News Will Newt Gingrich's 2012 Presidential Candidacy Achieve a Lunar Base?

[mheslep]

Are you saying the individual mandate was never embraced by Republicans?

I thought what I said was clear enough. Are you saying that Gingrich's support of an insurance mandate means the gist of that 1400 page federal health care bill, which says "the secretary shall" hundreds of times, ever had broad Republican support, whether twenty years ago or now? Is Gingrich's moon base as a 51st state idea now embraced by Republicans?

 

[ParticleGrl]

By way of demonstrating "major policy proposals were championed by Republicans in the 90s" Bush's income tax cuts are said to be same as the Recovery Act spending in 2009?

The single largest portion of the 2009 stimulus act was tax relief (some 300 billion I think). Also, the logic of stimulus in the form of larger government deficits is the same either way. My point is- if stimulus is called for during a recession with a republican at the helm, then stimulus is called for during a recession with a democrat at the helm.

Full of ideas? Such as?

Did you read the heritage article I linked to?

Cap and trade programs used for SO2 emissions from power plants, for which the cost of scrubbing technology is well understood, is the same as a 1400 page cap and trade bill on CO2 emissions across the entire US economy with innumerable cut outs and waivers to special interests?

The core idea is very clearly the same- cap and trade to regulate emissions. The form of the bill that ends up being voted on is out of the president's hands- its the result of negotiations in the senate and house and the blame for exemptions for special interests/etc lay at the feet of both parties.

Also, did you look at my Gingrich link from 2007, where he specifically advocated cap and trade to regulate carbon dioxide?

EDIT:

means the gist of that 1400 page federal health care bill, which says "the secretary shall" hundreds of times, ever had broad Republican support

Of course THIS SPECIFIC health bill never had broard republican support. But my point is that the gist of the bill IS ideas that conservatives once championed- the individual mandate has a history of support from people like Gingrich. Look Stuart Butler's health care research. Individual insurance exchanges were a conservative idea originally. Romney himself suggested the president look to MA as an example for health care regulation.

Can we agree on the following:
1.conservative think tanks in the past have suggested an individual mandate
2. Gingrich in the past has suggested an individual mandate
3. Romney considers the ideas in the MA healthcare broadly speaking good ideas
3a. many of those same ideas are in the federal law.
4. conservative think tanks in the past have in the past championed cap and trade as a solution to CO2 regulation

 

[skeptic2]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...age/52951140/1

Is the individual mandate at the heart of "ObamaCare" a conservative idea? Is it constitutional? And was it invented at The Heritage Foundation? In a word, no.

In the article however he admits to having supported the individual mandate and even devising it while at the Heritage Foundation.

The confusion arises from the fact that 20 years ago, I held the view that as a technical matter, some form of requirement to purchase insurance was needed in a near-universal insurance market to avoid massive instability through "adverse selection" (insurers avoiding bad risks and healthy people declining coverage). At that time, President Clinton was proposing a universal health care plan, and Heritage and I devised a viable alternative.

Is it a conservative idea?

My view was shared at the time by many conservative experts, including American Enterprise Institute (AEI) scholars, as well as most non-conservative analysts. Even libertarian-conservative icon Milton Friedman, in a 1991 Wall Street Journal article, advocated replacing Medicare and Medicaid "with a requirement that every U.S. family unit have a major medical insurance policy."

Then he goes on to describe how he changed his position. Perhaps he is justified in saying it isn't a conservative idea by carefully using the present tense, but it certainly WAS a conservative idea. When he says "Heritage and I devised a viable alternative" how is that different from inventing it? The individual mandate certainly didn't come from Hillary Clinton who had a completely different plan.

 

[mheslep]

The single largest portion of the 2009 stimulus act was tax relief (some 300 billion I think).

Sure, I'm aware of that. There was plenty of room for agreement on that end. As I recall there was much R. support for the tax break side from McConnell (R, Ky) in particular, not the spending side.

Also, the logic of stimulus in the form of larger government deficits is the same either way. My point is- if stimulus is called for during a recession with a republican at the helm, then stimulus is called for during a recession with a democrat at the helm.

