Talk Elections

Summarize in a paragraph (you can write more if you'd like) the political beliefs of the previous poster. 

As a 'Blue Dog' he seems to have a soft spot for a reasonable level of compromise. At the same time it's very clear that his own views are left of center. The driving leftward force appears to come from a genuine concern for the woes of those who tend not to be able to fight their own battles well in the American political forum. Fairness makes a frequently strong appearance in the formation of his opinions.

I don't have much more, but is that what you're thinking of for this?

Don't really know, but he seems very centrist.

Wow, thanks. That was really something. Very insightful and descriptive.

For you; Something conservative-ish

That's fun, right? You're welcome.

Fezzy has always occupied a bit of uncertain space in my mind. He doesn't quite neatly fall into any typical categorization. However, to the extent that I have an impression of him, I feel that his most defining characteristic is a social libertarian streak, a "mind your own business" attitude on things like marijauna, abortion, gay rights, etc., plus an atheist streak that tracks pretty well with the generic internet attitude toward these issues, though certainly with more tact (when he wants, anyway). I feel like he'd fit in with Reddit pretty well. Economically, he seems to be a relatively standard moderate-to-mainline American liberal, but his posts on such matters don't really stand out to me.

Interesting character who probably wouldn't have been so interesting 30 or 40 years ago. He's pretty much your old-school catholic populist. He supports social welfare and social justice, but generally approaches subjects his faith has issues with such as divorce and especially abortion from the socially conservative standpoint of today. In many ways he's reflective of many rust-belt and Appalachian democrats who became the Reagan Democrats and are now Republicans, probably despite their views on social justice.

He'd be in a awkward position within both major parties, but it depends which issue he's prepared to hold his nose over for longer.

Well, first, I don't remember ever really disagreeing with a Polnut post that I have seen. He seems like a pragmatic centrist, with as much interest in process as substance (understanding that process can affect the quality of the substantive policy).  Yes, I know, I am not doing the characterization of Polnut's beliefs justice here, and someone else no doubt could do better, but I thought I would hop in, just to share my impression.

Moderate/older-style conservative.

Green Australian? I assume he's no fan of the ALP.

Standard Conservative, from the South so you know he's legit. Also, as I recall, he figures he'd be identified as one of the farthest right posters if only he posted more. ;)

Under my Twelve Colors Model I would describe Cathcon - from what posts of his I was able to turn up in under a half an hour and by making some cautious (but quite possibly off-mark) estimates - as a loyalist, communitarian, capitalist, conservationist, amalgamist, and nationalist. This suggesting to me that he follows a more traditionally-inspired than humanistic path of thought when answering political questions. I would describe him as stressing six political virtues - temperance, discipline, ambition, magnificence, reverence, and assertiveness.

In attitude he's committed to adapting at least some of the Founders' and/or contemporary political theorists' ideas and prescriptions to modern dilemmas, feeling their methods have been tried and true. The same cannot realistically be said for the policy proposals offered and at times in the past implemented by the American left. But if one of their ideas sticks, and turns out to have morally acceptable consequences, there is no sense in later rolling it back. In terms of institutional power, Cathcon appears to desire a small government in regards to how much it meddles in our lives in theory, but in practice - perhaps even without being aware of it – leans more toward a moderately strong, interventionist regime because he feels it is important for future generations to be taught in the ways of wholesome values, or at the very least to discourage the spread of customs that to him seem to be pretty egregious sins. He is neither authoritarian nor libertarian, fully liberal nor corporatist. His approach to communitarianism is less overbearing than it would be from most since the values he seeks to nurture in the community are derived more from the American heritage of liberalism than any temptation to micromanage the behavior of individuals or punish those who deviate from the teachings of his Church.

On economic matters he is clearly in favor of protecting individual property rights and maintaining a highly competitive, yet not entirely "free," market since without a basic set of regulatory rules in place actors could threaten to destroy the system form within and prevent it from delivering its optimal benefits to society. On the other hand, he seems to display some subtle signs of neo-mercantile views as a weaker influence; for he is, on rare occasion, inclined to let the state restrict or distort to pursue national interests. This is done to afford the people of his country extra competitive advantages over, or some protection from, others. In lieu of seeing Cathcon’s posts on the environment, my default assumption would be that he supports managing natural resources primarily for the benefit of humanity with at least a little bit of emphasis being placed on pacing ourselves so some of those resources (e.g. national parks, game animals, clean water, etc.) will be available for the benefit of future generations. However, the needs of our generation are probably given more weight in his considerations than those of generations to come in the distant future, and in at least some situations it seems acceptable to pursue development even if it harms the environment.

On normative issues it is harder for me to decide quite where his views lie. The impression I get is he is OK with our society being diverse and people being outspoken about what makes them different - so long as the relative newcomers and immigrants are willing to eventually conform with mainstream customs and norms to such as extent as they aren’t forcing native Americans to experience marked shifts in their communities’ traditional ways of life. In other words, welcome aboard everyone, but please sit down and do not rock the boat because things are nice as they are and we don't want to get capsized. A similar attitude may apply to foreign affairs - where it is important once again to protect the boat from the uncertain, potentially dangerous intentions of foreigners. Cathcon wants the States to focus on pursuing its interests abroad - namely by maintaining enough military and economic might to ensure we as Americans - not the peoples of other lands - shall have control over shaping the States' destiny both today and in the foreseeable future. Being a moderate neo-con of sorts, there is sometimes a sparkle of idealism in his eyes when it comes to seizing convenient, low-risk opportunities to promote his values abroad for their long-term benefit and ours.

Am I anywhere at all near to close here? It is more difficult for me to do this when I haven’t read hundreds of recent political statements from a person or are not close enough to them as a friend to know where they are coming from. Corrections would be interesting to see since I would like to get much better at doing this.

A Socialist from Montana.

Oh c'mon, he writes 5 paragraphs and you give him a one-liner? ::)

He's pretty much a centrist; in a partisan environment like this forum, he's one of the most agreeable people. From our conversations, I think he tends to skew slightly leftward.

Miles is a populist, no doubt about it. In a time when many Americans may be advocating for less government, he supports more. Economically, he doesn't believe in a socialist form of government, but believes the government should play an active role in helping those less fortunate.

Socially, Miles is a conservative, as he favors the government should play a role in promoting strong, moral values in America. Miles is what you'd expect from a Democrat in the South - would certainly be considered a Blue Dog, or conservative, Democrat.

Tmth is a standard, moderate conservative.  Though he leans right on both economic and social issues, it is clear that he tends to examine each issue case by case before drawing a conclusion.  His pragmatic style, though unpopular to many sectors of his Republican Party, puts him in a flexible position ideology-wise, and he does not object to working across the aisle with liberals and centrists.

Tmth is a conservative through and through. Although his lack of radicalism on many of the issues earn him the modifier of "moderate", he ultimately shares the same core beliefs- small government, less regulation, and strong moral values- as the party as a whole. The main difference is the lack of vitriol and contrarianism for the sack of political gain. Circumspect and solidified in his views, Tmth is a thoughtful Republican, and proof that those two words are not oxymorons.

He's definitely right-of-centre. Although he's pro-life, he prefers to focus on economic issues. Pragmatism is an important part of his worldview, embracing the center and offering reason over passion (thanks, Trudeau :D).

The only politician I can think of that comes close to Isaac is home state's current governor, Mitch Daniels. Daniels has been a hero to many who wish to see a more pragmatic, centrist oriented conservatism.

Here's to ya, buddy!

A solid social and fiscal conservative

Naso is a unique personality who I guess could be described as a right-wing rah rah rah nationalist, with an ideology mixing his weird myths and folk tales about how great "America" was in "the past" with some traditional run-of-the-mill American conservatism. Which, in practice, means that he's become an increasingly boring and annoying self-parody.

Hmmph. I was ignored. Hash is, despite apparent right-of-center economic views, is to me a fairly generic leftist, while not openly moderate in the manner of New Labour, really is best described as a third way follower.

