Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm trying to figure out what the political demographic is in the miniature wargaming community.
If you feel comfortable posting, please tell us why/state details (but keep it somewhat short)

political debates are fine, but lets stay away from the promethium-fights (flame wars).

I'll start this off by stating my involvement with the PSL

I don't fit very well into any of those categories. You should try posting a question set, many people who self identify as a party do not actually belong to it with their views.

None of the above. I'm myself, and I hold views about things on a case by case basis.

Likewise...I don't belive any single category would suit me as I tend to have very "liberal" leanings in some areas and very "Conservative" views on others.

Agreed. I actually put 'Republican' (or non-US equivalent), because I am to the right of the British political spectrum, but actually, a British conservative is a vastly different creature to their American counterparts. Socially, I'm very liberal on a lot of issues, and I'm anything but 'republican'!

I think a two axis poll might be of more value: fiscal/social, liberal/conservative.

I mean, few people really fit the slots defined by the titles. I'm a social progressive that's also in favor of gun rights and has deep reservations about affirmative action. I also tend to view the legal arguments on substantive due process (things like abortion) to be very weak.

I am a staunch Bjornist, holding that a new ruling class for the world be established from people currently or formerly known as Bjorn, based solely on how goddamn awesome they must be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
moreover, I demand a Bjornist choice on the poll, or I will call racism, sir or madam!

Albatross wrote:Agreed. I actually put 'Republican' (or non-US equivalent), because I am to the right of the British political spectrum, but actually, a British conservative is a vastly different creature to their American counterparts. Socially, I'm very liberal on a lot of issues, and I'm anything but 'republican'!

In my experience the British right is still left of the democratic party. My dad was a ardent supporter Tory but when he came to the US he identified with the democrats more thoiugh he thought they were a bit right. (he can't vote though, decided to keep his British citizenship)

Yes personally I think its silly to have differing political parties, all they do is bicker about who is screwing up the country more rather then dealing with situations in a more fluid manner, I think in business terms they call it a Contingent Management style though that could eb wrong, but basically you deal with different situations in different ways.

I put down Democrat only because here in Australia although they dont have any power like they do in the US they seem to be the only sane group. Sociualism is also a descent system in theory but not effective in practice, it tends to take the fact that humans get power crazy out of the equation. However true Socialism has not yet been fully tested, lets not bring up Mao, Stalin or any other the other "Commies", there is a reason their political systems are named after them, Maoism, Stalinism, Nazism etc.

I think its sad that over here in Australia then next 3 competing political parties after Liberal, labour and Greens is Christian Democrats, Shooters/Fishers Party and Pauline Hanson

Our voters should be ashamed of themselves, if any of these groups came to power I would seriously consider changing national affiliation, especially if its Pauline, she's dangerous and Australia would gain nothing by electing her.

Bromsy wrote:I am a staunch Bjornist, holding that a new ruling class for the world be established from people currently or formerly known as Bjorn, based solely on how goddamn awesome they must be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
moreover, I demand a Bjornist choice on the poll, or I will call racism, sir or madam!

Would you make an exception for magnus ver magnuson, thats also pretty awesome

hmm... maybe for a mid level cabinet position; but hobviously not any of the truly high level positions - unless there was a hyphen situation. Bjorn-Magnus ver Magnuson, hereditary Duke of Conneticut; doesn't that just roll off the tongue a little better?

I put Democrat for similiar reasons as Coldfire, but I am suprised there was no IOM option...?

Where's the option for other?

Exactly, friend. This (allegedly) racist poll is spiting in all of our (Bjornist) faces!

I chose moderate because it was in the middle...

Honestly I don't know if I can claim myself to an affiliation.... I'm not too well versed in politics. Its funny, though, because when I was younger... maybe mid to late teens... there was a time where I thought I was for communism/socialism.

In a perfect world, i would be communist. Due to McCarthy and the Soviets, commies have had their names slandered. In conversation, I say I'm liberal.

And I am idealist Communist, not Soviet.

Went with Libertarian as that is the closest match but is far from exact. My examples below are going to be based around the US government and location.

I believe in a very small government
I believe in very little government regulation in buisness
I believe in zero government regulation in my private/social life with the caveat of anything I do that threatens or removes the liberties of others should be regulated
I do believe in some social welfare programs, (WIC, Welfare, Medicare, ect) but I think they should be ran via the state/local government and regulated better.
I do not believe in gun control, regulation or registration
I do not believe the federal government should regulate Abortion, and that if there are going to be laws on it needs to be at the local level.
Religion has no place in the government, but the Fed needs to ensure that the State is allowing free exercise of Religion (or lack there of) and if they fail in this, the Fed has the power to enforce
I do believe in some Federal programs like Education, Social Security, ect.
I do believe in a federal military, but believe they should be streamlined and the vast majority removed to the US boarders
While I think we involve ourselves to much in the affairs of others, I do not think we need to take up another isolationist position, just not jump into every little thing.
I do not mind federal funding for natural disasters or foreign aid.
I do believe that all States/Locals should have their own Police/Fire/EMS and other orgs. It is up to the States to budget their own balance
I think there is a ridiculous amount of fat that needs to be trimmed from federal agencies, especially from politicians. Mainly from some of their entitlements. I see fellow people in the military getting $180 extra per day for 6 months in per Diem for places like Cyprus, if the grunts are getting this, what are the senators getting when they leave the country?

