Democratic Socialist (NOT Socialist Democrat), and proud of it.

Center-right, with strong libertarian leanings.

I think the problem in the US is that most politicians, lobbyists, and political parties make livings by NOT fixing issues. In fact, if anything they deliberately inflame them to get votes and donations. I will vote for anyone who I think will fix problems. They are very rare, indeed.

Also, is it just me or are two thirds of the issues out there which polarize people just...stupid?

I mean, take abortion. Sure, it's unfortunate it happens, but if you hate it that much, wouldn't it be better to change the culture which makes people get abortions rather than forcing a law down people's throats?

And how about climate change? If the doomsday talk is even within two orders of magnitude of correct, we're screwed and there is literally jack squat we can do about it. It literally makes more sense to tell people to stockpile mass quantities of food and seed than to try to be political about it. The damage is already done.

On the former point, that's deliberate, because its an easy way to guarantee votes and distract people from the economic issues. Democrats get by with race-baiting because it allows them to lock down the Black and Latino votes without having to produce much in the way of results for either community, and Republicans happily indulge that by pandering (unconsciously) to the racist impulses of middle America, which means that very few blacks consider jumping ship, while helping lock in votes from white American suspicions of "the other." Other wedge issues work on both sides, like guns, gays, and abortion, each one a very small part of the world we live in (the big picture stuff is the economy and the environment), but they are easy vote getters because they allow people to vote "brain-off" and go with what their gut tells them (gay marriage is fine, i love my guns, unborn babies shouldn't be killed, etc).

Essentially, if we removed the wedge issues, both parties would be forced to work much harder for votes, as groups like the blacks would start to question why black households are still so much poorer than white households despite 50 years of Democrat promises, or why poor rural whites who rely on medicaid and food stamps to survive are voting for people who want nothing better than to eviscerate medicaid and foodstamps, and are voting for these people because "the democrats are gonna snatch my guns."

Wedge issues make some demographics into political supplicants, while it makes other demographics actively vote against their own interests.

On the latter point, there is still a lot that can be done to alleviate future climate change by continuing the push away from fossil fuels. Climate change is also only one part of the environmentalist docket.

Well said. 

Most gamers would have alot of socialist values but unfortunately I'll be breaking the mold and be leaning myself marginally more to the right of the spectrum while holding some pretty mild libertarian values.

I would say voters who vote only for their own interest are enemies of democracy, although there's not much you can do about it besides denounce it and discourage it, because it's their right to do so if they want to. If you vote for your own needs, not only does political machinery deadlock, but discussion stagnates. It doesn't matter how much we disagree on policies, if we both vote for the good of the citizenry, we can sit down and have a civil discussion because we have like interests. If we vote for ourselves, we don't have like interests. In fact, they're mutually exclusive. 

Of course, this could go too far, too. If your vote ever boils down to utterly ruining yourself, democracy failed long before you got to the voting booth.

Wedge demographics is just the voter half of the issue. Voters make these shortcuts because 1) parties have stopped offering candidates who deviate from the party lines, and more importantly 2) politics is now too complicated to follow.

The poster child of this is of course the Healtcare bill. Representitive democracy presupposes that the average voter can make decisions, that they can sit down, read the bill itself, and figure out for themselves if they liked it. You can't do that with a 1,500 page bill, or at least you can't if you have a job or a life. Most people immediately deferred to executive summaries by people who either loved it or hated it, which were in turn summaries by people who either put it together or were looking to poke holes in it.  No matter how you cut it, this leads to biased results.

Theoretically, we should be able to trust our representatives to handle the legalese for us, but like I said they're voting for their own interests before ours.

As to the climate change, what I meant is that if that warming graph which shows warming as far back as 150 years ago (when our emissions were microscopic) is not egrigiously misleading, then the CO2 needed to utterly ruin the climate was probably pumped into the atmosphere twenty years ago. It is literally too late.

Of course, I agree that there's plenty we can do, likely because the alarmism IS so exaggerated. It's just a shame that people reach out to politics for this one when the solution thus far has been "build a better light bulb."

Damn right. My philosophy is, you shouldn't be involved with something, or support or like something, if you're ashamed to admit it. That goes for anything, games, music, movies, etc., including socio-political standings.

To me, I KNOW what real socialism is, what it means, and I know all the fallacies and propaganda about it, have it quite wrong. And in most cases are talking about something else entirely, because they don't bother being educated on the (most) subject(s). I know where I stand on things, and vote issues, not parties. And I never support something without knowing it as fully as I possibly can. So I feel like I always have very good reasons and firm ground to stand on when it comes to my beliefs, because I try my best to be informed and aware, instead of just making knee-jerk reactions. Whereas, while this is a general statement and not aimed at anyone in particular at all, I find that an AWFUL lot of Americans these days get worked up over bullshit, and jump on whatever popular thing there is to get worked up over, without actually bothering to know what the hell is really going on. I think 90% of the reason people get so goddamn upset over political shit in the US these days, is because of just that: people let others (the news, church, media outlets, friends, family, etc.) do the thinking for them, instead of doing what a "Responsible Voter" is supposed to do, and always strive to fully understand and know ALL angles of the issues, so that you can make what is supposed to be an "Informed Vote".

I do not, sadly, believe whatsoever that most Americans these days truly make "Informed Votes", either because they're too lazy to bother, or because they would rather just believe what they've been told they should believe, and vote on what they are told they should vote on. For democracy to actually work, that really needs to change. Then again, for democracy to work, we also really need to quit lettin the super rich/big corporations use their money to shape our national policies. That's not democracy, that's oligarchy, and it's bullshit.

All by myself.

Well, generally you've got to take into account that people who are against abortion literally see it as the murder of babies.

It's hard to agree to a half measure or take things calmly and slowly when talking about baby murder.

That's what causes the abortion issue.  

Pro-Life people see the opponents statement as "A woman has a right to choose... to murder children."

While Pro Choice people see the opponents statement as "A woman can't choose to get rid of a pregnancy that may eventually result in a human being."

Both are statements that most people would agree with, from the viewpoint if which they see it.  Very few people are for postbirth abortions outside of the biological ethics field  and very few people are against the use of contraceptives.

Nobody actually argues the various science and philosphy behind when a baby is a baby, and instead sticks to their points.

Generally most wedge issues are caused by this.  Neither side actually realizing what they are argueing about, and instead each assuming things as common facts and argueing about something somewhat unreleated.

That and the biological ethics field leads to some scary conclusions. If we accept "thinking life" as a certain level of "sacred and inviolable," well, there goes the pork industry, because pigs are easily as smart as very young babies. If we go the opposite route where you have to count as smarter than the smartest animal to have a human's right to life, then infanticide is justifiable up to what, 18 months or so? The logical routes will lead to conclusions that are very inconvenient (imagine running over a dog with your car suddenly being as bad as running over a baby) or very unsettling (legalized infanticide. Though that may not be unsettling to a lot of cultures in the past or in the present).

If we don't accept either route, than "when it comes out of the womb" is as good enough an abritrary point as any to place the "human/nonhuman" divide.