choose life imprisonment.

As to Skald, the OP is kinda weird, since it seems to me your pretty clearly liberal. You have one view thats a mild oulier (gun control), but that seems to be a pretty common one amongst liberals (which is why Dems have largely dropped it as an issue, at least at the federal level).

To use my homestate as an example, Vermont tends to be strongly in favor of gunrights, but I don't think anyone would call Vermont anything but a liberal state.

Under my plan, no one is sentenced to death. So all those pricey death sentence appeals go away. And everyone who is sentenced to life without parole has an option of death instead, so there is a MUCH bigger pool of people who might choose it.

But you're probably right that it won't be a popular choice.

[Simplicio]

Under my plan, no one is sentenced to death. So all those pricey death sentence appeals go away. And everyone who is sentenced to life without parole has an option of death instead, so there is a MUCH bigger pool of people who might choose it.

Yea, I get that. I'm just saying that using the number of people who don't appeal their death sentences is probably a semi-decent proxy for the percentages of people who would choose death over long-term imprisonment.

Actually, the rate of choosing not to appeal not to appeal is around 12% (http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060821/a_deathrow21.art.htm), higher then I would've thought. So as a first guess, I'd take that as the percentage of lifetime inmates who would choose death over life imprisonment, though of course the population on death row is probably different then the general population of life-sentencers, so its only good as a rough estimate.

[B. Serum]

Kind of a conservo-liberalitarian.

[Boyo Jim]

Libertarian.

That would be about the last term I'd apply. Skald's beliefs need a fairly hefty government with a lot of power.

[MrDibble]

I consider you a liberal. Your views on gun rights don't really contradict this for me. The required government service is unusual for that profile in the US, but many European countries (and Israel) still have required public service and I see nothing wrong with that as long as there's some choice in what service one can perform, not just military.
Which reminds me: I'd meant to encourage others to list political positions they find important so they too could be assessed.
Well, I'm an anarchist, so my most important political position is the abolition of the hierarchical State.
BUT
I'm also a realist, so for practical purposes, I skew strongly liberal.
These are things I find most important:
No Death Penalty. Pretty much a dealbreaker. As an adult, I wouldn't live in a country that had the DP. I have a hard time even justifying visiting one, as a tourist. I won't be going to Japan, for instance, as fascinated as I am by the place.
Abortion on demand for at least the first 6 months.
Equal rights for women
Equal rights for LGTB folks
I'd have thought equal rights for all races went without saying, but with the state of the Dope lately, I'm not sure about that. I'm not a huge fan of affirmative action as currently practiced, personally, but then there needs to be some other system to break wrongfully-established entrenched privilege, and I haven't seen any viable alternatives offered.
I can take or leave guns, but I don't have a problem if others want them.
Public ownership of the airwaves, that's a biggy.
Firmer environmental legislation, with more teeth.

[MsWhatsit]

I'm not sure where everyone is getting "libertarian" from. Skald's stated positions seem to be pretty by-the-book liberal/Democrat with the single exception of gun control, and he's certainly not alone among Democrats with that one. The only way I could see someone with that list of preferences voting for a Republican is if they were a single-issue voter on Second Amendment rights.

[Peremensoe]

I think anyone who wants to teach creationism or intelligent design in the public schools is either a nitwit, a liar, or an ignoramus.

No politics there, since you don't say how government should respond to them, if at all.

Seat-belt use should NOT be mandatory; nor should wearing a motorcycle helmet.

So a small libertarian impulse, but an incomplete position; what should be done with these people when they wreck? Should public resources be used to try to save their lives?

Single-payer universal health care is probably the best way to go.

Evidently so. How much is covered? Does it not matter whether people have taken any steps to take care of themselves?

[Peremensoe]

I'm not sure where everyone is getting "libertarian" from. Skald's stated positions seem to be pretty by-the-book liberal/Democrat with the single exception of gun control...

He also mentioned libertarian-inflected positions on abortion, marriage, seat belts, marijuana and prostitution.

[Gyrate]

I'm not sure what you are either, but you're very, very similar to whatever I am.Same here. I'll say "leaning liberal".

[Boyo Jim]

I'll add one more thing. You are absolutely not like a contemporary Republican.