Those are just some off the top of my head

Bromsy wrote:hmm... maybe for a mid level cabinet position; but hobviously not any of the truly high level positions - unless there was a hyphen situation. Bjorn-Magnus ver Magnuson, hereditary Duke of Conneticut; doesn't that just roll off the tongue a little better?

Alright how about sgt major max fightmaster surely such a manly name would allow for quite a bit of power

Well, you've included his title in the post, but I imagine he could easily be sergeant major of the armies, or some such position (basically telling any non general officers what's what.)

I'm the one who put Tea Party. But honestly, if we cou;ld all just get the feth along, I'd be a Commie.

But since we can't (against human nature) I choose the hard line/ traditionalist view point.

Disolve the Federal Goverment!

Tough one for us, because I think a UK conservative is more like a US democrat.

Sckitzo wrote:Went with Libertarian as that is the closest match but is far from exact. My examples below are going to be based around the US government and location.

I believe in a very small government
I believe in very little government regulation in buisness
I believe in zero government regulation in my private/social life with the caveat of anything I do that threatens or removes the liberties of others should be regulated
I do believe in some social welfare programs, (WIC, Welfare, Medicare, ect) but I think they should be ran via the state/local government and regulated better.
I do not believe in gun control, regulation or registration
I do not believe the federal government should regulate Abortion, and that if there are going to be laws on it needs to be at the local level.
Religion has no place in the government, but the Fed needs to ensure that the State is allowing free exercise of Religion (or lack there of) and if they fail in this, the Fed has the power to enforce
I do believe in some Federal programs like Education, Social Security, ect.
I do believe in a federal military, but believe they should be streamlined and the vast majority removed to the US boarders
While I think we involve ourselves to much in the affairs of others, I do not think we need to take up another isolationist position, just not jump into every little thing.
I do not mind federal funding for natural disasters or foreign aid.
I do believe that all States/Locals should have their own Police/Fire/EMS and other orgs. It is up to the States to budget their own balance
I think there is a ridiculous amount of fat that needs to be trimmed from federal agencies, especially from politicians. Mainly from some of their entitlements. I see fellow people in the military getting $180 extra per day for 6 months in per Diem for places like Cyprus, if the grunts are getting this, what are the senators getting when they leave the country?

Those are just some off the top of my head

Have you researched any of these ideas?

Im personally completely against Libertarian political ideals, its flawed for the same reasons as Socialism, Human Nature but at a far more distressing and dangerous way.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Sckitzo wrote:Went with Libertarian as that is the closest match but is far from exact. My examples below are going to be based around the US government and location.

I believe in a very small government
I believe in very little government regulation in buisness
I believe in zero government regulation in my private/social life with the caveat of anything I do that threatens or removes the liberties of others should be regulated
I do believe in some social welfare programs, (WIC, Welfare, Medicare, ect) but I think they should be ran via the state/local government and regulated better.
I do not believe in gun control, regulation or registration
I do not believe the federal government should regulate Abortion, and that if there are going to be laws on it needs to be at the local level.
Religion has no place in the government, but the Fed needs to ensure that the State is allowing free exercise of Religion (or lack there of) and if they fail in this, the Fed has the power to enforce
I do believe in some Federal programs like Education, Social Security, ect.
I do believe in a federal military, but believe they should be streamlined and the vast majority removed to the US boarders
While I think we involve ourselves to much in the affairs of others, I do not think we need to take up another isolationist position, just not jump into every little thing.
I do not mind federal funding for natural disasters or foreign aid.
I do believe that all States/Locals should have their own Police/Fire/EMS and other orgs. It is up to the States to budget their own balance
I think there is a ridiculous amount of fat that needs to be trimmed from federal agencies, especially from politicians. Mainly from some of their entitlements. I see fellow people in the military getting $180 extra per day for 6 months in per Diem for places like Cyprus, if the grunts are getting this, what are the senators getting when they leave the country?

Those are just some off the top of my head

Have you researched any of these ideas?

Some more so then others, but yes, though you'd have to be more specific if your asking about on in particular.

I do realize some of these are a pipe dream, and if they would even work would require such a massive overhaul of the current system I don't see it happening.

Were there certain ones you meant in particular or were you asking if I was talking out of my ass? Which is fine btw, people tend to do that when politics come up and I don't mind being questioned on it.

Also, these are just my ideals, I realize they may not be the best choice for everyone, but just what I believe would work well enough, and best for me personally.

The first three choices are the same and should be grouped together.

Also, there's substantial difference between "Ultra Right" and "Tea Party". Tea Partiers tend to fall in as either "Conservatives" (not an option on the poll) or "Libertarians."

There's no option for "Yeah, I totally hate politicians, but [Party] sucks and [Other Party] rules! I just say I hate politicians to be cool and counter cultural!"

Because that's what I am.

biccat wrote:The first three choices are the same and should be grouped together.

Your views entertain me

And as others have said I am going to have to go with "none of the above" for the reason that you have chosen a very unrepresentative spread of political viewpoints, none of which conforms to my political views. Indeed, very few political parties (and here I talk about the UK, as we actually have political parties rather than 2 parties that are almost exactly the same) have a good match on my political leanings.

biccat wrote:Also, there's substantial difference between "Ultra Right" and "Tea Party".

Right, the ultra-right tend to be more educated and less poor on average, heh.

SilverMK2 wrote:

biccat wrote:The first three choices are the same and should be grouped together.

Your views entertain me

Merely in jest.

Although if the OP thinks that the tea party should be grouped with far right, then it may be closer to the truth...

You're not going to get a good view using the self selected members of the Dakka Off Topic Forum. Its not stastically valid...at all.