USMB ideology test. Which way do you lean?

[Billy000]

I wouid love to know who were the 4 members who identified as "center". If you see this post, please identify yourselves.

 

[Slade3200]

Since there appears to be disagreement on what the poll choices mean, perhaps the OP would consider defining the terms of his poll. That is, if he actually intended for his poll be something other than a troll thread.

I had considered that but I just wanted a simple self identification poll. Since we are already 8 pages deep i'll let this one settle them will try another in the future with more definitive terms: Socialist, Progressive, Liberal, Democrat, Moderate, Libertarian, Republican, Alt-Right... Would you suggest any revisions to the list?

That is simply using different words for the choices. As I said before, define the choices. That is, if you are polling rather than just looking for an argument.

Im not looking for an argument at all. The "different words" that I suggested include specific definitions for the ideologies behind the words. This poll is very generally using left, right, center... Isn't that what you were asking for? You must know by now that anything posted on this board is going to lead to an argument. Don't believe me? Start a thread and just write "Poop" in it... I bet an argument will follow.

I think your poll is okay, I think it's up to each individual to elaborate where on the Right or the Left or whatever they are, which is what I did, some more elaboration is that I'm also a Paleoconservative.

Haha, I haven't heard that one before, I like it! Isn't Paleo the "caveman diet"?

 

[Slade3200]

Keeping this one simple. Just want to gauge which direction members of this site lean.

Sometimes the political spectrum is confusing. The center of it has shifted over the years. I would say given the political landscape of today's America I would be "left", but before the 2008 election, i would have said "center left".

would you say your views shifted since 2008 or was it the shifting of the spectrum that attributed to the change?

 

[AntonToo]

I wouid love to know who were the 4 members who identified as "center". If you see this post, please identify yourselves.

I did, before center-left became an option. So now there are 3.

 

[Doc1]

I am a ramrod straight Constitutionalist.

 

[Billy000]

Keeping this one simple. Just want to gauge which direction members of this site lean.

Sometimes the political spectrum is confusing. The center of it has shifted over the years. I would say given the political landscape of today's America I would be "left", but before the 2008 election, i would have said "center left".

would you say your views shifted since 2008 or was it the shifting of the spectrum that attributed to the change?

The shifting of the spectrum definitely.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Were I to declare how I lean politically, I would most likely say that on some matters, I sometimes lean very conservative, on others I fall somewhere in the middle, and on others I lean very liberal.

I'm not a "party man," and I don't actually have any well defined political ideology to which I adhere. I merely look at a matter and determine what I think is the best way to handle it at any given point in time. For instance:

• Consider the matter of gun control/rights. One hundred years ago, roughly, given what I understand about American culture then and now, I would not have cottoned to notions of gun control. Americans' character, cultural and ethical values, etc. have changed; thus in the 21st century, I certainly don't out of hand oppose gun control proposals. If/when Americans' character changes again, depending on the nature of change(s), I may or may not be willing to countenance gun control proposals.
• China is governed by the its own theories of socialist communism and has been ever since Mao overthrew the Chinese nationalists. Now no matter what one thinks of democratic forms of government, the fact remains that when Mao assumed primacy in China's government, the Chinese citizenry were not at all sufficiently well educated and informed enough to make sound, or even likely sound, government policy choices that they necessarily would have had to make were Mao to have implemented a direct or republican form of democracy.
  
  Only somewhat recently, for instance, has it come to fruition that the majority of Chinese citizens have high school degrees, but that certainly was not the case in Mao's day (mid-twentieth century). On the contrary, back then, most Chinamen were peasant farmers. Now that doesn't mean they were stupid, only that they were ignorant (through no obvious fault of their own, but ignorant nonetheless) of a "ton of stuff" that one needs to know to make sage decisions in the modern world.
  
  Accordingly, the command approach to governance that Mao and his successors implemented was a better choice for China than was implementing a wayward democracy of some sort. I mean really. Just how much sense does it make to have literally a billion people having but adolescent levels of critical thinking skills "running the show?" One'd doesn't typically let their kids run their household, yet giving the power of democracy to the Chinamen of the mid-20th-century would have been tantamount to doing exactly that but with a nation.
  
