It seems to me, and I know y'all will correct me if I am wrong, that a socially liberal yet fiscally conservative party could do very well at election time. So will that ever happen? Will it be the GOP becoming more liberal on social issues or the Dems becoming more conservative with our tax dollars?

 

 

It seems to me, and I know y'all will correct me if I am wrong, that a socially liberal yet fiscally conservative party could do very well at election time. So will that ever happen? Will it be the GOP becoming more liberal on social issues or the Dems becoming more conservative with our tax dollars?

 

Sounds like the Libertarian Party, which hasn't managed to get 1% of the votes in the last 8 presidential elections.

 

I don't see either of the two major parties making significant movement towards that - it conflicts with their basic narratives.

It seems to me, and I know y'all will correct me if I am wrong, that a socially liberal yet fiscally conservative party could do very well at election time. So will that ever happen? Will it be the GOP becoming more liberal on social issues or the Dems becoming more conservative with our tax dollars?

 

As someone who identifies that way a lot more closely than the existing two major parties, I'd love to see something like that actually become a viable party's platform.

That's me, basically, and the problem is all of the candidates I would be interested in make themselves look like dumbasses just to get out of the primary.

 

 

Sounds like the Libertarian Party, which hasn't managed to get 1% of the votes in the last 8 presidential elections.

 

I don't see either of the two major parties making significant movement towards that - it conflicts with their basic narratives.

 

We're an entrenched two party system. Any candidate with a chance to get elected will work within the existing system. Which is sad.

We're an entrenched two party system. Any candidate with a chance to get elected will work within the existing system. Which is sad.

It's a function of the structure of our government.

So do you guys look at the recent Israel election and think "oh man that's awesome"

So do you guys look at the recent Israel election and think "oh man that's awesome"

Parliamentary coalitions sounds like a blast

You cannot be socially liberal if you are fiscally conservative...the two things are opposites.

 

A socially liberal person spends money (even if they don't have it) on all types of social issues, such as helping the poor, building parks, fixing roads, etc...even if it accrues massive debt in doing so.

 

Therefore...you cannot be one if you are the other, as a fiscally conservative person would NOT spend money they don't have.

 

This topic makes as much sense as the nWo helping Sting at Wrestlemania.

What? That's crap. You can be a blend of both. You can not care about and/or support gay marriage or abortion rights and still not want the government to keep raising your taxes or spend money on needless things.

What? That's crap. You can be a blend of both. You can not care about and/or support gay marriage or abortion rights and still not want the government to keep raising your taxes or spend money on needless things.

 

Those are not mutually exclusive points.

 

A social liberal cares about a lot more than those things -- they tend to spend a LOT of money, mostly via raising taxes, and accruing massive amounts of debt.

 

By definition, a fiscally conservative person does not and WOULD not do those things.

 

This would need to be re-titled to make sense.

 

You can't be stingy on spending money or raising money through taxation if you want to be socially liberal.

 

You are literally changing the definitions of those things to suit your point...

Edited March 30, 201511 yr by Y2HH

You cannot be socially liberal if you are fiscally conservative...the two things are opposites.

 

A socially liberal person spends money (even if they don't have it) on all types of social issues, such as helping the poor, building parks, fixing roads, etc...even if it accrues massive debt in doing so.

 

Therefore...you cannot be one if you are the other, as a fiscally conservative person would NOT spend money they don't have.

 

This topic makes as much sense as the nWo helping Sting at Wrestlemania.

 

This post is ridiculous. You make up a nonsense definition of socially liberal and then applied it to the conversation as if that's what people were discussing.

This post is ridiculous. You make up a nonsense definition of socially liberal and then applied it to the conversation as if that's what people were discussing.

 

I didn't make up a definition of socially liberal...that's what being socially liberal is.

 

It's you guys changing the definitions to fit this weak ass fantasy party.

 

The definition, whether you all like it or not, of being fiscally conservative is completely counter to being a socially liberal -- as socially liberal programs tend to cost a LOT of money.

Edited March 30, 201511 yr by Y2HH

I didn't make up a definition of socially liberal...that's what being socially liberal is.

 

It's you guys changing the definitions to fit this weak ass fantasy party.

 

You very much did.

 

In no survey ever conducted has road maintenance been a social issue.

 

As much as I find these "what if there was a magical third party that represented all reasonable people" posts to be, they are quite clearly talking about something completely different than you.

You very much did.

 

In no survey ever conducted has road maintenance been a social issue.

 

As much as I find these "what if there was a magical third party that represented all reasonable people" posts to be, they are quite clearly talking about something completely different than you.

 

Way to cherry pick...

 

Fine, I retract the road statement -- the rest stands.

 

AND the rest stands completely counter to a fiscal conservative.

Way to cherry pick...

 

Fine, I retract the road statement -- the rest stands.

 

AND the rest stands completely counter to a fiscal conservative.

 

Not all social issues require money...

Not all social issues require money...

 

In this country they sure as hell do.

How does gay marriage require money? Drug legalization?

In this country they sure as hell do.

 

I literally just gave you two examples that cost next to nothing. You can be pro-environment without also demanding the government pay for a bunch of crap.

 

Not to mention, being a fiscal conservative doesn't mean you don't want to spend ANY money on social issues. You just don't want to spend as much. And you sure as hell don't want to raise taxes to do it.

Edited March 30, 201511 yr by Jenksismybitch

So do you guys look at the recent Israel election and think "oh man that's awesome"

 

Seeing the crap that gets passed many times... Absolutely.

You cannot be socially liberal if you are fiscally conservative...the two things are opposites.

 

A socially liberal person spends money (even if they don't have it) on all types of social issues, such as helping the poor, building parks, fixing roads, etc...even if it accrues massive debt in doing so.

 

Therefore...you cannot be one if you are the other, as a fiscally conservative person would NOT spend money they don't have.

 

This topic makes as much sense as the nWo helping Sting at Wrestlemania.

 

I don't believe that is true. Gay marriage, legalization of marijuana and prostitution, relaxed gambling laws, immigration reform are all issues that I consider to be social issues that the hard core conservative party probably has much different views on than I do.

Y2HH doing his best troll impression.

 

Congrats bro.

Y2HH doing his best troll impression.

 

Congrats bro.

 

I literally just gave you two examples that cost next to nothing. You can be pro-environment without also demanding the government pay for a bunch of crap.

 

Not to mention, being a fiscal conservative doesn't mean you don't want to spend ANY money on social issues. You just don't want to spend as much. And you sure as hell don't want to raise taxes to do it.

See that big, bold word there? While you are right, you CAN be, it just doesn't happen. Everyone has a hand out for something. If you are pro environment, then the government will fund focus groups, start a committee, fund a boatload of studies, create a new agency with a huge budget to watch over the environment, and make sure that the budget never shrinks.

See that big, bold word there? While you are right, you CAN be, it just doesn't happen. Everyone has a hand out for something. If you are pro environment, then the government will fund focus groups, start a committee, fund a boatload of studies, create a new agency with a huge budget to watch over the environment, and make sure that the budget never shrinks.

 

Are you suggesting our environment isn't worth watching over? Industry did so well policing itself before strong laws were passed in the 1960s.