Haha, I got three summaries! Awesome! :)

*skip*

Simfan, though right-of-center on economic issues, shares a very similar brand of populism to that of MilesC56 and realisticidealist.  Though he considers himself a highly reactionary conservative, he emphasizes on the importance of moderation and triangulation in the Republican Party, which is partly evidenced by his support of Governor Jon Huntsman during the last primary.

I had only been awake for about 20 minutes when I wrote that :(

Ron Paul-style libertarian, basically.

A left wing Libertarian, who could fit in the Green Party as well as the Libertarians.

Has evolved over the past few months. Once a standard neocon, he became a paleoconservative who supported Ron Paul, and now has become slightly more socially liberal (and still supports Ron Paul).

Snowstalker is a fierce protectionist when it comes to trade despite several beat downs in the IRC by Gustaf.  He describes himself as a "New Deal Democratic" which is evidenced in his fetish for infrastructure projects and complete disregard for social policy.  Above all, Snowstalker adores ponies and wants you to help build a better future for that Equaline species.

Sort of moderate, authoritarian leaning. His left wing positions seem to be reached through right wing thinking. He is hard to describe but strikes me as a Bush-Obama voter.

An amenable moderate-esque Democrat, one that could work well with people on both sides of the aisle. More than willing to listen and attempt to accommodate opposing viewpoints, in other words, a pragmatic 'sensible' left winger, but not in a DLC'er way.

A Thatcher-esque conservative

Mike Naso is America.

Just a standard libertarian pretty much. Not as absolutist as other libertarians (i.e. supporting Romney) but still a general one.

A left winger, whose politics I am not totally familiar with. I assume he supports the Australian Green Party.

Young, so more likely to be affected by wilder political swings.

With a slight softening on social matters he's shifted from Rand Paul to the baby of Ron Paul and Gary Johnson...

A moderate "New Left" style Australian Labor Party supporter. He's socially liberal down the list of normal political issues but not extending to fringe issues. For example, I doubt he'd be for legalizing heroin or removing bans on having sex in public or something out-there like that. On fiscal issues he's definitely left of center but not an extremist. He seems particular intent on increasing government involvement in the healthcare system. He's an upscale leftist; the quintessential "latte liberal".

Distinctly and seriously committed to his traditionalist Catholic worldview even in the face of social change; follows the doctrine of Alma Mater Ecclesia faithfully as he sees it, which also means that he's more sympathetic to labor issues and certain kinds of social-justice type arguments than many others of his general political stripe. Always willing to engage and doesn't seem shy about doing work with ideological opponents on matters where common ground exists. Nevertheless he's very socially conservative and shouldn't be mistaken for a moderate on the basis of his approachable tone.

Tradtional  left of center Democrat from New England. Typcially very supportive of Democratic canidates for office whereever they maybe, however he tends to be more reasonable and rational in his rheotric compared to some posters on this forum. He also strikes me as a voter who was supportive of Hillary in 2008, was disappointed by her defeat and is only still lukewarm about President Obama. However, he will vote for the President wholeheartdly in 2012.

Republican.

Political twin of Scott - economically center to center-left, very liberal socially. Even from the same state.

Generally leftist, sorry, don't know much.

Left-libertarian, it seems. Centrist on economic issues but very socially liberal. Probably best represented by the Cuomo's and Newsom's of the world.

generic social democracy

Ted Kennedy-type Democrat...minus the whole driving thing

Nationalism, I suppose?  I don't really know where you stand issue by issue.

Seems like your run of the mill liberal Democrat.

Seems more like a left-libertarian rather than a hard leftist. I don't really see him talking much about economic policy, for one.

Seems like a typical middle of the road Green to me.

Somewhere between Norm Finkelstein and George Galloway.

A somewhat traditional, yet fundamentally leftist Democrat. One could say he's "Normal for New England".

Seems to be a standard liberal with some vaguely communitarian leanings. Member of his town council, so regardless, he's an FF. From what I've heard he has a strange fixation on all things Asian.

Nicely done.


I'm an academic East Asianist so it's what I spend most of my time on. Naturally it creeps into my interactions with others. ;P

____

A Catholic conservative, one should think. Young and with views very much open to discussion and debate but takes his beliefs seriously and you can tell he's given them some thought. Quite attuned to historical context and history in general.

I don't quite get how he considers himself to be traditional(ist?) because I otherwise see him as a reasonable but fairly left-leaning social democrat. At any rate, though, he's certainly one of the posters who has put the most thought into his ideology.

Like all decent worldviews, Hash's politics are defined largely by opposition to things - Stephen Harper, Mitt Romney, "small government" trolls, Ron Paul, and those who dare to criticise President-elect Enrique Peña Nieto. Less informed members would doubtless leap to the conclusion that he's a social democrat of some stripe, which I don't think is really true.

To the extent that you can place anyone on an arbitrary political spectrum I'd say he's (groan) economically centrist and socially liberal (I can't believe I just unironically used those phrases) - witness his contempt for the NDP and dogged supported for the embattled Liberals. The real question is whether Hash's apparent cynicism is just that, or a symptom of a greater idealism. I'm not sure. Either way, one of our most valuable posters and best members of the forum by a long shot.

Oakvale's got a bit of mystique when it comes to his politics. His economic score certainly is not very reflective of his views, as he is a lot more left wing from what i've seen. His social score seems to imply social libertarianism, but not to the extent that he actually is. All in all, a very standard left winger.

This piqued my interest, since as I recall my PM score's relative moderation was caused by me not clicking any of those "this is a critical issue" boxes. I just re-took it -

Economic score: -1.81
Social score: -4.52

Not a huge difference, but seems more on target.

----- SKIP -----

Was typing up an essay on Hashemite's politics when I see a new post. I deleted the thing, only to realize some of the sentences could be applied to Oakvale. Whoops.

It is quite hard to write a profile of Oakvale distinct from one of Hash. Certainly Oakvale is best known by opposing things - the parochial opposition of the GOP, for example. His PM scores indicate "economic centrism/social liberalism", but his European roots inspire a view more left of Americans. Living in austerity-struck Ireland must be a factor, too.

Oakvale is most importantly a rational guy, intolerant of rhetoric and black-and-white thinking. Refuses to believe the world is heading for collapse, since at least that would be more exciting than the current state. Maybe secretly wishes that people of all nations stop dealing in brinksmanship and just have a smoke together-

Oh god not again


Jake/Carl has retreated a lot from political discourse after being called out on so much. Started out being a typical teenage libertarian, disillusioned with the issues which dominated his memory: the Iraq War and the financial crisis. His fling with Paul demonstrated a like for rhetoric and showy leadership.

A year later his views has moderated a bit, because he gave on learning the mental footwork needed to defend extremist views. Now has changed to a believer in "responsible government" and opponent of profligacy. Also believes in the modern view that people of all varieties should not be deprived of their freedoms. That said, his economic views still need more cohesion.

I wanted to see this :(

*skip me please*

Foucaulf seems to have somewhat of a economic/quantitative focus that defies and avoids contemporary ideologies when possible, but nevertheless maintains a distinct leftward bend, focusing his affections more toward labor than social modernity projects. He is usually more concerned with international affairs, the mechanics of arguments, and empirics than with our typical petty squables. He displays a technoskeptic side, and calls himself 'far-left' and a 'socialist' while occasionally dabbling in Marxian descriptors. He rarely talks about social issues, but he does lash out at certain figures on the right from time-to-time. He also hates Thomas Friedman and David Brooks.

That's about the best I could do. Foucaulf doesn't exactly give a lot to go off of. :P

Classic populist.  Though he is a traditional social conservative, he bases each of his views on his uber humanitarian philosophy (i.e., being pro-life includes supporting healthcare for all), and argues that labels such as those should not apply to only one issue.  Though his economic score seems rather moderate, I assume that he has a generally favorable view of welfare states and, to an extent, religiously inspired laws of some kind.  His views are typically shared by old school, populistic Democrats in the South, and if I had to compare him to a politician, I would say Bob Casey, Jr.

I'll resist the temptation to go "New Democrat lol!!1", although it's handy shorthand. Scott's certainly fairly moderate on economic matters compared to our average red avatar poster, but he's actually pretty mainstream for the Democratic Party in the real world - note his support of Andrew Cuomo and Bill Clinton, for example. It's worth noting that although he's a Christian he doesn't care much about what Anthony Weiner or Bill Clinton do in their personal lives, and is nonetheless a fierce supporter of same-sex marriage.

