strictly speaking

liberal: open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.

also, 'Liberal' shares a root with 'liberty' and can mean anything from "generous" to "loose" to "broad-minded." Politically, it means "“a person who believes that government should be active in supporting social and political change." http://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/liberal-meaning-origin-history



conservative:

a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL

b : marked by moderation or caution

c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners


Do you fall in either 'box' or somewhere else?

I believe others would think I am liberal. However, I think I fall in between. For instance, I am open to new things but not willing to discard traditional 'family' type values. So am not NEATLY liberal.

I also do wish to maintain certain institutions, like marriage, but not others like the current justice system, so I am also not NEATLY conservative.


do you put either label on your views? Or do you walk a line of your own that does not neatly fit either?

Government should be doing its job and not a deciding factor on anything.
That's the people's job.

I can't classify myself as liberal or conservative because depending upon the circumstances and the information available I embrace change but also embrace traditional values.

It is common for society to label everything.
Put it in a box so it can sort out the differences.
Its easier to control a subject when you understand their motives.
Society seeks to establish unity in all aspects.
People don't exist in any defined way that is one or the other.
We are a mix of motivations and values.
To society, that is chaos.

So, my answer is yes, no and other.
I refuse to crawl into someone else's box.

Independent. Not in the box!

I am Republican on national security issues, the military, the economy and Law Enforcement and First Responder issues.

I am Liberal on stances of Gay Marriage and even though I am against abortion I don't believe it is the governments right to tell a woman what she can do with her body.

I'm pretty conservative, in all ways.

My experience with liberals has been all negative. I've been left holding the bag by them just too many times.

If I know you're a liberal, you won't get hired by me. I need people that I can count on. Lib are too much of a gamble.

Personally this is a cookie cutter question. I guess I have to ask:
1. Wanting to maintain a reasonable income undermined by the ever increasing tax and spend mentality (socialism).
2. Wanting the federal government to not take away personal rights by the innuendo that if we give them up the federal government will "try" to offer security.
3. Stop encroaching on states rights as stated in the constitution.
4. Stop secretly violating the constitution by illegally monitoring citizens personal communications by top security departments Without due process.
5. Stop government agencies (Ex: IRS, FBI, etc) from discriminating against groups or candidates their employees don't agree with philosophically.
6. Stop making international trade agreements that penalize our own industries.
7. Stop the Globalist (anti patriotic) governance and financial institutionism.
8. Stop international conflict involvement when we have no business being involved.
9.Place an emphasis on why people want to use drugs and become involved in murderous gangs instead of restricting our own rights. I.E. Finding and treating the problem and not attempting to treat the symptom.

All supporting America instead of undermining it as the last three administrations have done. So what does this make me?

BTW, there seems to be more to this than just politicians (and media). Really big money is in back of many politicians of both parties. The Rothchild's & Rockerfeller's joined forces to run all the private central banks of the world. If they don't somehow the US military becomes involved and then changes take place.

These two families/international financiers make Bill Gates and others small potatoes when it comes to money. This is where the real influence is.

Follow the money to the source of real political control. This is why President Trump isn't popular. He isn't "One of the Boys" under their influence: at least not yet and this infuriates them.

I dont agree. I think President Trump is popular because he represents alot of what many bigoted and/or uneducated people truly feel about 'others' like immigrant, muslims, women, and blacks. I think he is popular because of the myth that wealth comes from merit and intelligence, which gives him a pass on anything and everything that others would be crucified for.

I think he is popular because he is a Billionaire who expresses openly the things that those same bigoted and/or uneducated people felt 'oppressed' about expressing and he represents a push to return to some IDEAL of a GREAT AMERICA where wealthy white males had their place of superiority and privilege over everyone else.

I think his 'not one of them' used car salesman rhetoric has worked very well for him, despite the more likely scenario that he partially became a billionaire by playing the game as 'one of them'. BUt then, like he said when he was asked why just two terms previous to his run he swore what a GREAT president Hilary would be ... he tends to just say stuff and see what sticks, and the country has been dumbed down enough and civics watered down in our education system, that most are just unaware enough to follow whatever he claims, for the sake of having their fantasy of privilege and greatness restored.



but that is just my opinion.

Be wary of dictionary definitions of such terms...
Dictionaries use the popular definitions created by the masses. Education and intelligence does not enter into that equation.

When it comes to politics, you have to look at the development of philosophy. It was the great philosophers who developed and explained the principles upon which modern politics are founded upon.

Even today many people argue over philosophy as applied to politics. All those names tossed out by Libertarians and Anarchists are modern philosophers, like Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and Friedrich Hayek. Granted, some of the names are also economists, but in a capitalist society, economics and philosophy are going share common ideals when approaching the topic of government.

Just because some people are uneducated or ignorant does not mean the philosophies behind government have changed. So long as the philosophies remain the same, the true meaning (not the popular meaning) of words like liberal and conservative remain unchanged. The popular meanings just tend to muddy the waters and lead to worse government.

I was referring to MsHarmony's OP.

The way we define liberal and conservative today is an illusion of ignorance.

The people have a responsibility to educate themselves in this area if they desire good government. Before 1900, many of the populace did exactly that. Attending political debates was actually a form of recreation and entertainment. In other words, the people took a more vested interest in their government than they do today.