  Now I'm not a fan of socialistic communism, but neither am I an ideologically myopic opponent of it who's unwilling to consider it on its merits and demerits in the situation where it's been applied or eschewed. It, like many things, has times and places in which it's a better governing system than is democracy, and it has times and places whereby it's worse system of governing than is democracy.
• Another example is found in my thoughts about libertarianism. As a political philosophy, there's not much about libertarianism with which I disagree. I do, however, take ethical/moral exception with the anarchical implications intrinsic to libertarianism, and those exceptions are why I am not a libertarian. Were humanity's ethical constitution markedly less rife with avarice and its "green-eyed sibling," I might well attest to being a libertarian.
  
  Be that as it may, human nature is what it is, and comprised in part as it is by the two traits I noted, it is the countervailing factor that, for me, makes libertarianism both unimplementable and unconscionable. Unlike our current POTUS, I will not deliberately attach my name to anything that I find unethical, unimplementable, purblind, etc. (Aspects of human nature also make communism unimplementable, but, unlike, libertarianism, communism also is grossly inefficient when applied on the scale of nations having the size and core cultural heterogeneity the U.S. does.)

From the above multidimensional overview -- one that provides the examples of a specific issue, governance and political philosophy -- of one aspect of my mindset, one should glean that I'm a person who does not see that which is different from what I'd choose for myself as being necessarily bad/inferior merely because it is different. In short, one should conclude that I'm not ideological; therefore simplistic labels like "right," "left," "conservative," "liberal," etc. do not apply at the level they must for me to accurately answer the thread's poll question.

Principles aren't what one chooses to think and do. They guide how one arrives at the decision to choose and think the things one does.
-- Xelor​

 

[Slade3200]

Keeping this one simple. Just want to gauge which direction members of this site lean.

Sometimes the political spectrum is confusing. The center of it has shifted over the years. I would say given the political landscape of today's America I would be "left", but before the 2008 election, i would have said "center left".

would you say your views shifted since 2008 or was it the shifting of the spectrum that attributed to the change?

The shifting of the spectrum definitely.

That is very interesting so you see the political spectrum having shifted Right over the past 8 years? I've heard many on the Right say that it has shifted Left. This could be an interesting debate.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Since there appears to be disagreement on what the poll choices mean, perhaps the OP would consider defining the terms of his poll. That is, if he actually intended for his poll be something other than a troll thread.

I had considered that but I just wanted a simple self identification poll. Since we are already 8 pages deep i'll let this one settle them will try another in the future with more definitive terms: Socialist, Progressive, Liberal, Democrat, Moderate, Libertarian, Republican, Alt-Right... Would you suggest any revisions to the list?

That is simply using different words for the choices. As I said before, define the choices. That is, if you are polling rather than just looking for an argument.

Im not looking for an argument at all. The "different words" that I suggested include specific definitions for the ideologies behind the words. This poll is very generally using left, right, center... Isn't that what you were asking for? You must know by now that anything posted on this board is going to lead to an argument. Don't believe me? Start a thread and just write "Poop" in it... I bet an argument will follow.

I think your poll is okay, I think it's up to each individual to elaborate where on the Right or the Left or whatever they are, which is what I did, some more elaboration is that I'm also a Paleoconservative.

Haha, I haven't heard that one before, I like it! Isn't Paleo the "caveman diet"?

It's something that developed in America, though I'm not American, but we on the European Right have strong links with the Paleoconservatives and ideologically agree with them on basically all positions.

Paleoconservatism - Wikipedia

Our Enemies are of course the Neo-Conservatives who we hate with an organic hatred.

 

[Tax Man]

I don't lean I walk tall and straight.

So "Center"?

I am not center. I listen to the facts and then decide.

 

[Slade3200]

I don't lean I walk tall and straight.

So "Center"?

I am not center. I listen to the facts and then decide.