He has some positions I agree with, and some I don't - most obviously his libertarian tendencies on foreign policy, and to a lesser extent social policy, too. If he were an elected official he'd make a good Senator for, well, Connecticut or somewhere. :P

For all of the accusations of 'moderate hero', Oakie is actually far more traditionally left wing than many realise. He's a sensible 'leftist', in the sense that he supports effective government programs, he's pragmatic on both foreign policy and in general. I relate to him, in that I hate moral absolutism and the use of hyper-emotion and melodrama to make a policy point.

So, the simplest way to describe Oakie is that he's social libertarian, up to a point, he's pro-labour (the movement, not the party) and believes in the application of common-sense and facts overriding self-righteousness in most cases. There are some apparent basic principles, but it's basically not to be an arse (in policy terms).

Seems to be centre-left. His aversion to dogma is demonstrated by his aignature, quoting a famous Prime Minister of the opposite party. He supports the Australian Labor Party out of reluctance due to a lack of a viable alternative.  His "Canberra-insider" status that gives him insight into intra-party struggle between Gillard and Rudd makes him wary of Rudd's antics, despite the former PM's popularity with the total populace. Not quite sure if he counts as a "faceless man," but his insights are enlightening to those not familiar with he intracacies of Australian party politics.

Besides, he has been very patient with my constant questions about Australian politics. Thanks, Polnut! :D

: obvious skip:

FYI: not a faceless man by a long-shot, especially since I'm not a member of the ALP.

MasterSanders is quite likely a southern version of Mitch Daniels. A conservative that focuses mainly on economic issues.

Very conservative, a little paranoid-seeming at times, very Midwestern. Occasionally hard to talk to but definitely has an internal logic to his worldview. If I were being kind I'd call him romantic, if I were being unkind I'd call him retrograde. Has a somewhat odd view on the basis of the Constitution, as I recall, which involves 'natural law' somehow.

Again, I don't really understand how he considers himself to be traditional(ist?). I would probably describe him, as risk of repeating myself, as a reasonable/pragmatic but fairly left-leaning social democrat, which is probably influenced by the Vermont/western Mass environment and which is hard to describe succinctly. At any rate he's certainly one of the posters who has put the most thought into his ideology.

Agrarian focus, personal attitudes about things like drugs and (on some axes) sex, distrust of aspects of globalization, and obsession with New England history, mainly. Said Vermont/Western Mass environment is like this; it's fundamentally a traditionally rural-leftist environment with lesbians and New York transplants added.

*skip*

Nathan firmly believes Edmond Dantes is going to return to this forum and then three moderators, that achieved their positions by banning him, would be royally screwed.

I remember hearing an NPR presentation. It involved a story about the Polish President dying in a plane crash, I believe. This triggered an election between his twin brother, representing what was termed as "old Poland" against the more liberal "new Poland" candidate. The new Poland was located in the West in major cities as I recall and represented a much more progressive worldview, etc. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say he's not part of the rural, conservative, eastern "old Poland".

It's hard to separate Cathcon's "real" beliefs from his admittedly somewhat facetious forum persona, although arguably it doesn't really matter. Well, he's certainly Catholic, and certainly conservative. I don't think I'd be amiss to say that Cath sees himself as a proud culture warrior, standing bravely against the tide of moral relativism disguised as "progress".

Strangely enough, he's also a proud cynic, contemptuous of the very people who'd vote for him in an election, and, well, admires Richard Nixon for Watergate. An interesting fellow who I rarely agree with, but enjoy talking to.

A liberal from Ireland.

(Not serious, just a running joke on the IRC)

Very good. :P

What Snow said.

I don't usually see you discuss your views on here, so it's hard for me to say.  However, from what I've seen, I believe you are a somewhat secular, moderate conservative?

I wrote this for RB, but now Scott posted. I did both.

Unlike most Quebecois, RB is rather conservative and a Harper supporter, as well as one who supports American conservatives (one poll showed that over 50% of Tories in Canada supported Obama over Romney). However, he wouldn't be considered radical here; though solidly fiscally conservative (as opposed to the corporatism that Republicans campaign against and then implement), he seems to be rather unconcerned with social issues; I rarely if ever see him talk about them. He's also a deist, so if he were able to run for President here he'd be chased out of the party by pitchfork-toting Tea Partiers. :P

Scott comes from the New Democratic wing of the party often associated with white-collar suburbanites, although in his daily life he breaks his stereotype, being a Christian who loves country music. Left-leaning but overall moderate on economic issues, he is very socially liberal and highly supportive of same-sex marriage.

American progressivism through and through although he is faced with the inherent contradictions that arise when a middle class teen is primarily concerned with the place of culturally conservative working class voters in the party.

Seems somewhat leftist, at least by Idaho standards.  I don't know really.

Fallen Morgan is a classic libertarian, with an isolationist foreign policy to match. 

Very left wing Democrat. Socially ticks all the 'liberal' boxes, anti war on drugs, strongly pro-LGBT rights, favors legalization of brothels etc. Although he's kinda moderate-ish on gun control (support of concealed carry laws) and supports the overturning of Roe vs. Wade which you don't usually see Democrats proposing nowadays. Support for making English the official language of the United States, usually a Republican policy, is somewhat an outlier in terms of his liberal ideology as well. Economically, he is mainline liberal i.e. support for the 'living wage', 'corporations are not people' amendment, yada, yada.

All in all, an economic and social liberal, with some maverick stances on a couple of issues.

Seems like your average American conservative, with a neoconservative foreign policy. Could fit into Blairs Labor Party as a very moderate member, in a way. Santorum or Gingrich would be your best match here in the US.

Ron Paul-style libertarian.

Formerly libertarian-ish now a marxistarian I take it?

Freedom Beliefs, both in ideological terms and in my opinion.

About as close to center as you can get on foreign policy... economic moderate and social liberal. A smart analysis with care for every view he takes on the issues...

Clarence arrived... your somewhat stereotypical older conservative veteran. His past as a small-business owner certainly frames his economic views as being anti-regulation and maybe not being too favourable to unions? He's quite hawkish on foreign policy, again a testament to his past as a Navy veteran from Vietnam.

Socially, he's a very ardent supporter of the pro-life position, as well as education voucherisation.

But he's not completely rigid and shows a strong desire to learn more about issues from people he might not have had exposure to in the past, this is especially clear from his position of gay rights and same-sex legal recognition.

In summary: a pretty mainstream economic, social and foreign policy 'conservative', but one with an open mind. 

Polnut stole my spot, so,

Clarence: Rather right-wing at first glance, but in many ways rather pragmatic. Very pro-military, which usually (but not always) translates into support of a stronger foreign policy, and as a veteran sees service as critical for a public officeholder to have. However, he is sometimes more moderate; he supports same-sex marriage and makes bipartisan endorsements. All in all, one of the more reasonable users, and certainly one of the best conservatives.

Polnut: A Labor voter, specifically the more moderate/affluent wing. Would be a relatively standard liberal in America, though also somewhat moderate on economic issues. Would be willing to vote for some conservatives in his country if they hadn't gone hard right under Abbott.

A moderate to left wing Democrat with conservative positions on issues like gun control. A New Dealer crossed with some elements of the DLC.

A libertarian Republican who votes for the person- not the party. Not many people are fans of both Ron Paul and Allen West... he is conservative economically with an America-first foreign policy. I get the sense his views are still evolving as all of ours should be and wouldn't be surprised to see him go either further left or right...

Pro-veteran conservative. Doesn't always toe the Republican line and used to identify as a Democrat but is an all around conservative and foreign policy hawk.

Believes the English are a nation of shop keepers and that the only way to save the Republic is for him to be made Emperor.

A mixture of Midwestern and Texas, Libertarian Republican through and through

Sounds like a liberal/moderate Republican. Probably doesn't care about social issues at all and not very radical on economic issues compared to some of his peers.

