Summarize Previous Poster's Political Beliefs

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

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

Nicely done.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

____

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.

[Hash]

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.

[Oakvale]

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.

[Modernity has failed us]

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.

[Oakvale]

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 -----

[Foucaulf]

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.

[Hash]

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.

I wanted to see this

*skip me please*

[RI]

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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

[Oakvale]

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.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

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).

[Vote UKIP!]

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!

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

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!

: obvious skip:

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

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

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

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

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.

[Hash]

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.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Again, I don't really understand how he considers himself to be traditional(ist?).

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*

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

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".

[Oakvale]

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.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

A liberal from Ireland.

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

[Oakvale]

A liberal from Ireland.

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

Very good.

[RogueBeaver]

What Snow said.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

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.

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.