Thats wonderful. So after you listen to the facts and have made your decisions in the past, where do you land? Are most of your positions in line with the Left or Right, or a mixture of both?

 

[Tehon]

I'm on the left for sure.

I define it the old fashioned way, as being antagonistic to aristocratic power structures.

 

[Billy000]

Were I to declare how I lean politically, I would most likely say that on some matters, I sometimes lean very conservative, on others I fall somewhere in the middle, and on others I lean very liberal.

I'm not a "party man," and I don't actually have any well defined political ideology to which I adhere. I merely look at a matter and determine what I think is the best way to handle it at any given point in time. For instance:

• Consider the matter of gun control/rights. One hundred years ago, roughly, given what I understand about American culture then and now, I would not have cottoned to notions of gun control. Americans' character, cultural and ethical values, etc. have changed; thus in the 21st century, I certainly don't out of hand oppose gun control proposals. If/when Americans' character changes again, depending on the nature of change(s), I may or may not be willing to countenance gun control proposals.
• China is governed by the its own theories of socialist communism and has been ever since Mao overthrew the Chinese nationalists. Now no matter what one thinks of democratic forms of government, the fact remains that when Mao assumed primacy in China's government, the Chinese citizenry were not at all sufficiently well educated and informed enough to make sound, or even likely sound, government policy choices that they necessarily would have had to make were Mao to have implemented a direct or republican form of democracy.
  
  Only somewhat recently, for instance, has it come to fruition that the majority of Chinese citizens have high school degrees, but that certainly was not the case in Mao's day (mid-twentieth century). On the contrary, back then, most Chinamen were peasant farmers. Now that doesn't mean they were stupid, only that they were ignorant (through no obvious fault of their own, but ignorant nonetheless) of a "ton of stuff" that one needs to know to make sage decisions in the modern world.
  
  Accordingly, the command approach to governance that Mao and his successors implemented was a better choice for China than was implementing a wayward democracy of some sort. I mean really. Just how much sense does it make to have literally a billion people having but adolescent levels of critical thinking skills "running the show?" One'd doesn't typically let their kids run their household, yet giving the power of democracy to the Chinamen of the mid-20th-century would have been tantamount to doing exactly that but with a nation.
  
  Now I'm not a fan of socialistic communism, but neither am I an ideologically myopic opponent of it who's unwilling to consider it on its merits and demerits in the situation where it's been applied or eschewed. It, like many things, has times and places in which it's a better governing system than is democracy, and it has times and places whereby it's worse system of governing than is democracy.
• Another example is found in my thoughts about libertarianism. As a political philosophy, there's not much about libertarianism with which I disagree. I do, however, take ethical/moral exception with the anarchical implications intrinsic to libertarianism, and those exceptions are why I am not a libertarian. Were humanity's ethical constitution markedly less rife with avarice and its "green-eyed sibling," I might well attest to being a libertarian.
  
  Be that as it may, human nature is what it is, and comprised in part as it is by the two traits I noted, it is the countervailing factor that, for me, makes libertarianism both unimplementable and unconscionable. Unlike our current POTUS, I will not deliberately attach my name to anything that I find unethical, unimplementable, purblind, etc. (Aspects of human nature also make communism unimplementable, but, unlike, libertarianism, communism also is grossly inefficient when applied on the scale of nations having the size and core cultural heterogeneity the U.S. does.)

From the above multidimensional overview -- one that provides the examples of a specific issue, governance and political philosophy -- of one aspect of my mindset, one should glean that I'm a person who does not see that which is different from what I'd choose for myself as being necessarily bad/inferior merely because it is different. In short, one should conclude that I'm not ideological; therefore simplistic labels like "right," "left," "conservative," "liberal," etc. do not apply at the level they must for me to accurately answer the thread's poll question.

Principles aren't what one chooses to think and do. They guide how one arrives at the decision to choose and think the things one does.
-- Xelor​

Keeping this one simple. Just want to gauge which direction members of this site lean.

Sometimes the political spectrum is confusing. The center of it has shifted over the years. I would say given the political landscape of today's America I would be "left", but before the 2008 election, i would have said "center left".

would you say your views shifted since 2008 or was it the shifting of the spectrum that attributed to the change?

