Goldwater (O-CA) vs. Laki (I-BE)

[Sir Mohamed]

Would be an interesting matchup, I think. That said, I have no doubt Goldwater (O-CA, the user) would win in a landslide.

[TDAS04]

The American.

[PSOL]

Laki now and forever, he’s not going to win though in the court of public opinion.

[President Johnson]

Easily Goldwater.

It's actually interesting that over the last few years we agreed on a decent number of things here, given our usernames.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Goldwater and it’s not even remotely close

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I'll admit that Goldwater IRL would win in a landslide (in the US). That's not even up for debate. I'm however not very familiar with Goldwaters ideology, so if someone can explain that would be helpful. The name seems misleading.

And yeah i'm a very bad fit for America. I can't think of many match-ups would win. Even dudes as David Duke probably would defeat me (and i'm not the type who would say America would vote for him quickly).

[Goldwater]

I'll admit that Goldwater IRL would win in a landslide (in the US). That's not even up for debate. I'm however not very familiar with Goldwaters ideology, so if someone can explain that would be helpful. The name seems misleading.

Well, I have both of these quotes in my signature because I think they are both pretty accurate descriptions of me:

The result of a neocon and libertarian having a baby while drunk, and leaving it to be raised by hippie liberal wolves.

Muscular liberalism, but of a type where both terms have been taken (mostly) to their logical conclusion. Individual freedom in the social and economic spheres coupled with a will to assert this belief internationally. In effect, a Jacobin.

I don't really think my username is misleading, since Barry Goldwater himself was very liberal/libertarian on social issues, although I will admit that I am probably overall not quite as right wing as he was.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I'll admit that Goldwater IRL would win in a landslide (in the US). That's not even up for debate. I'm however not very familiar with Goldwaters ideology, so if someone can explain that would be helpful. The name seems misleading.

Well, I have both of these quotes in my signature because I think they are both pretty accurate descriptions of me:

The result of a neocon and libertarian having a baby while drunk, and leaving it to be raised by hippie liberal wolves.

Muscular liberalism, but of a type where both terms have been taken (mostly) to their logical conclusion. Individual freedom in the social and economic spheres coupled with a will to assert this belief internationally. In effect, a Jacobin.

I don't really think my username is misleading, since Barry Goldwater himself was very liberal/libertarian on social issues, although I will admit that I am probably overall not quite as right wing as he was.

I have a hard time nailing/understanding your ideology. The quotes in the signature don't really help given it's a weird mix of several ideologies and i don't recall a lot of posts from you that 'stand out" or that I remember being a clear indicator of what you believe in and who you are.

Which is good it means i haven't noticed very controversial stuff too.

[Goldwater]

I'll admit that Goldwater IRL would win in a landslide (in the US). That's not even up for debate. I'm however not very familiar with Goldwaters ideology, so if someone can explain that would be helpful. The name seems misleading.

Well, I have both of these quotes in my signature because I think they are both pretty accurate descriptions of me:

The result of a neocon and libertarian having a baby while drunk, and leaving it to be raised by hippie liberal wolves.

Muscular liberalism, but of a type where both terms have been taken (mostly) to their logical conclusion. Individual freedom in the social and economic spheres coupled with a will to assert this belief internationally. In effect, a Jacobin.

I don't really think my username is misleading, since Barry Goldwater himself was very liberal/libertarian on social issues, although I will admit that I am probably overall not quite as right wing as he was.

I have a hard time nailing/understanding your ideology. The quotes in the signature don't really help given it's a weird mix of several ideologies and i don't recall a lot of posts from you that 'stand out" or that I remember being a clear indicator of what you believe in and who you are.

Which is good it means i haven't noticed very controversial stuff too.

Fair enough. I suppose I don't make a whole lot of posts where I really go in depth with my beliefs.

I'm not really sure how to describe my ideology in terms that are both simple yet specific enough to accurately convey my thoughts. In general, my core motivation is based around the classically liberal/American libertarian definitions of individual liberty, but there are some instances where I think that the state and use of force is necessary to ensure those freedoms, when leads me to conclusions on certain issues that resemble something closer to social liberalism or neoconservatism than strict doctrine libertarianism.

I have no idea if what I just wrote actually made any sense.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I'll admit that Goldwater IRL would win in a landslide (in the US). That's not even up for debate. I'm however not very familiar with Goldwaters ideology, so if someone can explain that would be helpful. The name seems misleading.

Well, I have both of these quotes in my signature because I think they are both pretty accurate descriptions of me:

The result of a neocon and libertarian having a baby while drunk, and leaving it to be raised by hippie liberal wolves.

Muscular liberalism, but of a type where both terms have been taken (mostly) to their logical conclusion. Individual freedom in the social and economic spheres coupled with a will to assert this belief internationally. In effect, a Jacobin.

I don't really think my username is misleading, since Barry Goldwater himself was very liberal/libertarian on social issues, although I will admit that I am probably overall not quite as right wing as he was.