You are always creating poll threads and generally soliciting opinions. Considering other people's opinions is not a Republican trait. :p

[RickJay]

I'm not going to go through Skald's list exhaustively but the thread illustrates something; most people who actually THINK about the issues simply don't fall neatly onto a one-dimensional spectrum like liberal-conservative, Democrat-Republican, or in Canada, the range from Tory-Liberal-NDP.

There is no party here in Canada I agree with, and if there was it'd basically be the Rick Party, with me as leader and the only member. A person's opinions do not have to fall on the same place on the right-left scale, or be on the scale at all in some cases.

Furthermore, your approach to a given problem can quite reasonably change over time even while your philosophical position remains the same, simply because the practicaliities of the matter change.

[Really Not All That Bright]

You're a liberal.

Regards,


Another liberal

[Daddypants]

I pretty much agree with you on everything, Skald. I like to consider myself a left leaning moderate, but in practice, I'm probably more of a Liberal than I realize.

You left out your thoughts on the military. Increase or decrease? More or less money spent? Should we police the world or get out of other countries? Etc?
Personally, I like living in the country that is the big brother instead of gets big brothered. That being said, I'd like the US to maintain our strength, but use our military funds more wisely. I just don't know how to do that...

[Really Not All That Bright]

You're a liberal.
I suppose I should qualify this a bit.

Everything you're into is associated with liberal ideology, except that you don't want to ban guns or wear a seatbelt.

I do think the results might come up a bit differently if you talked about your fiscal positions, which Daddypants kind of alludes to.
He also mentioned libertarian-inflected positions on abortion, marriage, seat belts, marijuana and prostitution.
No, he mentioned liberal positions on those issues, which also happen to be the libertarian issues on those positions.

[Skald the Rhymer]

No politics there, since you don't say how government should respond to them, if at all.


Creationists and their dishonest cousins in ID are trying to establish a state religion, and so should be smacked down.

[appleciders]

You're left-of-center with a libertarian streak on some issues. The only major departure from the Democratic Party's positions is gun control, and there are certainly Democrats who agree with your values on gun control. However, a lot of your ideas involve relatively powerful government with lots of regulatory control; single-payer healthcare, an EPA with real teeth, and considerable public funding for schools, including great care with standards and testing, so you don't fit a classical libertarian viewpoint. You really split yourself between a Blue Dog Democrat (minimal government control about guns, seat belts) and a very left-wing view (single-payer healthcare, a strong EPA).

What does this mean: To what "franchise" do you refer?

A brief stint in government service should be required to obtain the franchise, at least in theory. In practice that may well not work, so I don't insist.

[Skald the Rhymer]

You're left-of-center with a libertarian streak on some issues. The only major departure from the Democratic Party's positions is gun control, and there are certainly Democrats who agree with your values on gun control. However, a lot of your ideas involve relatively powerful government with lots of regulatory control; single-payer healthcare, an EPA with real teeth, and considerable public funding for schools, including great care with standards and testing, so you don't fit a classical libertarian viewpoint. You really split yourself between a Blue Dog Democrat (minimal government control about guns, seat belts) and a very left-wing view (single-payer healthcare, a strong EPA).

What does this mean: To what "franchise" do you refer?

From Merriam-Webster:
franchise
1 : freedom or immunity from some burden or restriction vested in a person or group
2 a : a special privilege granted to an individual or group; especially : the right to be and exercise the powers of a corporation b : a constitutional or statutory right or privilege; especially : the right to vote

My back hurts, so I don't feel up to mocking you right now. Please assume that I said something cruel and the hamsters ate it.

[Evil Captor]

Yes, Skald, you are a progressive/liberal on most issues. But I noted a big hole in your list of beliefs: economic issues. Where do you stand on capitalism? Regulation of the stock market, etc.? Trickle-down? Taxes, progressive, flat tax, or nonexistent? Bandit bankers: should they be tortured to death to reveal where they are hiding the loot, or just shot?

[foolsguinea]

I am against gun control. .... I'm very tempted to say that every adult should be strongly encouraged to know how to use at least one sort of small arm safely.

I am in favor of abortion rights, at least up to very late in the pregnancy, and at any point in the pregnancy if the mother's life or health is at risk.