I'm not sure where he fits within an Australian context but here he's an affable but fairly firm leftist, who seems, as his avatar would indicate, to have environmentalist sympathies. Sorry I can't elaborate more; I don't know him very well.

Standard traditionalist New Englander, but with some political quirks.

A radical who disregards a person for one view they hold- his signature is an example... he sees the US and our allies as the cause of most of the world's issues. At times- he seems to want to be a radical leftist for the sake of being one and probably fancies himself as the Che Guevara of the Atlas Forum. His views and the manner in which he expresses them would've made me angry in the past... but nowadays he is good for a laugh knowing some one like him will never get near any office of power in America

Clarence initially came off, to me, as a very ardent conservative back when he first joined, and his early support of Newt Gingrich and then Rick Santorum during the GOP primaries helped give that impression.  However, over time he's demonstrated that he's actually fairly moderate, and though he stands firm on his opinions, he is willing to consider the other side's position when room for common ground exists.  His top issues are mostly foreign policy-related, and his own experience in the US military inspires his deep appreciation for fellow veterans, even if he does not see eye-to-eye with them on everything.

Scott is a left-leaning Democrat with some rather moderate views on some economic issues, but is very firm in his libertarian social views. He's religious, but does not seem to allow his religious views and his political views to intertwine. Very similar to Napoleon, another Connecticut Democrat. Scott demonstrates compassion for environmental issues (guessing this from some Atlasia things :P) but overall is very nice and reasonable when it comes to political debate. He's bipartisan and appreciative of others' views.

A former Libertarian who has since became more Conservative. Perhaps your a little more practical than me--I vote on principles even if it ends up hurting me more than helping, while you are able to see what benefeits you the most. I have to say though, supporting Mitt Romney is somewhat ironic :P

Your certainly one of our more Libertarian posters none the less :).

Decidedly libertarian although with a strong paleoconservative streak. Not a traditionalist by any standard but conservative in the sense that innovation is somewhat of a threat to the present worldview of his.

Essentially, it's vapid nostalgia for an imagined past combined with an intractable feeling of moral superiority (the answer to the question of what said superiority is derived from is unclear).

Conservatism.

A solid centre-right, pragmatic, Conservative. While being more socially conservative than fiscally so, he focuses on the latter rather than the former. His strong support for Jon Huntsman in the GOP primary calling him the only 'sane and principled' candidate goes quite a way to showing his moderate-esque tendencies.

Based on his political score, he seems to be a Thatcherite.

Southern conservative, who seems like a Gingrich supporter.

Generally reasonable, history-minded (which I can forgive a lot for, although definitely not all, see for instance Niall Ferguson), but fairly strident and not really yet fully developed libertarian. Definitely on the right-libertarian end of the spectrum, and like many Americans who align their politics this way his opinions on some social issues I personally think leave a bit to be desired. Pretty standard libertarian orthodoxy on the economic axis, perhaps more paleoconservative and less neoliberal, as it were. He's young, so he's still developing his worldview and he used to hold some fairly unconscionable positions, which he's smart and honest enough to own up to. Politically active at a young age, which is always a plus (says the person who was the youngest elected official in Massachusetts for a while and so is TOTALLY OBJECTIVE.jpg :P).

Interesting fellow. I was going to make the joke of quoting his own description of himself as displayed in his signature, but I'm assuming that's already been done. :P

Nathan occupies a fairly unique position on the Atlas' ideological map - his fundamentally traditional - not conservative, necessarily, I think there's a difference - outlook forming an interesting contrast with more traditionally liberal posters who might reject the very notion of "family" as being good for society. I get the impression that, above all else, Nathan values family and community as being paramount in a decent society, and his politics seem to reflect that - a Republican candidate for office might describe themselves as supporting "family values", but from what I can tell Nathan might see such a claim as ridiculous considering said Republican may well want to destroy the very social safety net so many families - and communities! - rely upon.

I've said before that if he were an elected politician - well, uh, he is, but y'know what I mean - he'd be Daniel Patrick Moynihan, as one of the few academics to hold a Senate seat. Nathan is Daniel Patrick Moynihan if Senator Moynihan studied Japanese poetry and had a large number of lesbian friends.

While it's unfortunate that he thinks someone being involved in politics at a young age is a positive, I suppose such attitudes can't be helped on a political forum. ;)

Regardless of that upsetting belief, Nathan remains by far one of my favourite posters to read bar none, and one of the (few, I'll admit) whose posts I never scroll past when reading a thread, although if it's on a religious topic I'll inevitably have to look up about eight-hundred words in the process. To use the appropriate Atlas lingo, Nathan is an "FF".

While it seems I have talked with oakvale much thanks to the forum's chat, I know little of his beliefs. He once humorously commented that our PM scores were mirror opposites of each other, though one would have to switch around the social and economic scores. So what you end up with, I guess, is a liberal who is moderate economically and quite liberal socially. I know I'm not doing him justice here, but this is what I've come up with. Godspeed.

Social and economic conservative with protectionist and commutarian leanings. Definitively more traditionalist than fanatical.

I honestly have no idea what Kalwejt believes and what he is repulsed by outside of the fact that he is a democratic socialist in the European mold with few liberal roots. As far as I can tell, he dislikes Obama and is an opponent of the liberalized brand of social democracy that has been the norm over the past few decades.

Solidly left, which is rare for the state he is from. I cannot say that I know much about him, but I believe he is supporting the Stein/Homulka ticket this year.

Very much a Ron Paul conservative, with a dash of nostalgia for the Confederacy mixed in.  

amusing mix of obtuse dlc 'centrism' and classical liberalism. im still somewhat annoyed people couldn't figure out i was parodying him several years back.

Mint is fundamentally anti-democratic, and his surety in the failing of democracy strongly influence the rest of his politics.  While I have seem in vacillate between a number of mutually exclusive positions, the best I can describe him as is authoritarian, somewhat reminiscent of early Italian-style fascism. 

Yelnoc... how to describe Yelnoc.

He's very much a political centrist on average. He's apathetic on most social issues, generally placing the "don't be a dick test" on most things. He's an economic moderate, certainly. He shows support for the role of Government and making sure the Government's economic policies are "fair"

His support for more 'libertarian' candidates - but I don't actually get why. Perhaps a lack of interest in either "side" forces him to what he sees as an alternative to that.

Polnut is your average American Democrat. When I think of politicians he might like, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden all come to mind. He is center-left to the core. I could see him voting for a very moderate Republican, however.

Sanchez is young, so his earlier links to white supremacy can arguably be excused, and he's slowly becoming a more standard libertarian - albeit retaining some traces of the paranoia and conspiracy theories that inevitably accompany white supremacist ideology. He distrusts "big government", although these days it's more of a traditional conservative stance than because he thinks the UN are going to his guns. :P The best way I can describe Sanchez is "evolving".

Oakvale is a good friend.

Oakvale's a diehard Sinn Fein Irish Nationalist, constantly talking about the need to retake Ulster and of the value of Irish-language education in preserving Irish nationality.  Oakvale's political activities tend to lean to burning the Union Jack on March 17th and picking random letters of the alphabet and forming new chapters of the IRA under them.  (QIRA, ZIRA, XIRA...)

I truly have no idea... my interactions with Mikado have  not been about politics and the few times he has discussed a political issue- he showed himself a mature and thoughtful moderate. He has the perfect political beliefs to be an arbiter on a political board!

Remarkably standard American conservative even though somewhat... umm.. flamboyant in a personality sense, which clearly comes through his posts.

a consequence of his general attitude towards life, secondary rather than primary, not standing on their own for any particular purpose, and owing nothing to the orthodoxy of or faith in a particular school of thought.

Blames the institutions which have given him the opportunity for success in life for the world's problems... disputes anything he sees as "pro-Western" and in so doing is even more rigid then he accuses us of being

When he's not trolling us with his weird fetish for the fattest and ugliest women possible, he is a fairly standard-issue conservative although he understandably is a defense hawk and a vocal defender of veterans and veterans issues. He also doesn't seem too doctrinaire, as his more open-minded positions on stuff like gay rights shows.