It is the means and amount that makes the difference in the political philosophy. I disagree that Obama is a centrist because he shared Republican goals to recover the economy with little regard to the means. One might as well say Bernie Sanders and Jim DeMint are of the same political persuasion because they both want good things_tm for the US.

The core idea is very clearly the same- cap and trade to regulate emissions.

There is a large difference in scale and the universal, centrally planned approach favored by the Democrats. Gingrich said in that PBS interview, "much like we did with sulfur". I saw him testify in front of Congress in front of Waxman and Markey on the subject (when they were still in charge before 2008) making the point: Gingrich would go along with cap and trade in a limited way, on large industrial sources like coal power plants just like the US has now with sulfur, where there was some hope of knowing the cost and impact of such regulations. He rejected the notion of a universal, blanket cap and trade program. In any case Gingrich's mere flirting with the idea along side Spkr Pelosi has cost him dearly in the primaries.

Of course THIS SPECIFIC health bill never had broard republican support. But my point is that the gist of the bill IS ideas that conservatives once championed- the individual mandate has a history of support from people like Gingrich. Look Stuart Butler's health care research.

The gist? I disagree. The power granted to Kathleen Sibelius alone in that bill takes it out of the realm of being championed by conservatives

Can we agree on the following:
1.conservative think tanks in the past have suggested an individual mandate

Butler at Heritage, not think tanks, suggested a catastrophic insurance mandate, not comprehensive per current law, and even that idea was eventually killed by others at Heritage back in the '90s.

2. Gingrich in the past has suggested an individual mandate

Yes.

3. Romney considers the ideas in the MA healthcare broadly speaking good ideas
3a. many of those same ideas are in the federal law.

Romney makes the federalism argument: what might work and be run by the states should not be run by the federal government. I agree with him.

4. conservative think tanks in the past have in the past championed cap and trade as a solution to CO2 regulation

Disagree.

 

[jduster]

I think this is just stating the obvious, but Newt should just drop out, even if he wins the 2 upcoming southern states. He still needs 1000 more delegates. He would need to win 18 out of the next 35 states - more than half.

Newt lacks the electability (because of his extramarital affairs) and he lacks the campaign organization to win anything more than the strategic southern states.

This is probably good for Romney, if Newt cuts into Santorum's votes, but still, Gingrich plans to drag out the process until Romney's funding is gone. Then when Romney is against Obama, Gingrich's anti-Romney campaign will come to haunt him.

And we will remember Gingrich as the man who took the Republicans' only chance to beat Obama.

Let's be honest, and there's nothing wrong with the truth. Romney will be the nominee, and Gingrich is only impeding his party.

 

[skeptic2]

Is what Cain did any worse than what Gingrich did? Adultery is crime in Georgia.

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 6 - SEXUAL OFFENSES
§ 16-6-19 - Adultery
O.C.G.A. 16-6-19 (2010)
16-6-19. Adultery

A married person commits the offense of adultery when he voluntarily has sexual intercourse with a person other than his spouse and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as for a misdemeanor.
http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-6/16-6-19/Why is it that adultery is the only sex crime for which one does not have to register as a sex offender?

 

[daveb]

Why is it adultery is still a crime is a better question. What happened to no intruding upon the personal life of citizens?

 

[Char. Limit]

Why is it adultery is still a crime is a better question. What happened to no intruding upon the personal life of citizens?

It's Georgia - it's a Republican stronghold. Do you really think they care about not intruding on the personal lives of people?

 

[BobG]

It's Georgia - it's a Republican stronghold. Do you really think they care about not intruding on the personal lives of people?

It's not only in states that are Republican strongholds. Adultery is a misdemeanor offense in New York - the same class of crime as it is in Georgia. It's a felony offense in Michigan that could, at least theoretically, result in a life sentence (granted, no one in Michigan has even been charged with adultery since 1971).

Generally, adultery is a crime a person sometimes gets dragged into court for because it's advantageous for someone to embarrass that person. Other than that, it's pretty much a dead law that exists only in writing - not in practice.

