What is the party of your Atlas Forum avatar?

[Torie]

Well I was going for the alliterative effect, you see.

As for your question, unfortunately, the current Republican party seems to have lost its way, but I am confident that we can return it to its left-wing roots!

What is that confidence based on?

[Sopranos Republican]

The kickass maroon VT ofc, even though I've been living in Massachusetts for almost a year.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Man, the 'O' avatars have been really purged.

[justfollowingtheelections]

I have an independent avatar because I don't really support any US parties (the Democrats are too right wing for me, the Republicans are simply insane and everyone else is irrelevant) but if we are talking about ideology, I am an anti-consumerist, eco-socialist.  If we could have watermelon avatars (green and red stripes) I would gladly pick one.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Well I was going for the alliterative effect, you see.

As for your question, unfortunately, the current Republican party seems to have lost its way, but I am confident that we can return it to its left-wing roots!

Pro-business policies, strict quotas on immigration and a fiery Puritan streak are left-wing.  Who knew??

[Goldwater]

Well I was going for the alliterative effect, you see.

As for your question, unfortunately, the current Republican party seems to have lost its way, but I am confident that we can return it to its left-wing roots!

Pro-business policies, strict quotas on immigration and a fiery Puritan streak are left-wing.  Who knew??

Yes, because the roots of the GOP are in 1920.

Also, the Puritan streak WAS left-wing for its time.

Because the GOP was pro-immigration prior to 1920?

[Rockefeller GOP]

Well I was going for the alliterative effect, you see.

As for your question, unfortunately, the current Republican party seems to have lost its way, but I am confident that we can return it to its left-wing roots!

Pro-business policies, strict quotas on immigration and a fiery Puritan streak are left-wing.  Who knew??

Yes, because the roots of the GOP are in 1920.

Also, the Puritan streak WAS left-wing for its time.

It's literally a joke to suggest Lincoln's GOP wasn't pro-business (supported high tariffs that helped out corporations in America while raising the cost of living for workers, practically in bed with the railroads ... Let's not forget Lincoln was a lawyer for railroad companies), strict on immigration (the anti-Catholic and anti-Irish sentiment in the 1800s shouldn't have to be debated, but I suggest you look up some old GOP campaign ads from the era) and Puritan.  If you want to say things like temperance and legislating your morality were progressive, I can't stop you, but you're just attaching a word you use to describe yourself now to a party that is remembered fondly by history.  Pretty ridiculous that you can probably say Republicans today need to stop calling abortion murder (I'm pro-choice) and get out of our bedrooms (completely agree, which is an issue I consider myself socially liberal on), then turn around and say when they legislated their morality in the 1800s, it was "liberal" or "progressive" back then.

To call anything pre-1900 liberal or conservative is honestly pretty funny, but if you do try to irresponsibly assign our current terms to an era where none of our current political issues existed (issues that we, you know, use those terms to describe), then the GOP was not left-wing.  Period.  I'd say the only responsible way to assign liberal or conservative to times before America was a world power is to equate liberalism with populism and conservatism with policies that favor the wealthy, and there is no question that the GOP has never not favored wealthy Northerners, while Democrats have always had policies that favor the lower classes.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I agree with Rocky, but you do get that Lief is trolling right?

[Rockefeller GOP]

I didn't say that it was liberal or conservative. I'm just saying, your posts are simplistic.

Well, I was responding to a pretty simplistic post (with a pretty sarcastic, appropriately simplistic response) and then responded to your post (which I'm not sure how we're not categorizing that as simplistic, LOL) with a rather long, not-so-simplistic post...

[Rockefeller GOP]

I agree with Rocky, but you do get that Lief is trolling right?

Haha, probably ... This topic is never not worth a response from me, though.

[Hatman 🍁]

Republican, as I am a loyal devotee to the party of Lincoln, La Follette, La Guardia, Lindsay, etc.

What about the very Rev. Dr. Herman Cain?

[Torie]

I agree with Rocky, but you do get that Lief is trolling right?

Leif engages in trolling? I'm shocked, just shocked, I tell you. If only so many of the rest of you could do it with his je ne sais quoi and skill and good humor, life would be beautiful.

[Foucaulf]

I still support the NDP and my ideology is well described by "Other," so the avatar stays.

[Dancing with Myself]

Indy

I have no idea what in the hell to describe my ideals. I used to be a solid Republican until when I got on this forum and by the time I was a senior in high school I was for tax increases on the wealthy. Guess this place's mojo rubbed off

I didn't become a proud indy until January 2012. I just got fed up with the Reps.

[Boston Bread]

So Atlas is a four party system.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Changed mine to dark green, representing traditionalist eco-libertarianism. I miss seeing the color now that the watermelons are showing their inner colors. 

[RogueBeaver]

Republican, obviously.

[Lincoln Republican]

REPUBLICAN AND PROUD OF IT!

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Republican, obviously.

[Хahar 🤔]

Green Party.