Hash is an interesting character: based off of his general bent, he seems like the ultimate defender of neo-liberalism and the centrist consensus. The type of guy who is more passionate about cosmopolitan values and globalization than poverty in a banlieue. The reality is that he hates this consensus and firmly supports decentralized government, broad center-left reform and an end to the shielded elitist political system in the western world while at the same time he despises populism. This sort of stance is the perfect formula for an intense misanthropy and a hatred of nearly all parties and political figures. In short: he tends to hate everything and everybody in politics outside of a few regionalist parties and a few bulwarks against the most odious forms of reactionary ideology.

A staunch left wing Democrat. I detect quite a hint of populism among his rhetoric, but that may just be me. I'm not quite sure what else 'stands out'.

A typical lad you might find at the Young Briton's Foundation. Based on his score, he seems to embrace the Thatcherite combination of economic liberalism and British nationalism. I could see him as a member of UKIP. Although I might be taking this a bit to far, he reminds me most of Daniel Hannan.

Rural Georgian par excellence (but wouldn't be surprised if he lived in Atlanta's suburbs). Born after the Reagan Revolution, he has learned to idolize the "Great Communicator" as mythified by the Right; watching The West Wing helped too. Consequently supported Gingrich and Cain during the Republican primaries, for they spoke to his wants of rhetoric and shoutouts to the South.

Pro-life, deregulationist and orthodox Christian, with a prohibitionist strand. Suspicious of those with Northerner attitudes, like Obama and Romney, but will support the one carrying the party banner at the day's end. Maybe he consoles himself by thinking he's on a higher moral and philosophical ground than those tarnished by modernity - a "Burkean conservative" perhaps?

This sort of thinking seems more Maistrean than Burkean to me, honestly.

*skip*

I'm still figuring that put myself. I maybe closer to a "Burkean" conservative or "Hayekian" Liberal.

I've never seen the The West Wing, though I would like to create a "Right Wing."

And I am rural.

Other than that, spot on.

skip

'Kay, I don't know a lot about Foucaulf. Seems like a good guy. On politics specifically, as I recall, he's pro-choice. I assume he's somewhere located in the left part of the spectrum. Not sure where.

You were obsessed enough with me that you felt impelled to parody me?  :P

I hope to God I never meet you in real life, now knowing just how creepy you really are.  


---------------

skip

He told us this months ago in the IRC.  I thought you already knew. :P

[skip]

I wasn't paying attention at the time.  There are so many odd posters that pop in and out over the years that I have largely tuned them out.   Which one was he? 

On the forum?  I'm not sure.  I don't think I was a member here when he was parodying you.  He and some other guys just mentioned it on the chat one time.

Bump!

Standard traditionalist conservatism

Very much like me; a Libertarian-Paleoconservative. I don't think we disagree on anything.

A libertarian-paleoconservative; individualistic & socially tolerant while also having more conservative views on issues such as abortion & states rights.

Goldwater Republican is the type of Republican that we should nominate. He is, in my opinion, the Tea Party before it became the neocon astro-turf that it is now. A true Barry Goldwater-Ronald Reagan-Jack Kemp style conservative.

Also a Tea Partier uncorrupted by the taint of neoconservatism. May disagree on one issue or two but both him and Goldwater Republican would get my support if they ran for office.

A paleoconservative in the true sense of the word- would likely see eye to eye with Pat Buchanan on most issues. He deeply values his faith and uses it to guide his political views... for which he is unfairly targeted on the board

Right-wing patriot type.  Though seems more like a Romney sort of Republican, in terms of the role of government.

()

()

()

()

Dern, I was hoping Rush Limbaugh.

Skip

()

()

()

lol

This one seems apt.

Alright, knock it off with the pictures.

And solarstorm, sorry pal but you're too new to be posting in this thread.

In his own way, Yelnoc is one of the most left-wing people on the forum.

Despite this, everyone still assumes he's a moderate hero of some stripe, probably solely due to the fact that he until recently had an I-GA avatar, which means people assume he's an Evan Bayh fan. While Yelnoc would like to see the capitalist system destroyed and replaced, he's still figuring out the best system with which to replace it - that's probably a good thing, since it means he might avoid falling into Stalinism or something. Within the context of the system as it exists he's left of center, but not ridiculously so, which leads to an interesting contrast - if he accepts the current political and cultural paradigm he's just a left-leaning liberal, if he rejects it he's a... syndicalist? He's an interesting guy, and I enjoy talking to him and losing to him in chess. :P

Oakvale strikes me as a fairly typical example of the liberal 'hipster' (not really the best word here, but the alternatives are worse. But I think most people know what I mean here) type. Though, thankfully however, his opinions are better thought-out and more coherent than most of his persuasion.

Gully Foyle is one of the most respected members of this forum. It is kind of hard for me to do him, since I am not "in the know". Many references towards him, Tweed, BRTD, and what have you confuse me, as I still consider myself a "newbie" after a year..

Gully Foyle seems to be your standard left leaning intellectual, minus the stereotypical arrogance often associated with them.

ChairmanSanchez is a textbook Constitutional Conservative. He blends the best aspects of Libertarianism, Conservatism and plain ole Constitutionalism. As a Ron Paul supporter, he defied the stereotype that all Paulites are neanderthals that only do what their leader tells them to do. He argues his point in a rational fashion, and has gained a fair amount of respect for it. He's very fiscally conservative and relatively Libertarian on social issues.

He's undergone a much-maligned shift from your run-of-the-mill Ron Paul enthusiast teenager - goldbuggery, paranoia and small government! -  to budding Young Republican, with the appropriate slate of standard-issue American conservative stances,  although to be fair he's very young so his ideological identity is in something of a state of flux. His  - commendable, much of the time - enthusiasm often puts us at odds, and his new-found set of Republican values can lead to unfortunate cases of political tin-ear from my perspective - posting a grinning emoticon in the Aurora massacre thread in response to an article stating that support for gun control was shrinking kind of jarred me, for example - but at least he's sincere, something some of us doubted when he first shifted from supporting Paul to Romney.

I will say he's quite certainly the only person in the country that listens to the kind of music he does and hopes Mitt Romney will be the next President. :P

A kind of poster-boy for the Decent Moderate - or 'american liberal', his beliefs are based upon what I perceive to be an excellent character.

Libertine who supports horrible autocrats.

An anarchist that hates governments & private property.

Name sums it up - although he believes in personal liberties, he is kinda hawkish.

My general impression of him is that he's a standard social democrat/progresisve in the bobo mold.

A careful balancing act of a hatred for most of our culture that inspires a certain authoritarian conservatism opposed by an increased understanding as he has matured that we all need the basics in life that informs a small but growing socialist side. Contemptuous and confused but always understandable and eloquent.

Standard American Progressive, with a lot of influence from European Social Democracy.

Libertarianish Republican, Paul fan.

Blue Tory with a primary interest in (I think?) fiscal/economic matters. Can come across as a somewhat bloodless or heartless technocrat, like many of this ilk, but I think he does care and he's thoughtful about his positions and preferences, even if from my perspective a lot of his preferred policies are less than helpful.

Nathan is the embodiment of the American Progressive. He is a perfect fit for Vermont, really. Nathan could also be placed as a Social Democrat, as well, I guess. Solid Left, none the less.

A typical paleoconservative.

Big time right wing, 'Paulish', views on the economy mixed with generally conservative social stances, although the latter are tempered due to his overall small government, libertarian ideology.

Moderate Republican. Fairly standard economic views, somewhat more left-wing on social.

I don't really know much about 'im.  Seems to be a liberal, at least.

Formerly a libertarian, now an anarchist of highly liberal and distinctly secularist social leanings.

I'm not a liberal, bro.

Anyways...

Nathan: Somewhat moderate liberal, but has some views that make him seem a bit more to the left.

Left wing Libertarian who loves Israel :P

I was describing your views on social policy specifically.

*skip*

A libertarian() paleoconservative.

Simfan: At first glance a moderate Republican; a Northeastern Huntsman supporter. In some ways that interpretation is accurate; he does support marriage equality and is pragmatic on many issues. However, when you get to know him, it is clear that he has authoritarian leans (though not to mint's extent), as well as a near-fetishization of the upper class.