Even in divorce cases, adultery means virtually nothing when it comes to child custody and/or property division.

 

[Gokul43201]

Newt seems to be doing fairly well with one segment of the population: deep south super-religious conservatives.

-There's considerable skepticism about Barack Obama's religion with Republican voters in them. In Mississippi only 12% of voters think Obama's a Christian to 52% who think he's a Muslim ...

In Mississippi Newt's winning the 'Obama's a Muslim' vote 39-28, but in Alabama it's a three way tie with all of the leading candidates at 31%.

... in Mississippi though- only 54% of voters think it [interracial marriage] should be legal, while 29% believe it should be illegal. Newt cleans up with the 'interracial marriage should be illegal' crowd in both states. He's up 40-27 on Romney with them in Mississippi and 37-28 with them in Alabama.
...
Finally there's considerable skepticism about evolution among GOP voters in both Alabama and Mississippi. In Alabama only 26% of voters believe in it, while 60% do not. In Mississippi just 22% believe in it, while 66% do not. ... Santorum wins the 'voters who don't believe in evolution' vote (34-33 over Gingrich in both Alabama and Mississippi with Romney at 26%)

More here: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/03/other-notes-from-alabama-and-mississippi.html
Polling data here: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_SouthernSwing_312.pdf

In many ways I find Gingrich's religious rhetoric more unsettling than Santorum's. While the majority of Santorum's religious positions seem to be more of personal inclinations that are not very likely to leak into administrative decisions, Gingrich has said things that come pretty close to applying a religious test to making appointments and respecting judicial positions. For instance, during the Vegas debate Gingrich said “how can you have judgment if you don’t have faith and how can I trust you with power if you don’t pray?”, the obvious implication of this being that a potential President Gingrich would be either happy to appoint people to positions of power that he can't trust or that he'd be applying a religious test to his appointments.

 

[jduster]

I know I said this before, but now it applies moreso, after losing in the states he was depending on.

He needs to withdraw.

 

[mheslep]

Newt seems to be doing fairly well with one segment of the population: deep south super-religious conservatives...

According this pole, Newt wins "Obama's a Muslim" voters, and "interracial marriage should be illegal" voters. How do these opinions make these voters "super-religious conservatives"? How are they conservative, and how do these opinions suggest they have ever stepped inside a church?

Also, I don't recall seeing similar polling on Democratic candidates (this poll was 100% R. voters). What would you conclude if, in 2008, Biden/Clinton/Dodd/etc won the "Obama's a Muslim" vote in Alabama, or in Vermont with a 95% white population, or if Obama won the "women should not be President" vote?

 

[Gokul43201]

According this pole, Newt wins "Obama's a Muslim" voters, and "interracial marriage should be illegal" voters. Yes this is Alabama. But how do these opinions make these voters "super-religious conservatives"? How are they conservative, and how do these opinions suggest they have ever stepped inside a church?

I think it is fair to say that people that oppose interracial marriage are social conservatives. That follows essentially from definition, doesn't it? I think it's also not a huge stretch to guess that a large fraction of them are likely to be religious - after all, even the judge that ruled on Loving v. Virginia used the Tower of Babel argument to justify racial integrity laws. Newt also ties Santorum among the demographic that doubts evolution, and I think there's a pretty strong correlation between religiosity and anti-evolution positions.

Also, I don't recall seeing similar polling on Democratic candidates (this poll was 100% R. voters).

In this case, the poll was primary in the context of the impending GOP primaries in those states, so naturally was restricted to Republicans. I haven't looked through PPP's archives to see if they had done something similar in 2008 (or earlier years).

What would you conclude if, in 2008, Biden/Clinton/Dodd/etc won the "Obama's a Muslim" vote in Alabama, or in Vermont with a 95% white population, or if Obama won the "women should not be President" vote?