I have a hard time nailing/understanding your ideology. The quotes in the signature don't really help given it's a weird mix of several ideologies and i don't recall a lot of posts from you that 'stand out" or that I remember being a clear indicator of what you believe in and who you are.

Which is good it means i haven't noticed very controversial stuff too.

Fair enough. I suppose I don't make a whole lot of posts where I really go in depth with my beliefs.

I'm not really sure how to describe my ideology in terms that are both simple yet specific enough to accurately convey my thoughts. In general, my core motivation is based around the classically liberal/American libertarian definitions of individual liberty, but there are some instances where I think that the state and use of force is necessary to ensure those freedoms, when leads me to conclusions on certain issues that resemble something closer to social liberalism or neoconservatism than strict doctrine libertarianism.

I have no idea if what I just wrote actually made any sense.

Okay fair

I consider social liberalism and neocon very different things though (though arguably it describes a lot of modern politicians)

I think overall given i had a hard time pointing you to a certain ideologist that I saw you as "atypical centrist", maybe. If you'd say something very controversial i would've remembered. To be fair, i'm probably less critical of someone with a username "Goldwater" than with a red avatar because I would expect more from a D-aligned user. But you seem allright (with probably the same things i disagree on with blue dogs/libertarians/centrists on the forum with you).

[Goldwater]

I consider social liberalism and neocon very different things though (though arguably it describes a lot of modern politicians)

Yeah, that makes sense. I guess which one I seem closer to really just depends on which issues you place a higher priority on.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I'll say though i behave more as an activist on the forum which is bound to sometimes piss people off and am definitely not the most tactful here. Some people here behave more like they're elected politicians. I think part of it is also because i'm not directly affected by US politics, the only way i might be affected... is well foreign politics, often the most controversial stuff since on domestic politics i probably would be mainstream progressive Democrat like most here are.

The only three reasons i'm controversial here is either 1. Israel / Palestine (or controversial foreign policy takes that question the western-centric POV) or 2. "i prefer X over Y" posts because i'm purist (or occassionally admittely out of spite) and 3. because i take no shame in using the socialist / communist definitions (controversial words in USA, less so in my area) while it's essentially the same as democratic socialist

Sole three reasons.

Obv i'm aware of that, and 3 would not happen if i ever ran in USA. I think ideologically i'm closest to Greta Thunberg (or prog types like Tlaib/Corbyn/Niou etc). But if actually in an important position i would tone down/moderate some views into a more pragmatic sense because i'm aware that an elected politician cannot change everything, esp. in a democracy. Which can be an issue sometimes for instance on environment where action is necessary and pragmatism... might not be enough to prevent big issues later on. Long term views are an issue in democracies since you're concerned about the short term given a term doesn't last long, you're subject to the electorate and there's little you can do / little power you can use. And social media and more access to information sources incl. less qualitative ones such as fake ones has only made that complex. You really need to pay attention to the sources, such as average twitter account

Human brain also has issues with long term processing information because well life doesn't last long and historically the now and than matters the most if i need of survival. Who cares about the wellbeing of beings hundred-fifty years in the future, i would not be around. Simply said, our brains aren't made to deal with that and it shows. It's also why despite humans definitely are responsible for megafauna extinction (or most) that very few intentionally happened, and that I don't really blame "people" directly, because... well. It just shows that we really need to develop this more (and in a grand scale of things, we've never done it better than now, but still have so much work to do). We at least have conservation efforts today, that wasn't the case 100 years ago and before. So we do learn in that regard, but very slowly (and perhaps not fast enough).

And the environment/climate is the issue i care the most about and feel the most informed about too.

[Goldwater]

To be fair, i'm probably less critical of someone with a username "Goldwater" than with a red avatar because I would expect more from a D-aligned user. But you seem allright (with probably the same things i disagree on with blue dogs/libertarians/centrists on the forum with you).

It also probably worth noting that I use the recommend feature a lot, so there probably so some of my controversial views might have slipped under the radar because of that.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

So who fits me better? I'm leaning towards Goldwater but I'm not sure it's a 100% thing.
I like both of you so the friendship factor gets cancelled out.

[S019]

Goldwater and he'd easily win

[Sir Mohamed]

Easily Goldwater.

It's actually interesting that over the last few years we agreed on a decent number of things here, given our usernames.

I guess the real Barry Goldwater would be appalled by today's GOP and the Trump cult. He'd be discredited as a RINO by the right in our day and age.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Easily Goldwater.

It's actually interesting that over the last few years we agreed on a decent number of things here, given our usernames.

I guess the real Barry Goldwater would be appalled by today's GOP and the Trump cult. He'd be discredited as a RINO by the right in our day and age.

He would have opposed Trump but how moderate he is to the current GOP is completely overblown. Goldwater's 1964 campaign is still the most right wing policy platform the GOP has run on since the 1920s. I mean Goldwater openly supported privatizing social security, opposed Medicare and Medicaid, opposed the civil rights act of 1964, abstained on voting rights bills that even former Dixiecrat Senators supported.  While Barry Goldwater opposed the religious right he also was an ardent supporter of states rights so its very likely he would have opposed Obergefell and supported Dobbs as well so policy wise he was 100% to the right of pretty much every Republican nominee since then.