Seems fairly left-wing.  Likes teh poe-knees.

Often-insanely pro-Palestine left-wing fanatic. That's pretty much all I know about him.

Young from what I recall. Probably raised in a liberal family somewhere in NYC. Grew up with their values. Not a rub against him, that's just the way things are. His signature, showing some happy anim'e dude, suggests that this guy is happy and enthusiastic an amount of the time. Good for him.

Upstate, but other than that, it's pretty accurate. My mom's family is kinda hippie-esque.

As stated, a hippie-esque American Liberal. Very supportive of President Obama I take it :)

American Paleo-Conservative, probably most fits with the Constitution Party. Nonetheless, he joined here as a Libertarian and is now a Republican. I take it he'll try to be active with a number of centre-right groups as time goes on, but eventually be forced to make a decision.

Pat Buchanan might also describe his views well. A Paleo-Con with a protectionist side. However, Sanchez seems to have dropped hints of racism that he may have came here with and thus not be as in support of him as was likely. Nevertheless, I feel confident that the Chairman would have voted for Pat thrice had he been a registered voter at the time.

Cath is an interesting creature. On the surface, one might just think "socially conservative Catholic", but the story is much deeper. He holds not only a traditionalist side, but elements of misogyny (though some of this may be for the sake of humor). He also has a soft spot for underhanded political tactics and wishes to be an "elite" and a career politician. His idol, Richard Nixon, sums him up well; conservative but pragmatic.

What a right winger!

To the extent Kal weighs in the public policy matters, rather than comment on the rather fascinating array of Atlasian personalities, a seemingly reasonably sane and practical standard issue liberal who would fit well into the mainstream of the Dem party.

Both instinctively and politically conservative in something like the old-style Far Western manner, although he might dispute this and many of his policy prescriptions are quite moderate by the current standards of his party. Somehow I can see him either liking Goldwater very much indeed or being seriously concerned about him in '64. I wouldn't describe him as socially conservative in the traditionalist or religious sense at all, except perhaps for some latent underlying assumptions about the way the world works. Something tells me he might also dispute the term 'libertarian', even though I think to an extent it applies, in a 'moderate' sense.

Interesting paragraph about me Nathan. Goldwater was not fit for office, but I got my parents to vote for him based on the supposition that it would be best to keep LBJ's margin down.

I dispute I have much of a libertarian streak in me, beyond being chill about the life style choices of individuals. I understand that in a modern complex, diverse society, transfer payments and a social safety net, are necessary, and also profoundly believe that we need to do better, much better, in affording folks a more equal opportunity to more fully realize their potential, starting with a fundamental cleansing of our secondary school system, something that to do right, is going to cost considerably more money than we are spending now to get the kind of teachers these kids need and deserve (while canning the mediocre and incompetent in droves). In fact, the suck schools are part of a larger syndrome of what I consider a massive f'ing of the youngs by the olds (which should not be occurring, at least not outside the bedroom :P), so we have a generational equity issue in play that is festering, and may turn gangrenous.

But yes, I also think I have an array of rather conservative instincts, and do believe in the market system, and on a world wide basis, bearing in mind that positive and negative externalities need to be appropriately addressed, that are not internalized into the price system.

Someone else take a crack at Nathan (you had better say nice things about him!), and skip me of course. I don't want to dominate this place. :)

So close to a decent amoral hedonistic economic vampirism, but alas marred by an offensive Horatio Alger pretense (or delusion?)

That is not a very nice characterization of Nathan.

By the way, you keep bringing up the wholly inappropriate Horatio Alger meme. Why?

The embodiment of solid bourgeois respectability in baby-boomer form.

Thoughtfully integrates Postmodern insights into his views without turning tedious and unreadable, opposed to Positivism and carrying a healthy distrust of Progress, combining leftist instincts with an instinctive intellectual hostility towards snap judgements and the arrogant presumption of intellectual superiority that so many on the left have...indeed, given his Foucauldian background, he even has a healthy distrust of the entire basis of the foundations of "knowledge" that underpins intellectual thought to begin with.

Torie: a secular conservative and moderate Republican by today's standards, but more of a mainstream, fiscally prudent, generally pro "laissez faire" Republican by the standards of the past. Highly educated in his views, especially considering the modern Republican Party's tendencies. Thoughtful and willing to listen to opposing arguments, despite his fundamentally right-wing economic views. Something of an "elitist" in that he doesn't like populist appeals and demagoguery towards the educated, the wealthy, and the intellectual, on either side.

:)

I'm willing to accept 'close to decent' and 'marred', and possibly 'offensive' and 'delusion' according to opinion, but the rest of this sentence is wildly off-base.

*skip*

Dammit, PR, you totally skipped me, and then you did Nathan despite him putting Skip in his post.

Whoops. :(

Sorry.

So, who's supposed to be doing whom right now?

pretend I'm mikado

It was of Torie, obviously, guys.


The thing that most offends me about your political position is that it makes claims that poors can better themselves or are somehow responsible for their own misfortunes.

Oh okay. That makes a bit more sense.

I was counter-punching at my interlocutor, and used you as my glove. Sorry buddy.  :P 

No obebo, you really miss it. Yes, you really do. I'm into increasing the odds that the poors can better themselves. I hope that helps.

Moderate Republican, not inflammatory by any means.

Unless you've done an absolute 180 degree turn on your views since you joined the forum, you appear be a social libertarian and an economic moderate. Supporting the legalisation of marijuana, leaving abortion and same sex marriage to the states, yada-yada. You're probably wary of government infringing on second amendment rights. On top of all this is a nice dose of anti-zionism/support for Palestine.

Oh, and as your signature quite rightly points out, you're not a liberal. :P

I actually have done a 180 degree turn.  I'm now a card-carrying (well, not really) commie.

I don't think it was that much of a drastic turn, really.  I've always had a bit of distaste for society and capitalism -- now I just realize and embrace it.

[SKIP]

From what little I can gather out of less than 600 posts, he seems to me like the archetype of the young Forum Republican. There's a silly amount of faith in the government coupled with a disappointing level of social restraint. I suspect a few jolts to the left on that front within the next few years. Being associated with the Republicans from a British perspective lends a lot to the idea of an infatuation with the right, one that also could potentially give way to a disappointment-based flirtation with libertarianism or even the left at some point.

Always seemed kind of centrist-ish, but I never really noticed enough to be able to squarely describe his ideology, even though I've been here a while.

Anti-government, anti-Zionism, anti-capitalism, & anti-society.

I'm assuming Goldwater Republican is socially moderate, perhaps even liberal, and generally in favor of a smaller government approach to domestic issues. He is, however, not a libertarian in any real sense because his foreign policy views are probably closer to Rudy Giuliani's than Ron Paul's. I can't add much more detail to this vague framework since I haven't interacted with him all that much in issue-based discussion since he joined the forum.

Somehow we went through an entire page without anyone actually doing me despite both Yelnoc and me pointing out the error.  I hold you to blame for this, Progressive Realist.

Getting back on track: TJ is very much a traditionalist RCC intellectual, and part of a rich thought tradition.  Is more instinctively conservative than ideologically, being skeptical of mad rushes towards changes in policy.  His background in the hard sciences and obvious smarts make him deeply skeptical of demagogues.

Oh The Mikado is somewhere on the center left (more left on social issues than otherwise perhaps), but seems rather detached, and not all into doing battle on some of the main issues of the day - at least the ones that interest me. He seems more of an intellectual who enjoys tossing brickbats at the established order from all directions. Part of my struggling here, is that The Mikado has never really mixed it up with me, and I don't think that is because he considers me the embodiment of Aristotelian perfection. :)

Anyway, that might be why folks skip you Mikado. You're too tough - the shadow in Plato's cave.

Torie seems to be an old school Eisenhower Republican.

Kal is very similar to the American progressive, but twice as ballsy, and would get a whole lot more done.

Thanks, but...that is not likely. I am a very erratic person.

-skip-

Townsend strikes me as a true "moderate". I don't think he's extreme on any issue really. He also seems like a decent sort.

