What does it take to be liberal? (Kicked out of the liberal club).

Doctor Who is not a "TV Show," it's an institution, the longest running science fiction show in the world. And it's British, and a very important part of my childhood. So when some pig ignorant foreigner who doesn't know the first thing about it starts slagging it off they're going be put right.

There's no clique. Recently you complained about being picked on when Setanta said he'd reported posts for name calling. If you weren't so self obsessed you'd have seen that he only reported the posts after I'd responded to your rather lame insult with a well cool riposte. Both of our posts were removed.

Not so long ago Beth reported me for taking Setanta to task over Vietnam. That wasn't removed btw.

There's no clique, people just don't like you. They don't like me either, but I don't start a load of threads about how unfair it is.

Thanks for your perspective on your history with other participants in this forum. But you did not answer my question: Why is it so important to you to be recognized as part of the "liberal club"?

As you may remember, I used to be an avowed libertarian until, say, 10--15 years ago. I don't remember agonizing about my political identity when libertarians started telling me they no longer thought I was a real libertarian. I remember myself thinking they were wrong, but that being wrong was their problem, not mine. I wouldn't have dreamed of starting an A2K thread about being "kicked out of the libertarian club".

You think what you think. Why worry about the labels other people stick on your thinking?

I started out "Conservative" . It didn't really fit (least not completely) but there was no way I would register as a Dem back then. A few years later, I did.

I've stayed with that officially; however, it doesn't apply to the strange far to the left brand. In truth, the idea of being officially anything sort of nauseates me. Why can't I just be a voter without political attachments?

If the tag of Republican didn't frighten me so much (the associated images swirling in my head) that might have been the direction I'd have gone.


A few years ago, a new horror began to emerge for me. Those annoying things online which "help" determine a political stance, began labeling me as a Libertarian. I had to look into it. No, that didn't seem to really be me.

Seems I don't belong to any political club. Guess I'll just continue the way it's been from the start and just vote according to which candidate seems best for the job.

I've always been of the mindset of allowing other people to define themselves however they see fit.

If you want to be a liberal, tell people you're a liberal.
If you want to be a conservative, tell people you're a conservative.
If you want to be a unicorn, tell people you're a unicorn.

I don't give a flying eff. Whatever YOU (general you) are doesn't make a lick of difference to what I am.

Libertarian, the way I interpret it, is too much of a dog-eat-dog world view.

Call me a bleeding-heart liberal.

Yes, individual freedoms, but not at the expense of others' freedoms.

I'm getting ready to vote for a Libertarian for Senator, next month. Gary Johnson (NM) is a little quirky, but a really good person.

Yeah, I remember him in that gotcha question about Aleppo, Syria during the presidential elections. Maybe he's a kinder, gentler Libertarian.

With whom would Gary Johnson caucus?

I don't have to like it... but the reality is we are in a two-party system and which party is in control matters.

It wouldn't if both sides would reason with each other in a proper democratic fashion and submit to reason when they recognize it.

I am against redistribution of money, for example, but I guarantee there are reasonable arguments that would convince me to support some level of redistribution if I wasn't concerned that my enemies were attempting to build up a sequence of precedents to gradually grow socialism ever larger.

It's the same with gun control. I can imagine supporting some form of gun control if liberals would acknowledge and respect the fundamental spirit of the constitutional amendment, which is to honor the individual's right to bear arms and allow the public to secure itself against exploitation and abuse.

The problem is that the Democrats don't want to acknowledge any political diversity except what fits into their paradigms and programs. In democracy, you have to accept that people have the right to think differently than you do and to discuss issues across these lines of difference. Even Feminism used to say that because, back then, they were the ones marginalized and shut out (shunned) from civil democratic discourse.

He can caucus with himself for all I care. I'm tired of voting for people I despise just because they are less despicable than someone else.

Who have you voted for that you despise?

Just curious.

Her name was Hillary.

You can't post here Roger--I know you were kicked out of the liberal club.

When voting for national candidates, the party matters at least as much as the person. This is especially true in the Senate... the party that is in control is the most important thing by far.

You suppose you're going to change my mind?

I agree with you by the way.

I'm not of the belief that voting for a 3rd Party Candidate is a wasted vote.

No. I am just stating the rules of the game. How you choose to play is up to you.

When it comes to practical results, which politics are enacted, what matters most is the number of Republicans versus the number of Democrats in office. It is not just a matter of the ability to whip votes in the majority party... it is also a matter of being able to set the agenda. The party in power has a huge advantage.

Excellent question.

The current 2 party system is not sound. It may be past the point of fixing.

If voters began to go for the third party or fourth, then they just might gain traction and become more substantial than either the Dems or Repubs.

It's worth a try and beats the heck out of your 'can't be done' moan and groan.

What the heck are you talking about? I have said absolutely nothing about a third or fourth party. I certainly haven't said that a third party can't win. We do have a two party system. That means is that when a third party reaches the top, one of the two existing parties either merges or ceases to exist. This has happened before, there are no Whigs today. But that is a point for another thread.

The party who controls Congress has a substantial amount of power, not only to win votes, but to control the agenda. The party who wins control is more far more important to determine which legislation succeeds or which policies are enacted, to the the individuals who win.