1. As far as this particular poll goes, I didn't draw any conclusions (not anything significant, at least). I merely made observations on who was more popular among which demographic, in fact merely echoing the observations made by PPP. Admittedly, I did characterize the demographic as being extremely religious, which is a bit of an inference. I'm happy to drop that characterization and go with "deep south super-conservatives" if that'll help end that particular disagreement. But, to address further the specifics of your question, it should not be surprising that an Obama primary opponent would win a plurality of support from the "Obama's a Muslim" demographic - that's the trivial solution. Just as one would trivially expect the "Romney is a thief" demographic to favor Obama over Romney. Conclusions might only become worth drawing when you look at the "Romney is a thief" demographic in terms of say, their support for different hypothetical Democratic candidates.

2. What is implicit in discussing this set of observations - a reason I think they are worthy of consideration - is that the demographics we are talking about are not tiny minorities. 46% and 78% of Mississippians not being on board with interracial marriage and evolution respectively make up a fairly large chunk of that electorate. I don't think there would have been as much political relevance if they made up less than say, 20% of the population. Not only do the political implications diminish when the groups are small minorities of the sample, but the relative errors increase when comparing supporters of different candidates.

PS: As of early 2007, according to Gallup, about 11% of respondents say they wouldn't vote for a female President. The sample was not polled for political identity, as far as I can tell, but I wouldn't be surprised if Republicans made up a somewhat larger fraction of that group (going by say the relatively large abundance of Democrats vs. Republicans among the women in Congress).

Link to the Gallup article: http://www.gallup.com/poll/26611/so...mormon-72yearold-presidential-candidates.aspx

 

[mheslep]

PS: As of early 2007, according to Gallup, about 11% of respondents say they wouldn't vote for a female President. The sample was not polled for political identity, as far as I can tell, but I wouldn't be surprised if Republicans made up a somewhat larger fraction of that group (going by say the relatively large abundance of Democrats vs. Republicans among the women in Congress).

Catching just this bit at the moment: I suspect the reverse, going by, for example, the sexist nature of the attacks from the left on Republican female candidates, and the history presented by conservative UK PM Margaret Thatcher and her popularity in the US. Declining to set aside one's life and run for office is a different matter from supporting someone else who does.

 

[ThomasT]

I know I said this before, but now it applies moreso, after losing in the states he was depending on.

He needs to withdraw.

I'm guessing he probably will if he keeps coming in a distant third. Which, imo, he will. But the thing is that the campaign keeps his name in the news and should have a positive effect on his earning potential (provided he doesn't say or do something really stupid). I don't know what his campaign's financial situation is. But for some candidates campaigning is a wonderful thing. Living off money that people give you because you're running for public office.

 

[Dotini]

He needs to withdraw.

No, he's going into a brokered convention with X delegates in his pocket.
- Romney does not and will not have enough delegates to win the first ballot.
- Santorum is so disorganized he is failing to collect as many as he "should have".
- Paul will have 100+ and could be kingmaker for Romney.
- Gingrich will have a few hundred and could be kingmaker for Santorum.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Gokul43201]

Catching just this bit at the moment: I suspect the reverse, going by, for example, the sexist nature of the attacks from the left on Republican female candidates, and the history presented by conservative UK PM Margaret Thatcher and her popularity in the US. Declining to set aside one's life and run for office is a different matter from supporting someone else who does.

It's possible. I don't have a definitive source that addresses the distribution of that group by political inclination. I couldn't easily find a poll that looks into it, so I went with the only other quantitative data I had - that Dem women outnumber Rep women in Congress by more than 2:1.

EDIT: Found a 2006 poll - http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/020306woman.pdf

According to that poll, about 5% of Dems and 12% or Reps would not vote for a qualified woman nominated by their party. Note that these are such small numbers that no candidate in their right mind would attempt to curry favor (even subtly, through indirect means) with this demographic at the enormous risk to their reputation among the rest of the electorate.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I vaguely remember a poll that came out in 2008 in which 48% of Democrats said they were willing to vote for a woman to be President.

 

[Gokul43201]

I vaguely remember a poll that came out in 2008 in which 48% of Democrats said they were willing to vote for a woman to be President.