Ideally I'd want the government to have no say whatsodamnever in who may marry whom solong as all parties are adults....Goddamn libertarian.I'd like there to be considerable federal involvement in education, both funding it and setting standards. I don't want those standards tested only or even primarily by standardzied tests, though. And I think charter schools are often a stealth attempt to defund the public schools, which I don't like; it's in society's interest to provide competent K-12 education for as many people as possible.Scratch that. Libertarian, short of "goddamn."I think the death penalty is theoretically just but, practically speaking, impossible to administer justly and at a reasonable price, so I'd ban it.Yup, libertarian.I think anyone who wants to teach creationism or intelligent design in the public schools is either a nitwit, a liar, or an ignoramus.Self-righteous atheist libertarian.Vaccines for diseases like measles, chicken pox, and so forth should be mandatory.But sane.Seat-belt use should NOT be mandatory; nor should wearing a motorcycle helmet.Scratch that.Single-payer universal health care is probably the best way to go.

While I concede the power to tax is the power to destroy, it's silly to think that lowering taxes is always the correct response to an economic situation, and people who say so are either disingenuous or fooling themselves. And a tax code that allows General Electric to pay zip in taxes on billions of revenue is broken.Has a brain, avoids hardline TEA Party Reaganism.Medical marijuana should be legal in all states. In fact, marijuana should be legal; it's no more dangerous than alcohol, and clearly of greater benefit that tobacco (which, incidentally, should nnot be banned.)

Prostitution as it exists in the United States is almost always the result of very unpleasant exploitation, but it shouldn't be outlawed so long as both parties are adults. It should be regulated to control STD spreads and to ensure that any prostitute is working of his or her own volition, supported by taxes on the exchange. Prostitutes should be licensed in teh same way insurance agents are.Civil libertarian.The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is fine the way it is; the EPA should have more power; there should be more regulation of certain dangerous industries.Shows respect for science.No Xmas trees, menorahs, crosses, or Decalogue tablets in government buildings; no religious symbols at all. And remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.Anti-establishmentarian.A brief stint in government service should be required to obtain the franchise, at least in theory. In practice that may well not work, so I don't insist.Silly fascist, but we get to throw one idea out.My votes in presidental electiosn have been thus: Bush I, Dole, Gore, Kerry, Obama.Old-fashioned non-movement conservative?How would you classify me politically?You're a (goshdarn) civil libertarian, with a respect for science and a contractarian respect for authority. In this country, you're probably called an idiosyncratic centrist, but that's meaningless.

Since you said almost nothing about economics, I assume you are useless to me, merely another creature to be overcome.

[Peremensoe]

No, he mentioned liberal positions on those issues, which also happen to be the libertarian issues on those positions.

I'm not clear how you tell the difference between a liberal position which also happens to be a libertarian position, and the reverse.

Also it is news to me if the Democratic Party has endorsed the legalization of prostitution and non-medical marijuana.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Self-righteous atheist libertarian


Me? Righteous?

You'll pay for that. You and all your friends.


Since you said almost nothing about economics, I assume you are useless to me, merely another creature to be overcome.

My thoughts on economics don't fit into sound-bites. Any politician who claims that economic matters are simple is lying or stupid.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Also it is news to me if the Democratic Party has endorsed the legalization of prostitution and non-medical marijuana.
The Democratic Party isn't liberal.

[Quartz]

I am ... How would you classify me politically?

I've not read the thread, but I'll bet that if you were to meet a Republican in the street she'd call you a Republican, and that if you were to meet a Democrat in the street, she'd call you a Democrat. Both would then ask you for a donation. :)

[SeldomSeen]

Skald, I kinda like the way you think. And FWIW, the views expressed in the OP reflect mine own pretty closely. Certainly not tea-party-conservative. Only someone from the far right might consider them liberal. Sounds pretty much like a sensible centrist to me. Or a labor or blue-dog democrat. Or a modern whig.

I still have a basic faith that the great silent majority of Americans feel much the same, it's just that we mostly hear from the noisy ones at either extreme.

Regards from the extreme middle,
SS

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Liberalish, semi-Libertarian on some issues.

[Mona Lisa Simpson]

It won't be the be-all end-all but try taking Vote Compass at CBC.ca. (And it is kind of flawed even for Canadians.)

At least it will tell you what your politics are in Cana-speak. But I think today is the last day since we get to DECIDE OUR FATE tomorrow.

(Now I am running from the WRATH of Skald, his minions and deities, because I know his feelings about Canadians)

[Mona Lisa Simpson]

On second thought, I just re took the compass and so many questions are Canada centric I don 't know if it would be any use.

[I_Know_Nothing]

You'd make a great 70's/80's Texas Democrat. Basically a liberal who likes guns. Charles Wilson comes to mind.