I have voted Green here in Austria since I was able to vote. But sometimes I disagree with them, like now for example when it comes to the asylum crisis. The Greens simply want to import as many asylum seekers as possible (100.000s of them) and let them have all the goodies that Austria provides for them. I simply want them deported, most of them - especially the 80% of young males that are coming instead of the women and children who are left behind in the war areas and who are the ones who should be here and not the men, who should fight against Assad and IS and not lurk around the local town squares and surf the internet on their 300€ phones ... I favour a moderate asylum approach with 20.000 asylum seekers max. and not 70.000-80.000 like this year and only for those who are really in need, not economic asylum seekers. The Green Party seems to be reality-denying and playing into the hands of the FPÖ with their constant "wide open barn-door philosophy".

It's repulsive that you think you can pass judgment on Syrian refugees from your computer screen.

[retromike22]

So Atlas is a four party system.

I keep on thinking about how this would work in a parliament with the current results. An Independent-Democratic minority coalition looks likely. Or maybe a Democratic-Socialist-Green minority coalition.

[RFayette]

Green Party.

I have voted Green here in Austria since I was able to vote. But sometimes I disagree with them, like now for example when it comes to the asylum crisis. The Greens simply want to import as many asylum seekers as possible (100.000s of them) and let them have all the goodies that Austria provides for them. I simply want them deported, most of them - especially the 80% of young males that are coming instead of the women and children who are left behind in the war areas and who are the ones who should be here and not the men, who should fight against Assad and IS and not lurk around the local town squares and surf the internet on their 300€ phones ... I favour a moderate asylum approach with 20.000 asylum seekers max. and not 70.000-80.000 like this year and only for those who are really in need, not economic asylum seekers. The Green Party seems to be reality-denying and playing into the hands of the FPÖ with their constant "wide open barn-door philosophy".

It's repulsive that you think you can pass judgment on Syrian refugees from your computer screen.

Its repulsive that you would attempt to guilt trip him into changing his views.

I agree.  Asylum is charity.  A nation is in no way obliged to take every person who wants to come in, and as such, immigration levels are a debatable public policy.  I personally favor allowing a lot in, but this is a matter of opinion, not something where there's a definitive "right" or "wrong."

Anyways, as for my avi, I turned to the dark side.

[Mr. Illini]

It will be interesting to see how this changes with time - I have a feeling a lot of our Democratic friends that have chosen to switch to dark red will revert back to the Democratic brand.

[RFayette]

It will be interesting to see how this changes with time - I have a feeling a lot of our Democratic friends that have chosen to switch to dark red will revert back to the Democratic brand.

It would be hilarious if Atlas existed in the 1950's and Sen. Cruz McCarthy used this as evidence of Commie infiltration. 

[Хahar 🤔]

Green Party.

I have voted Green here in Austria since I was able to vote. But sometimes I disagree with them, like now for example when it comes to the asylum crisis. The Greens simply want to import as many asylum seekers as possible (100.000s of them) and let them have all the goodies that Austria provides for them. I simply want them deported, most of them - especially the 80% of young males that are coming instead of the women and children who are left behind in the war areas and who are the ones who should be here and not the men, who should fight against Assad and IS and not lurk around the local town squares and surf the internet on their 300€ phones ... I favour a moderate asylum approach with 20.000 asylum seekers max. and not 70.000-80.000 like this year and only for those who are really in need, not economic asylum seekers. The Green Party seems to be reality-denying and playing into the hands of the FPÖ with their constant "wide open barn-door philosophy".

It's repulsive that you think you can pass judgment on Syrian refugees from your computer screen.

Its repulsive that you would attempt to guilt trip him into changing his views.

You know, I've tried parsing this statement and I can't even a little bit. What does this mean? Is it morally wrong to disabuse people of reprehensible notions? Is it wrong to discuss people's political views after they have shared them?

Regardless, I was attempting to do nothing of the sort. Tender Branson has made it clear many times that he is mildly racist (which, I suppose, is why he is on the left in Austria, since he is not a Nazi), and I make a point of not arguing with racists. I was simply making a note for everyone else.

I agree.  Asylum is charity.  A nation is in no way obliged to take every person who wants to come in, and as such, immigration levels are a debatable public policy.  I personally favor allowing a lot in, but this is a matter of opinion, not something where there's a definitive "right" or "wrong."

While it is true that one of the surest ways of judging an individual's moral worth is to ask them about their feelings regarding immigration, this is not in fact about anything so tawdry as politics. This goes beyond that.

This is about White Man appointing himself the judge of whether Foreign Man has earned to White Man's satisfaction the right to live his life outside of mortal danger. White Man has pronounced from on high that no, Foreign Man does not have the right to safety, neither in his country nor in any other country, because it is his job to fight! Foreign Man must earn his basic human rights!

Of course, White Man has never fought for anything in his life. Instead White Man has dedicated his life to posting "Hot or Not" threads on the Internet. But still White Man looks down on Foreign Man and says that Foreign Man has to put himself in mortal danger. Foreign Man is not even entitled to the Internet where all these "Hot or Not" threads are available. If Foreign Man has a 300€ phone, that has no effect on White Man's life, but it offends him all the same. Such pleasures are White Man's birthright alone.