The Doc seems to be a progressive FDR Dem, a New Dealer.

As his PM score would suggest, he's a rather moderate Democrat. A Clintonite, if you will.

Libertarian-leaning Republican. Seems a lot older than he actually is. Has a lot of the social views common to younger progressives but seems to be suspicious towards central planning and social engineering/coercion and acknowledges how markets work. One could say being libertarian-leaning, but not wacky.

Moderate, maybe even libertarian-leaning, Republican or Independent.

Conservative Republican who believes he would've been more liberal in the past. Big lover of liberal Republican Governors in the 1960's, of note George Romney, Nelson Rockefeller, Tom McCall, and William Scranton. Not sure about the type of candidate he'd support today, but as I said earlier, seems to identify as conservative.

To put it nicely, a young republican with somewhat undeveloped views who likes to toy with absurd ideas.

True Leftist (TM) mercifully gifted with self-awareness. ;)

Haven't seen many posts, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but seems like your typical European mainstream social Democrat or left-liberal type. Which isn't a bad thing - the typical European left-liberal or social democratic party is perfectly rational. Can't tell age, though I'd wager at least a young adult. Seems to get most information about America from disaffected leftist-types, which seems to be the international norm.

LOL :)

As for loving "liberal Republican governors", the reason in two words (say it with me): Civil rights.

Oldiesfreak: a fairly conservative who seems to advocate for civil rights. The problem is that the base of his party is now in the South.

Left-winger who is rather comfortable with government authority despite possessing a token amount of social liberalism. Has few problems with the criminalization of various substances, government surveillance, and seems to feel the same regarding a type of civic or governmental morality. In a word, nanny-statist.

Conservative with some libertarian leanings and a populist demeanor.

Republican party hack

Full-blown socialism.

An unabashed progressive with a strong flavor of civil libertarianism.

Libertarian with a strong independent streak.  Principled and not committed to a party

A Christian leftist with a populist, labor streak. I find myself agreeing with him from time to time despite our different views.

A former racist transformed into a small-government Libertarian.

A relatively typical economic social-democrat, paired with social conservativism. Highly elitist and academic, despite coming from the same mould as many American populists.

Globally thr average left libertarian poster of this forum.
Although he's quite more independent I guess. That doesn't surprise me at all he isn't backing one of the two Volksparteien in Austria.

Social Democracy with a pinch of Christian Democracy for flavour

A self-described "reactionary", which both intrigues and frightens me.

Whatever he feels like being. Are you a Hoxhaist or a Marxist-Lennist today?

Paleo-conservative with libertarian tinges.

Libertarian with some moderate tinges on economics

Traditional populist Democrat along the lines of Harry Truman-economically centre-left but socially to the right.

A center leftist with hawkish foreign policy views.

Moderate Republican; the kind that could win an election in Massachusetts or New York.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Fischer

I would've went with Chuck Baldwin or Pat Buchanan, but close enough.

-SKIP-

I happen to be a huge fan of Pat Buchanan (if he had a baby with Ron Paul and than that baby had one with Gary Johnson, you'd have me :P), but I certainly would not want to be associated with Bryan Fischer. And I say this as a person who once idolized some pretty vile people.

A libertarian Republican who I respect greatly and agree with quite a bit, even though we have different viewpoints

Pragmatic, center right conservative who is more concerned about the economic viability of the nation than the minor domestic squables. Too principled to be labeled a moderate, but I don't think he likes the term conservative either.

Somewhere between paleocon and libertarian; a strange hybrid of Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul.

2010s Republican Party hack with grandiose delusions of being an 1860s Republican Party hack.

Socially Liberal Episcopalian Liberation Theologian

Conservative parody of a Democrat

A good democratic socialist.

Compared to what, specifically?

For Dr. Cynic: Strongly left-wing Democrat with more than slightly populist, strongly pro-labor tendencies informed by his being from Pittsburgh and both knowledgeable and passionate about his city's and region's culture and history.

Left wing Episcopalian who places a strong priority on social justice and human dignity

A left-wing pro-labor independent who also happens to be deeply religious and has some socially conservative tendencies.

Right liberal with some strong neocon tendencies in foreign policy. Despite being complete opposite kinds of conservative, we get along pretty well :P

Red Tory economically but socon and hawkish.

Standard Reagan conservative whose views are hard to dissect because he almost never talks about them.

I would call you a New New Deal kind of Democrat who holds religion high, but really doesn't effect him socially.

A Reagan conservative of the Republican Study Committee tradition.

Globally a Christian libertarian, with anti immigration views.

A pragmatic social-democrat, but one with a certain streak of traditionalism in his ideological makeup as well.

Hard right, anti-European extreme conservative

Standard center left Democrat

Moderate populist, pro-labor democrat, with some socially conservative views

High school hipster leftist.

Social Democratic internationalist who views his reforms as mild, when in reality they are pretty major changes that simply lack the flamboyant rhetoric associated with them. Take, for example, his opposition to private schools, or his desire to redraw state borders.

Elderly Hispanic man who is quite liberal, but votes Republican because he is pissed Kennedy's Bay of Pigs thing didnt work.

So whose sock are you?

Uh, no ones.  I was just making up a somewhat humorous post.

How else would you know that I am an elderly Hispanic man? Clearly you have read my old posts. Thus, you are a sock.

I didnt read any of them, I just sort of came up with it based off being Republican and in Florida.  But, I just checked your profile, and it appears that what I said was completely wrong.

Way too few posts to tell

A social conservative with moderate economic views and a more cautious view on foreign policy. As he mentioned before, we get along surprising well despite being as different as two blue avatars can be. :P

Neoconservative republican with some libertarian stances

Marxist.

Progressive Democrat.

Standard run of the mill democrat, not meant as an insult.

Shameless Timeline Promoting.

Pro-environmentalist progressive

Economically right-wing, socially center-right tea party supporter.

A classic "fiscally conservative, socially moderate/liberal" Republican.  Would probably be a Democrat in most parts of the country.

A cross between a modern-day moderate Republican (e.g. Scott Brown) with an 1860s Republican.

Solid conservative Republican with some Tory influence

An economically left-leaning but socially conservative Democrat; fits the Rust Belt and Appalachia like a glove.

Bircherite Paleocon

Progressive, but somewhat libertarian.

I don't know him enough,
A communautarian globally

Hawkish, socially moderate Democrat

Libertarian Socialist, whatever that means.

Typical Libertarian, with some moderate views on economic issues.

Centrist Republican that refuses to give up on his party, and doesn't buy into the hype that every person with a (D) next to their name is a radical socialist commie.

Social Democrat who remains loyal to the Democratic party despite being somewhat to the left of the national party.

Hard lefty who is very principled about what he believes in

Typical southern Democrat. Fiscally liberal, socially conservative.

Center-left on social issues, center-right on economics, and a moderate neoconservative on foreign policy. ;)

The textbook definition of a moderate libertarian, mostly supports moderate republicans, which there are plenty of in Washington state.

A young, naive left-liberal who supports murderous reactionaries as long as they line with American "progressive" interests.

Old far left I guess: isolationist, pro gun, anti environment, socialist

According to his own ideological scoring system, 0%. :P

Very hawkish, nationalistic Republican, who could be mistaken for a Libertarian on most domestic issues. His preferred point of comparison is, obviously, to Barry Goldwater, and towards the end of Goldwater's career at least it fits pretty well.

A traditional Christian Socialist

oh my god you don't even know how funny this is coming from you

-skip-

For Mung beans, a Christian Democrat with some socon tendencies but is also strongly for social justice.  We have a lot of common ground even though he is a bit to my left.

Very comfortable in the left wing of the old DC party in Italy.... Leftish Christian Democrat.

A pretty standard modern Catholic conservative, with a greater focus on wedge social issues over traditional social justice and economic equity.

Fixed it for you

SKIP

Polnut is a modern, pragmatic left-winger of the Australian type. I believe he's referred to himself as being largely centrist in his own country, though in ours he'd probably line up with the Obama administration (minus the vast atrocities). He seems fairly calm and confident in what he's doing and has the air of being a good executive who can shoot clever quips at detractors on both sides.