The shifting of the spectrum definitely.

That is very interesting so you see the political spectrum having shifted Right over the past 8 years? I've heard many on the Right say that it has shifted Left. This could be an interesting debate.

I attribute it to the rise of the tea party. This dramatically shifted the rightwing ideology. Bush by today's standards, was a centrist/moderate but at the time he was considered rightwing.

The rightwing like\ to think Obama was far left which is why they would believe the spectrum had shifted left, but the reality is that he was more moderate.

 

[MarkDuffy]

We shirley are getting tired of WINNING

 

[usmbguest5318]

Were I to declare how I lean politically, I would most likely say that on some matters, I sometimes lean very conservative, on others I fall somewhere in the middle, and on others I lean very liberal.

I'm not a "party man," and I don't actually have any well defined political ideology to which I adhere. I merely look at a matter and determine what I think is the best way to handle it at any given point in time. For instance:

• Consider the matter of gun control/rights. One hundred years ago, roughly, given what I understand about American culture then and now, I would not have cottoned to notions of gun control. Americans' character, cultural and ethical values, etc. have changed; thus in the 21st century, I certainly don't out of hand oppose gun control proposals. If/when Americans' character changes again, depending on the nature of change(s), I may or may not be willing to countenance gun control proposals.
• China is governed by the its own theories of socialist communism and has been ever since Mao overthrew the Chinese nationalists. Now no matter what one thinks of democratic forms of government, the fact remains that when Mao assumed primacy in China's government, the Chinese citizenry were not at all sufficiently well educated and informed enough to make sound, or even likely sound, government policy choices that they necessarily would have had to make were Mao to have implemented a direct or republican form of democracy.
  
  Only somewhat recently, for instance, has it come to fruition that the majority of Chinese citizens have high school degrees, but that certainly was not the case in Mao's day (mid-twentieth century). On the contrary, back then, most Chinamen were peasant farmers. Now that doesn't mean they were stupid, only that they were ignorant (through no obvious fault of their own, but ignorant nonetheless) of a "ton of stuff" that one needs to know to make sage decisions in the modern world.
  
  Accordingly, the command approach to governance that Mao and his successors implemented was a better choice for China than was implementing a wayward democracy of some sort. I mean really. Just how much sense does it make to have literally a billion people having but adolescent levels of critical thinking skills "running the show?" One'd doesn't typically let their kids run their household, yet giving the power of democracy to the Chinamen of the mid-20th-century would have been tantamount to doing exactly that but with a nation.
  
  Now I'm not a fan of socialistic communism, but neither am I an ideologically myopic opponent of it who's unwilling to consider it on its merits and demerits in the situation where it's been applied or eschewed. It, like many things, has times and places in which it's a better governing system than is democracy, and it has times and places whereby it's worse system of governing than is democracy.
• Another example is found in my thoughts about libertarianism. As a political philosophy, there's not much about libertarianism with which I disagree. I do, however, take ethical/moral exception with the anarchical implications intrinsic to libertarianism, and those exceptions are why I am not a libertarian. Were humanity's ethical constitution markedly less rife with avarice and its "green-eyed sibling," I might well attest to being a libertarian.
  
  Be that as it may, human nature is what it is, and comprised in part as it is by the two traits I noted, it is the countervailing factor that, for me, makes libertarianism both unimplementable and unconscionable. Unlike our current POTUS, I will not deliberately attach my name to anything that I find unethical, unimplementable, purblind, etc. (Aspects of human nature also make communism unimplementable, but, unlike, libertarianism, communism also is grossly inefficient when applied on the scale of nations having the size and core cultural heterogeneity the U.S. does.)

From the above multidimensional overview -- one that provides the examples of a specific issue, governance and political philosophy -- of one aspect of my mindset, one should glean that I'm a person who does not see that which is different from what I'd choose for myself as being necessarily bad/inferior merely because it is different. In short, one should conclude that I'm not ideological; therefore simplistic labels like "right," "left," "conservative," "liberal," etc. do not apply at the level they must for me to accurately answer the thread's poll question.