I remember it too, along with a similar poll last July in which about 15% of Republicans said they were willing to vote for a woman to be President. And that was when women were enjoying particularly high ratings among Republicans. Now less than 5% of Republicans will vote for a woman to be President.

 

[mheslep]

I remember it too, along with a similar poll last July in which about 15% of Republicans said they were willing to vote for a woman to be President. And that was when women were enjoying particularly high ratings among Republicans. Now less than 5% of Republicans will vote for a woman to be President.

a small group will not vote for a woman, right?

 

[Gokul43201]

a small group will not vote for a woman, right?

It's a joke, mh. Jimmy was being clever, interpreting the 2008 Dem primary numbers as a reflection of Dems that would not vote for a woman. I applied the same reasoning to Michele Bachman's numbers this season.

 

[mheslep]

I think it is fair to say that people that oppose interracial marriage are social conservatives. That follows essentially from definition, doesn't it?...

I think that usage defines social conservatives those as those in favor of the status quo or recent past, because and only because that is the way it "always used to be", and therefore by that definition social conservatives would also have supported slavery, segregation, etc up until sometime after these things ceased to be. I won't deny the term is often used this way, but I think wrongly. The phrase narrow minded is more accurate, or, to be generous, complacent. I use the term conservative as defined by Edmund Burke, by Russel Kirk, by WF Buckley. That is, to be conservative means to conserve the fundamental tenets and institutions of Western and American society. In this case, that would, for me, mainly entail a serious respect for the institution of marriage, but not the race of the participants, not directly at least.

 

[ThinkToday]

I think that usage defines social conservatives those as those in favor of the status quo or recent past, because and only because that is the way it "always used to be", and therefore by that definition social conservatives would also have supported slavery, segregation, etc up until sometime after these things ceased to be. I won't deny the term is often used this way, but I think wrongly. The phrase narrow minded is more accurate, or, to be generous, complacent. I use the term conservative as defined by Edmund Burke, by Russel Kirk, by WF Buckley. That is, to be conservative means to conserve the fundamental tenets and institutions of Western and American society. In this case, that would, for me, mainly entail a serious respect for the institution of marriage, but not the race of the participants, not directly at least.

The abolitionist movement in the civil war wasn't run by conservatives? Lincoln wasn't conservative? There seems to be a mixing or conservative, redneck and race hate as if they are the same. In my lifetime I've seen interracial marriages go from taboo to "eh", on BOTH the Democrat and Republican sides. I remember a time when my dad recalled proposing to mom and recounting the major “issue” of one being Episcopal and the other Methodist. The same issue still exists in some religious or ethnic groups. Think about the Iranian Muslim that converted to Christianity and now faces a death sentence. The same is true for segregation, or did people forget that George Wallace was a Democrat, as were many of the southern slavers. IMO, a social conservative is more like someone that looks to the founding ideals of the country, which including things like faith, faith based values, personal responsibility, and limited government in our daily lives. Nor can we forget that social conservatives aren’t just Republicans, although I suspect that is more the case than ever now.

 

[mheslep]

The abolitionist movement in the civil war wasn't run by conservatives? Lincoln wasn't conservative? There seems to be a mixing or conservative, redneck and race hate as if they are the same.

Agreed.

 

[lpetrich]

Too many people make the US Founding Fathers in their likeness. If they wanted to decree that everybody practice some approved-of religion, they would have done so. If they wanted a state church, they would have set one up. As it is, there was a remarkable absence of religion in the Constitution. Consider http://www.constitution.org/jadams/ja1_00.htm He acknowledges that many political leaders claim to be descended from gods or appointed by gods or whatever, but he thinks that a purely secular defense is worthwhile.

Abraham Lincoln was anything but a "small-government conservative". If he was, he would have defended slavery as an ancient and noble tradition, as many of his contemporaries had done, and he would have taken the side of slaveowners' property claims against northern states that wanted to interfere with them, like demand that slaveowners present proof of ownership of runaway slaves. That supposed outrage was from South Carolina's secession declaration.