DC isn't a Catholic :P.

Haha, only on foreign issues :P. Although for the 2 other scores, well, close to 0,but not 0 I guess :P.



--------------
Cathcon:
His ideology is quite complex. Cathconism: a mix of religious right, libertarianism and fiscal conservatism. On social issues, he's a rightwinger when the issues are important for religion: abortion, SSM,... But he's quite libertarian on some issues: drugs, NSA,... Oneconomic issues, he's definitely on the right.

So, an anarchist social conservative? :P

What is funny is that we have the same religion, but we're completely opposite politically.

Exclamation marks.

Going by your PM scores, I'm going to guess that you're a left-libertarian.

Generic center right Republican

far-left libertarian, seems to be mostly focused on social issues.

An ideology centred on pragmatism and deference to authority. Though left-leaning, resists the libertarian strands common on the internet and also opposes populist Schweitzerism. The aforementioned respect for authority manifests itself in a moderate dislike of anti-establishment figures, libertarians and (this might be a stretch) the decision for the Hawaiian Governor to overrule the wishes of an elderly lawmaker. Some may (unkindly) call him a "nanny stateist"; but he would argue that the rights for people to have a safe and healthy life can trump individual freedoms; rejecting the common "American" view on personal liberty.

Liberalism?

Socially moderate centrist Republican...reminds me of Bob Dold.

Possibly a Christian Democrat. it's not common to see a socon who is an economic left leaner on the site.

An evangelical paleoconservative is probably the best description I can think up.

One of the purest examples of ass-kicking libertarian I can think of.

liberalism

crickets

national syndicalism

Pragmatic Liberal

Moderate libertarianism

Moderate communautarianism

Center-left social democrat

Nazi troll.

Fake and gay.

An aggregate of the various anti-capitalistic and socialistic ideologies existing in the 19th Century.

Moderate land. ;)

I would call him a Bernie Sanders democrat.

A Democrat in five years.

Some sort of Trot.

Progressive with a libertarian flair, much like Ron Wyden.

Paleoconservative?

Ron Paul-ism?

Moderate European Socialist

Left-leaning Social Democrat

()

Sort of, but I'm more Gary Johnson-ism.

Skip

JBrase has a very unique ideology that combines aspects of standard Ron Paul libertarianism and paleoconservatism. His faith plays a large part in his views as well.

Paleoconservative

Moderate republican

Christian democrat

Marxist

Social conservativism with a certain anti-establishment vein and distrusting of mainstream politics. He's fiscally conservative and anti-interventionist and his avatar color fits his views well.

A traditional American conservative on economics, social issues and foreign policy.

Social liberalism.

Fiscally liberal, socially conservative

A bit to the left of me in both aspects

A moderate socialist.  Likely supports Unions.  I would say votes Democrat, but would vote Socialist if they had a decent party.

Umm.....maybe socialist means something extremely different in other countries, but I think it's safe to say I am not very close to socialist based on my PM score and posts here.

---SKIP-------

Judging by the scores, an old-fashioned populist Democrat.

Liberal democrat with some nuanced views.

Statism.

Ayy lmao

Defined more by not being on the left than by being on the right in any active sense. Distinctly culturally liberal.

A Christian socialist in every sense of that word.

An almost sexual fervor of mass violence to soothe the anger he feels against elitist figures from his childhood masquerading as an enlightened Marxist.

Lock and load?  Welcome back, by the way.

Self-serving.

Liberal

Anti Cola liberal

Social Democrat who isn't filled with hot air ;)

A classical liberal.

Standard Canadian social democrat. I can't say I know a lot about him yet.

Run-of-the-mill Libertarian, but without the know-nothing-know-it-all attitude.

Religious, Mormon Democrat, with left wing economic stances, and is more center-right on social issues. Populist

Very liberal Republican to the point of him probably aligning more with Democrats.

Moderate Democrat with Social-Con leanings.

Run-of-the-mill liberal...except on foreign policy, which appears to be the standard slight-neo-con leanings Obama has.

Huey Long-esque populist Democrat.

Staunch Christian conservative.

Very close to being the median of the Democratic party-staunchly socially liberal and moderately centre-left on economics.

The thin line between social democracy and authoritarianism

Commie

Libertarian to a T.

Religious, Populist, Democrat.

Standard liberal

Cool libertarian who is reasonable and doesn't get hung up on philosophical dead ends/purism. Much like Maxwell, though EG is a little less willing to work within the system.

Libertarian with a some paleoconservative traits, such as his views on trade.

Strong neocon libertarian?

Libertarianish with a hefty dislike of Evangelical politics.

Extremely socially conservative views, but traditional European Christian democratic views on other questions.

Liberal with some socialist tendencies

Mildly conservative, far as I can tell.

Socially conservative Democrat

Small "l" libertarian.

Hawkish Social Democrat with a few socially conservative views. Something along the lines of Scoop Jackson.

Hawkish, Libertarian.

Run of the mill liberal

Populist democrat

Social Democratic nanny statist.

By and large a libertarian with a tinge of paleoconservatism, and the occasional unorthodox view thrown in there as well (such as universal healthcare).

libertarian moderate

Standard, Moderate, Libertarian

Run of the mill Atlas Democrat.

Libertarian Republican

Right-wing but still Establishment conservative best exemplified by William F. Buckley.

A Populist, Social Democrat.

Standard Atlasian Democrat.

FF liberal Democrat on economic issues and social moderate.

Run-of-the-mill liberal Democrat.

He wants to cut the heads off of counter revolutionaries yet rejects the claim that he is a True Leftist.

Nix represents well the new left: the typical urban educated white liberal (although he seems to live in rural area???). Environmental issues, civil rights issues matter for a lot for him.
Nix moderate economic score doesn't mean however he's a third way centrist a la Patrick Murphy. He strongly supports social welfare (32 hour workweek, national health care,...) but supports globally free market, that's why he would support replacing the minimum wage by a minimum income (impôt négatif in french).
On foreign issues, Nix promotes human rights, that's why he's against Israel. He's interventionnist, he backed the Obama plan in Libya for example.

Vaguely authoritarian social democrat.

'Rooseveltian,' whatever that means.

True Leftist.

Standard Populist Democrat with social conservative leanings.

Mormon Democrat ;)

Christian Democrat with a strong emphasis on social conservatism.

Far leftist

Christian, socially-moderate to conservative Democrat

Literally the polar opposite of me ideologically but seems like a nice guy. :)

A libertarian-leaning Moderate who has a passionate hatred of religion invading politics.

A very libertarian dude with a serious hatred for unions.

Economically liberal and socially moderate populist Democrat.

A liberaltarian of sorts.

Libertarian?

()

That not how like anyone describes me, but alright.

As for you, far-left liberal dem who idealizes Roosevelt.

Don't know, but judging by the "H. Wallace," he sounds like another far-left progressive gadfly.

Whatever the current Republican party position on any issue is

Far-left

Libertarian

A combination of FDR and Mao.

He is a mainstream Pubbie with some wiggle room on social issues and a big injection of 'Murican patriotism.

Sanchez: Paleocon.
HockeyDude: Mainstream Dem.

I don't think that describes HockeyDyde, but nice try.

-Skip-

I'd rather have been called that than what he did call me; a "mainstream Dem".  Really?  Do I have to go back to being militant around here?

SKIP

Drinking and getting laid should be a God given right in this country?

Doesn't care at all.

Mainline GOP

Orange blended mocha frapuccino but mormon.

One of the moderate Social Democrats.

Very loyal and progressive democrat with mormon-influenced views on morality.

Fairly moderate liberal?

Libertarian

I am not a social democrat, just a progressive, liberal atheist with some conservative leanings.

---------

Populist with who holds a strong emphasis on Morals.

That's me sans the atheist part.

A progressive Mormon sans the atheist part :P.

Confused teenage egotism legitimized by Ayn Rand's drivel.

Strong Social Democrat, an interventionist (?) of sorts.

Capitalist, socially-liberal, non-interventionist libertarian.

Run-of-the-mill liberal

Run of the mill conservadem

Libertarianish conservative.

Libertarian Republican.