Principles aren't what one chooses to think and do. They guide how one arrives at the decision to choose and think the things one does.
-- Xelor​

Keeping this one simple. Just want to gauge which direction members of this site lean.

Sometimes the political spectrum is confusing. The center of it has shifted over the years. I would say given the political landscape of today's America I would be "left", but before the 2008 election, i would have said "center left".

would you say your views shifted since 2008 or was it the shifting of the spectrum that attributed to the change?

The shifting of the spectrum definitely.

That is very interesting so you see the political spectrum having shifted Right over the past 8 years? I've heard many on the Right say that it has shifted Left. This could be an interesting debate.

I attribute it to the rise of the tea party. This dramatically shifted the rightwing ideology. Bush by today's standards, was a centrist/moderate but at the time he was considered rightwing.

The rightwing like\ to think Obama was far left which is why they would believe the spectrum had shifted left, but the reality is that he was more moderate.

Interesting answer.

Would you clarify for me, please, why my post is quoted in association with it? I don't know what I wrote that correlates to the ideas you've expressed, and I presume you think something I wrote does tie into your noted ideas. I just want to understand what be the connection.

 

[Moonglow]

View attachment 142488

We shirley are getting tired of WINNING

You did pick a winner today..

 

[Moonglow]

I'm ambidextrous...

 

[Billy000]

Were I to declare how I lean politically, I would most likely say that on some matters, I sometimes lean very conservative, on others I fall somewhere in the middle, and on others I lean very liberal.

I'm not a "party man," and I don't actually have any well defined political ideology to which I adhere. I merely look at a matter and determine what I think is the best way to handle it at any given point in time. For instance:

• Consider the matter of gun control/rights. One hundred years ago, roughly, given what I understand about American culture then and now, I would not have cottoned to notions of gun control. Americans' character, cultural and ethical values, etc. have changed; thus in the 21st century, I certainly don't out of hand oppose gun control proposals. If/when Americans' character changes again, depending on the nature of change(s), I may or may not be willing to countenance gun control proposals.
• China is governed by the its own theories of socialist communism and has been ever since Mao overthrew the Chinese nationalists. Now no matter what one thinks of democratic forms of government, the fact remains that when Mao assumed primacy in China's government, the Chinese citizenry were not at all sufficiently well educated and informed enough to make sound, or even likely sound, government policy choices that they necessarily would have had to make were Mao to have implemented a direct or republican form of democracy.
  
  Only somewhat recently, for instance, has it come to fruition that the majority of Chinese citizens have high school degrees, but that certainly was not the case in Mao's day (mid-twentieth century). On the contrary, back then, most Chinamen were peasant farmers. Now that doesn't mean they were stupid, only that they were ignorant (through no obvious fault of their own, but ignorant nonetheless) of a "ton of stuff" that one needs to know to make sage decisions in the modern world.
  
  Accordingly, the command approach to governance that Mao and his successors implemented was a better choice for China than was implementing a wayward democracy of some sort. I mean really. Just how much sense does it make to have literally a billion people having but adolescent levels of critical thinking skills "running the show?" One'd doesn't typically let their kids run their household, yet giving the power of democracy to the Chinamen of the mid-20th-century would have been tantamount to doing exactly that but with a nation.
  
  Now I'm not a fan of socialistic communism, but neither am I an ideologically myopic opponent of it who's unwilling to consider it on its merits and demerits in the situation where it's been applied or eschewed. It, like many things, has times and places in which it's a better governing system than is democracy, and it has times and places whereby it's worse system of governing than is democracy.
• Another example is found in my thoughts about libertarianism. As a political philosophy, there's not much about libertarianism with which I disagree. I do, however, take ethical/moral exception with the anarchical implications intrinsic to libertarianism, and those exceptions are why I am not a libertarian. Were humanity's ethical constitution markedly less rife with avarice and its "green-eyed sibling," I might well attest to being a libertarian.
  