In addition to leading the Civil War on the northern side, his presidency featured several initiatives. He raised taxes with his tariffs and income tax, he gave away at low prices a *lot* of Western land with the Homestead Act, he supported western railroad building, land-grant colleges, national banks, etc. Not very Burkean, it must be said.

Abolitionism in general could easily be interpreted as a radical movement, not as a conservative in the Burkean sense or whatever. A Burkean could say that it's wrong to try to outlaw slavery if it had been legal, since it has existed for millennia, and outlawing it could cause awkward social upheavals. However, if a nation had long rejected slavery, a Burkean would insist that it's wrong to change that.

As to the Democratic Party, it's not a unified ideological front, and I don't think that it ever has been. The Southern Democrats have long been the right wing of the Democratic Party, with Southern "yellow-dog Democrats" rejecting the Republican Party as the party of Abraham Lincoln and his "War of Northern Aggression". But in the 1950's and 1960's, the black civil-rights movement forced Democratic politicians to choose which side they wanted to take, and non-Southern Democrats abandoned the Southern ones. LBJ allegedly stated this his signing of the Civil Rights Act meant that "We have lost the South for a generation". The Republicans moved in with their "Southern Strategy", and since then, it has gradually lost strength in the northeastern states. Mississippi Senator Trent Lott implied in 1984 that the Republican Party was the party of Jefferson Davis. The recent resignation of Maine Senator Olympia Snowe is only the latest event in that realignment.

 

[mheslep]

Abolitionism in general could easily be interpreted as a radical movement, not as a conservative in the Burkean sense or whatever. A Burkean could say that it's wrong to try to outlaw slavery if it had been legal, since it has existed for millennia, and outlawing it could cause awkward social upheavals. However, if a nation had long rejected slavery, a Burkean would insist that it's wrong to change that.

I think you misread Burke, and are twisting him into the simplistic "that's the way it always has been", or redneck, interpretation discussed above. In his writings on revolutionary France, Burke was informed both by the English Glorious Revolution in the prior century and the events transpiring in revolutionary 1789 France. Observing the prior English revolution, Burke did not claim a people have no right rebel simply because it was historical, on the contrary. Rather Burke argued people were not free to abolish their society and all its institutions, as was underway in France at the time, without destroying themselves. Burke condemned the wanton lopping of a heads and the attempt to destroy all French institutions. Similarly he http://books.google.com/books?id=d805lWnjcu8C&pg=PT284&dq=Burke+on+American+Colonies&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xY9jT8-8HMqhgwf2v83uAg&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Burke%20on%20American%20Colonies&f=false; he did not insist on keeping them because they had "long" been British, or because it is "wrong to change."

 

[mheslep]

...LBJ allegedly stated this his signing of the Civil Rights Act meant that "We have lost the South for a generation". The Republicans moved in with their "Southern Strategy", and since then,...

There's a little more to that story.


The[/PLAIN] Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’

...It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)

The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t...

 

[Gokul43201]

...
That is, to be conservative means to conserve the fundamental tenets and institutions of Western and American society.
...

Yes, I was using the connotation that is in common usage today

 

[Astronuc]

I think that usage defines social conservatives those as those in favor of the status quo or recent past, because and only because that is the way it "always used to be", and therefore by that definition social conservatives would also have supported slavery, segregation, etc up until sometime after these things ceased to be. I won't deny the term is often used this way, but I think wrongly. The phrase narrow minded is more accurate, or, to be generous, complacent. I use the term conservative as defined by Edmund Burke, by Russel Kirk, by WF Buckley. That is, to be conservative means to conserve the fundamental tenets and institutions of Western and American society. In this case, that would, for me, mainly entail a serious respect for the institution of marriage, but not the race of the participants, not directly at least.

Yes, I was using the connotation that is in common usage today

I think the problem is that many terms have lost their meaning.

I'm not sure what 'conservative' or 'liberal' mean anymore. It's now a matter of context and who is using the term.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I'm not sure what 'conservative' or 'liberal' mean anymore. It's now a matter of context and who is using the term.

These terms are used to shoehorn multidimensional people into a one dimensional specturm.