How can a population accurately define a political term when so many of them have been disenfranchising **themselves** for decades?

the reason Trump is popular to me is that he is building this economy to the best its been in decades. More job opportunities , more $$ in my bank account. And just a better feeling about the future. ... I think the reason Obama was so popular was he represented the underhanded and immoral and deceitful way that democrats practice daily. And the way that middle class Americans were overlooked and non-Americans were valued more than the folks who actually worked and contributed to this country.

Me and Kanye support him so that discredits that theory. Africa is a shithole and stormy is a prostitute. It doesn't make him racist or sexist. You shouldn't believe everything the liberal media says.

Trump's POTUS because people wanted someone in office to help clean up what Obama did last ,8 yrs.

And they didn't want a repeat or Worst by electing Hillary.

Period

The reason behind the conflict with Judge Kavanah

Originalist (conservative) constitutional interpretation:

1. Originalism reduces the likelihood that unelected judges will seize the reigns of power from elected representatives.
2. Originalism in the long run better preserves the authority of the Court.
3. Non-originalism allows too much room for judges to impose their own subjective and elitist values. Judges need neutral, objective criteria to make legitimate decisions. The understanding of the framers and ratifiers of a constitutional clause provide those neutral criteria.
4. Lochner vs. New York (widely considered to be a bad non-originalist decision).
5. Leaving it to the people to amend their Constitution when need be promotes serious public debate about government and its limitations.
6. Originalism better respects the notion of the Constitution as a binding contract.
7. If a constitutional amendment passed today, we would expect a court five years from now to ask what we intended to adopt and not leave it open to personal interpretation.
8. Originalism more often forces legislatures to reconsider and possibly repeal or amend their own bad laws, rather than to leave it to the courts to get rid of them.


Non-Originalists (liberals) want judges to be able to stretch constitutional interpretation to fit personal opinion of circumstances. A good example of this was Earl Warren. If some feel the constitution needs revamping it should be performed by the legislative branch and not by the court system. Legislating by the bench (court system) is constitutionally illegal and bypasses the constitution itself. Unfortunately a precedent was set by Earl Warren who presided over the Supreme Court during a period of sweeping changes in U.S. constitutional law. These changes were not generated by the legislature (House of Representatives and the Senate) but by the Supreme Court taking existing laws and stretching them to apply in areas the legislature never intended. The whole purpose of the court system is to apply the law as written by the legislature. When it comes to the writers intent the legistature body has documented the why's and wherefore's for writing any particular law.

i am constitution loving american patriot

I do not specifically classify myself.
in some cases it seems conservative, while in some cases it seems liberal.


I am not in favor of an unreserved economic freedom.
I favor the liberal doctrine that the state exists for the individual.
as...

how many countries in Africa have you or anyone you personally know visited?

My post said he throws out what sticks. So for anti muslim bigots, he says lets stop any from entering, for example

and for misogynists, he says things like how a woman was bleeding from her wherever or boasts about how he can grope womens genitals because of his position , for instance.


and for racists, he hesitates to criticize david duke or white nationalists or two white kids who beat a homeless man because they thought he was mexican, for instance.

and for poverty bigots, he proposes making those in need live off of war time type rations.


. he throws something out for every kind, its impossible to know what he really believes or stands for, but if he thinks there is a crowd that will latch on to it, he will say it.

The question is how much of my tax $$ are going to that shithole. If I had been Trump, I would have cut funding as soon as the democrats starting bitching... Since Africa is such a wonderful, self supporting place like the sheep want to claim.

too late for that, Since so much wealth has been acquired FROM AFRICA, to not pay them back, just like is the status quo with ISRAEL.

I have completely given up on using the terms "liberal" or "conservative" to refer seriously to anyone. Both have been politicized to the point where they are actually closer to being accusations than labels, in most instances.

I support the dictionaries BASE definition of conservative as a description of certain things, as long as political opinions and viewpoints aren't involved.

I am a very conservative PERSON in most ways. Conservative with money, I don't ever drink to excess or consume any intoxicants legal or illegal for the purpose of losing my faculties. I am apparently very old fashioned, but NOT traditional when it comes to male-female relationships, since I am a one-at-a-time person (old-fashioned), but strongly opposed to anyone being treated as an object, a conquest, a possession, or a tool.

I support what was once THE core liberal ideal, that all governments should be of the people, and by the people as a whole. I oppose what was once the core ideal of old-style "conservatism," which was royalist, and which idealized a state ruled by an elite.

I find that both Communism and Free Market Capitalism are utter nonsense, since both completely ignore human nature and the most historically common way that human beings tend to act.

I am aggravated every time someone claims to be promoting or demonstrating their "conservatism" by posting flat out propaganda lies. There is nothing whatsoever CONSERVATIVE about lying, and it's an insult to real conservatives to pretend that there is.

Refusing to recognize and address real problems isn't a REAL conservative value, but these days, many people who claim to be Conservatives, insist that it is.

I don't support the dictionary description of "liberal" as in “a person who believes that government should be active in supporting social and political change." I don't want my government to CHANGE society, but I do want it to require reality be recognized, AND to enforce the claimed highest ideals of America. For everyone, not just the wealthy or the descendents of the first Western Europeans to invade here. I don't find that enforcing "all men are created equal" to be identical to "government should be active in supporting social and political change."

Dada