  Be that as it may, human nature is what it is, and comprised in part as it is by the two traits I noted, it is the countervailing factor that, for me, makes libertarianism both unimplementable and unconscionable. Unlike our current POTUS, I will not deliberately attach my name to anything that I find unethical, unimplementable, purblind, etc. (Aspects of human nature also make communism unimplementable, but, unlike, libertarianism, communism also is grossly inefficient when applied on the scale of nations having the size and core cultural heterogeneity the U.S. does.)

From the above multidimensional overview -- one that provides the examples of a specific issue, governance and political philosophy -- of one aspect of my mindset, one should glean that I'm a person who does not see that which is different from what I'd choose for myself as being necessarily bad/inferior merely because it is different. In short, one should conclude that I'm not ideological; therefore simplistic labels like "right," "left," "conservative," "liberal," etc. do not apply at the level they must for me to accurately answer the thread's poll question.

Principles aren't what one chooses to think and do. They guide how one arrives at the decision to choose and think the things one does.
-- Xelor​

Sometimes the political spectrum is confusing. The center of it has shifted over the years. I would say given the political landscape of today's America I would be "left", but before the 2008 election, i would have said "center left".

would you say your views shifted since 2008 or was it the shifting of the spectrum that attributed to the change?

The shifting of the spectrum definitely.

That is very interesting so you see the political spectrum having shifted Right over the past 8 years? I've heard many on the Right say that it has shifted Left. This could be an interesting debate.

I attribute it to the rise of the tea party. This dramatically shifted the rightwing ideology. Bush by today's standards, was a centrist/moderate but at the time he was considered rightwing.

The rightwing like\ to think Obama was far left which is why they would believe the spectrum had shifted left, but the reality is that he was more moderate.

Interesting answer.

Would you clarify for me, please, why my post is quoted in association with it? I don't know what I wrote that correlates to the ideas you've expressed, and I presume you think something I wrote does tie into your noted ideas. I just want to understand what be the connection.

Haha I meant to give you a separate reply but i goofed up.

I was hoping you would elaborate more on your "very conservative" views though. I know you touched on it a little, but I'm interested in your range on that.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Upon further consideration, I upgraded to left.
Its just that the current Democratic party isn't left enough, but a good bit of the things they do that end up being considered "left" isn't my idea of left.
But personally, my political leanings are left.

LOL not left enough? They are full of nut jobs

I've found that most people who consider themselves center or center left are ULTRA far left~

Ive found that people are are moderate liberals get labeled as ULTRA far left without reason. Far left is socialism and communism. People like you grossly over use those words. You call people who support government programs in a capitalistic Republic as Far Left, but do you recognize the difference between that and full blown Socialism? Complete government control over commerce... Bernie who is a pretty good example of solid Left progressive isn't even at that level. So if you call people like Bernie or Hillary or Obama ULTRA far left then where do you go for the true Socialists and Communists?

All three are Socialists, which is ultra far left. It's not without reason, because it's what they are. Crazy Bernie, the nutjob, Sanders even said that he didn't think a 90% corporate tax rate wasn't too high.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Were I to declare how I lean politically, I would most likely say that on some matters, I sometimes lean very conservative, on others I fall somewhere in the middle, and on others I lean very liberal.

I'm not a "party man," and I don't actually have any well defined political ideology to which I adhere. I merely look at a matter and determine what I think is the best way to handle it at any given point in time. For instance:

• Consider the matter of gun control/rights. One hundred years ago, roughly, given what I understand about American culture then and now, I would not have cottoned to notions of gun control. Americans' character, cultural and ethical values, etc. have changed; thus in the 21st century, I certainly don't out of hand oppose gun control proposals. If/when Americans' character changes again, depending on the nature of change(s), I may or may not be willing to countenance gun control proposals.
• China is governed by the its own theories of socialist communism and has been ever since Mao overthrew the Chinese nationalists. Now no matter what one thinks of democratic forms of government, the fact remains that when Mao assumed primacy in China's government, the Chinese citizenry were not at all sufficiently well educated and informed enough to make sound, or even likely sound, government policy choices that they necessarily would have had to make were Mao to have implemented a direct or republican form of democracy.
  