Today Goldwater basically would have been a Ted Cruz who never sold out his beliefs for Trump and stuck with opposing him. So it would have ended up with him getting primaried in 2018 by a Trumpist candidate funded by the Mercer family(which if you don't know the story, the Mercer Family threatened to revoke all support of Cruz in the future if he didnt support Trump).

[TDAS04]

Today Goldwater basically would have been a Ted Cruz who never sold out his beliefs for Trump and stuck with opposing him. So it would have ended up with him getting primaried in 2018 by a Trumpist candidate funded by the Mercer family(which if you don't know the story, the Mercer Family threatened to revoke all support of Cruz in the future if he didnt support Trump).

Goldwater would have been more of a John Kasich Republican, actually. (Today, that is, if he were alive)

[OSR stands with Israel]

Today Goldwater basically would have been a Ted Cruz who never sold out his beliefs for Trump and stuck with opposing him. So it would have ended up with him getting primaried in 2018 by a Trumpist candidate funded by the Mercer family(which if you don't know the story, the Mercer Family threatened to revoke all support of Cruz in the future if he didnt support Trump).

Goldwater would have been more of a John Kasich Republican, actually. (Today, that is, if he were alive)

Goldwater’s 1964 platform was much to the right of Kasich’s 2016 one so this isn’t really true at all . People very much overrate how moderate Goldwater was these days just cause of his comments about the religious right and leave out the other stuff where we was much to the right of the current GOP on. Goldwater would definitely oppose Obergefell and support Dobbs as while he would have been pro gay marriage and pro choice , he also 100% would believe those decisions should be left to the states which would in practice put him to the right of Trump on social issues .


A more principled Cruz isn’t who Ted Cruz was because Ted Cruz at the end of the day is a slimy politician but Cruz’s 2016 platform was the most similar to a modern version of Goldwater’s 1964 one out of all the candidates running that year .

[TDAS04]

Goldwater wouldn't have agreed with Kasich on everything, but I doubt he would have backed Cruz for President over someone like Kasich. It's more than just policy positions. Cruz is extremely unprincipled, like you said, and possibly a bit too unprincipled for Barry to support him, even in a general election.

Plus it's not like Goldwater would have been that much closer to Cruz than Kasich on policy. The 1964 GOP platform was a long time ago, and Goldwater did shift a little later in life. Cruz is very much religious right. Not to mention Kasich isn't exactly a foreign policy dove or Russia-appeaser. He's a conservative Republican and not someone I would actually vote for, even if Kasich is perceived as a RINO because he's not mean enough.

[Goldwater]

Today Goldwater basically would have been a Ted Cruz who never sold out his beliefs for Trump and stuck with opposing him. So it would have ended up with him getting primaried in 2018 by a Trumpist candidate funded by the Mercer family(which if you don't know the story, the Mercer Family threatened to revoke all support of Cruz in the future if he didnt support Trump).

Goldwater would have been more of a John Kasich Republican, actually. (Today, that is, if he were alive)

Coincidentally, I actually did vote for John Kasich in the 2016 Republican primaries.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Goldwater wouldn't have agreed with Kasich on everything, but I doubt he would have backed Cruz for President over someone like Kasich. It's more than just policy positions. Cruz is extremely unprincipled, like you said, and possibly a bit too unprincipled for Barry to support him, even in a general election.

Plus it's not like Goldwater would have been that much closer to Cruz than Kasich on policy. The 1964 GOP platform was a long time ago, and Goldwater did shift a little later in life. Cruz is very much religious right. Not to mention Kasich isn't exactly a foreign policy dove or Russia-appeaser. He's a conservative Republican and not someone I would actually vote for, even if Kasich is perceived as a RINO because he's not mean enough.

Kasich ran as an economic moderate by the time he ran for president though. People have completely rewritten history and act like Trump was the only Republican who ran as an economic moderate that year which isn’t true . Kasich in 2015-16 supported the Medicaid Expansion, had a pretty moderate proposal on social security, and was pretty moderate on welfare issues as well . One of Kasich’s lines on the campaign trail was “Now, when you die and get to the meeting with St. Peter, he’s probably not going to ask you much about what you did about keeping government small,” Kasich said. “But he is going to ask you what you did for the poor. You better have a good answer.’”

https://slate.com/business/2015/08/republican-presidential-debate-john-kasich-gives-an-incredibly-stirring-defense-of-medicaid.html

So I don’t think Goldwater would really support him and I think a Goldwater in his prime would have run for President and have effectively been the conservative star during Obama’s 2nd term and unlike Cruz may have won the nomination as he’d have a much better relationship with the other candidates so they would be willing to coalesce the field around him .

[Mr. Smith]

Laki

It's contractually obligated for me to vote against Goldwater, just like Michael Scott must be against Toby.

No delusions though who wins, and I wouldn't lose sleep over it, but I'd be happy to tar and feather Mr. President for the cactus-hugging.

[HillGoose]

gold water 5 ever