[foolsguinea]

I've not read the thread, but I'll bet that if you were to meet a Republican in the street she'd call you a Republican, and that if you were to meet a Democrat in the street, she'd call you a Democrat. Both would then ask you for a donation. :)This is what I'm doing wrong. I call everyone an Objectivist and curse them for damned fools.

[Zsofia]

You're almost exactly what I am, although I feel more conflicted about the morality of the death penalty in theory, not just in practice. I call myself a liberal.

[Skald the Rhymer]

It won't be the be-all end-all but try taking Vote Compass at CBC.ca. (And it is kind of flawed even for Canadians.)

At least it will tell you what your politics are in Cana-speak. But I think today is the last day since we get to DECIDE OUR FATE tomorrow.


(Now I am running from the WRATH of Skald, his minions and deities, because I know his feelings about Canadians)

:: demonic bureaucrat hat on::

Just because the Great Mouth finds Canadians so repellent that he will not allow them in hell does not mean that I hate Canadians. And I'm not sure how how Canadians are injured or discriminated against by now being eligible for an eternity of flame and torment and being eaten by worms.

:: demonic bureaucrat hat off ::

You're almost exactly what I am, although I feel more conflicted about the morality of the death penalty in theory, not just in practice. I call myself a liberal.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that you're more conflicted about the morality of capital punishment. It could be that you think that it's more likely to be theoretically justified than I do, or less. Can you expand?

[Chronos]

You'd make a great 70's/80's Texas Democrat. Basically a liberal who likes guns. Charles Wilson comes to mind. Or a current Montana democrat, for that matter. Guns really aren't a political issue around here, for the simple reason that everyone is pro-gun. As our current governor Brian Schweitzer (D) said, "Gun control means that you control your gun and I control mine".

[enigmatic]

You're a person.

In so far as I hate anything, I hate the tribal nature of politics. I think if people tried their hardest to make up their mind about individual issues without ever even worrying about how it places them on a utterly nonsensical political axis the world would be a much better place.

To be fair, I suspect that I am mostly preaching to the converted here.

[Dinaroozie]

If I tried to pick out a theme to all the points you posted, it seems that broadly you think people should be able to do what they want, even to their own detriment (helmets/seatbelts/drugs), but not if it's going to fuck it up for others (vaccines/creationism), and that the government should be involved only when there's a good reason (marriage), but that sometimes there are good reasons (health/schooling). It's hard to get a read on the gun control position because it could either be "guns are awesome" or "we shouldn't deliberately misread the constitution" - perhaps you could tell us how you'd feel about gun control if you lived in a country without the (equivalent of) the second amendment? That notwithstanding, you seem pretty centrist to me, with perhaps a slightly higher than average standard deviation. :)

In so far as I hate anything, I hate the tribal nature of politics.A tragically underrepresented position, presumably on account of an unwillingness to form a political party around it. ;) (just kidding, I completely agree with you)

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

As far as I can tell, not being an American, you are a free thinker whose opinions divide pretty evenly between both side of the debate.

In other words, Skald, just like I've always thought, you're something else! ;)

[Sam Stone]

You're like most of us - people who have to pick a party and then be annoyed at them for doing things you can't stand.

It's called "siding with the lesser of many evils", and it seems to be about the only choice any of us have any more.

[septimus]

I agree with Skald the Rhymer on almost all his points and would call him centrist (or left-of-center in American diction) like myself.

The issue I disagree with most strongly is the one he considers most important: gun control. Guns kill people. America would be a safer, happier place with more control. (However, opposite to Skald, the issue is very low-priority for me.)

I'm curious about his reason for opposing gun control: the simple existence of The Second Amendment. More often that not, gun advocates cite this as their reason. It almost seems some people think The Amendments have some special supernatural truth, like The Ten Commandmants. :confused:

[Lobohan]

I'm gonna vote Liberal who likes guns and dislikes so-called nanny-stateism. I don't really think you're a Libertarian, since most of that lot aren't hung up on practical reality, and you don't strike me as an ideologue. In fact, I'd rather you didn't strike me at all.

As for the franchise thing, I attribute that to reading too much Heinlein.

[Farmer Jane]

I would say that you have moved away from Republicans because you don't favor moral legislation and people getting into your shorts. I mean, private life. ;)

[elmwood]

Third Way or Modern Whig.