  Only somewhat recently, for instance, has it come to fruition that the majority of Chinese citizens have high school degrees, but that certainly was not the case in Mao's day (mid-twentieth century). On the contrary, back then, most Chinamen were peasant farmers. Now that doesn't mean they were stupid, only that they were ignorant (through no obvious fault of their own, but ignorant nonetheless) of a "ton of stuff" that one needs to know to make sage decisions in the modern world.
  
  Accordingly, the command approach to governance that Mao and his successors implemented was a better choice for China than was implementing a wayward democracy of some sort. I mean really. Just how much sense does it make to have literally a billion people having but adolescent levels of critical thinking skills "running the show?" One'd doesn't typically let their kids run their household, yet giving the power of democracy to the Chinamen of the mid-20th-century would have been tantamount to doing exactly that but with a nation.
  
  Now I'm not a fan of socialistic communism, but neither am I an ideologically myopic opponent of it who's unwilling to consider it on its merits and demerits in the situation where it's been applied or eschewed. It, like many things, has times and places in which it's a better governing system than is democracy, and it has times and places whereby it's worse system of governing than is democracy.
• Another example is found in my thoughts about libertarianism. As a political philosophy, there's not much about libertarianism with which I disagree. I do, however, take ethical/moral exception with the anarchical implications intrinsic to libertarianism, and those exceptions are why I am not a libertarian. Were humanity's ethical constitution markedly less rife with avarice and its "green-eyed sibling," I might well attest to being a libertarian.
  
  Be that as it may, human nature is what it is, and comprised in part as it is by the two traits I noted, it is the countervailing factor that, for me, makes libertarianism both unimplementable and unconscionable. Unlike our current POTUS, I will not deliberately attach my name to anything that I find unethical, unimplementable, purblind, etc. (Aspects of human nature also make communism unimplementable, but, unlike, libertarianism, communism also is grossly inefficient when applied on the scale of nations having the size and core cultural heterogeneity the U.S. does.)

From the above multidimensional overview -- one that provides the examples of a specific issue, governance and political philosophy -- of one aspect of my mindset, one should glean that I'm a person who does not see that which is different from what I'd choose for myself as being necessarily bad/inferior merely because it is different. In short, one should conclude that I'm not ideological; therefore simplistic labels like "right," "left," "conservative," "liberal," etc. do not apply at the level they must for me to accurately answer the thread's poll question.

Principles aren't what one chooses to think and do. They guide how one arrives at the decision to choose and think the things one does.
-- Xelor​

would you say your views shifted since 2008 or was it the shifting of the spectrum that attributed to the change?

The shifting of the spectrum definitely.

That is very interesting so you see the political spectrum having shifted Right over the past 8 years? I've heard many on the Right say that it has shifted Left. This could be an interesting debate.

I attribute it to the rise of the tea party. This dramatically shifted the rightwing ideology. Bush by today's standards, was a centrist/moderate but at the time he was considered rightwing.

The rightwing like\ to think Obama was far left which is why they would believe the spectrum had shifted left, but the reality is that he was more moderate.

Interesting answer.

Would you clarify for me, please, why my post is quoted in association with it? I don't know what I wrote that correlates to the ideas you've expressed, and I presume you think something I wrote does tie into your noted ideas. I just want to understand what be the connection.

Haha I meant to give you a separate reply but i goofed up.

I was hoping you would elaborate more on your "very conservative" views though. I know you touched on it a little, but I'm interested in your range on that.

As this thread isn't about my views, I don't care to here provide a comprehensive exposition of the those that are conservative or liberal. I would be considered very conservative on economic policy matters whereof I'm almost a pure positivist.

The most informative thing in my post is this statement...

one should conclude that I'm not ideological

...along with the concluding quote. If from those things, or some other remarks in my post, you have specific questions, I can answer them. Depending on what they are and how they are phrased, I may or may not in fact answer them. To wit, I almost certainly won't provide a substantive answer to leading/loaded questions.