Info Your political lean, and why

[HurleyBird]

The culture war thing seems a little bit broken, because I certainly don't side with the left there, at least not the current left... Perhaps it's measuring classical liberal values vs reactionary values, rather than the progressive vs. anti-SJW thing that seems to be case now. Overall, a much more nuanced test than the political compass website.



My favourite is still https://www.isidewith.com/ though.

 

[1sikbITCH]

The legislature of the US is dramatically to the right of the average citizen both because of inherent aspects of our system and the undue influence of rich people. You’re clearly on the left but you’re probably not some extremist.

Since I have been acutely aware of politics (Reagan era) it seems that in general all leaders have to be connected to folks with power and wealth in order to get elected. If you can serve a purpose, you can get influential people like Donald Trump to back you in an election. It makes sense that Joe Sixpack never gets elected because he don't have the connections and cash necessary to have a successful campaign.

So what you say makes a certain amount of sense to me. A huge part of the Democratic party is poor white, black, and Hispanic people. On a local level Dick can get his neighbors to vote him in a councilman for his district or something. Without being rich and connected, he's just a Dick. We are unduly dependant on money to determine our leadership.

On the flip side you have to consider that Joe Sixpack, much like Donald Trump, has no fucking clue what being President entails. Learning curve is too great. Prez needs to hit the ground running (not in circles).

 

[HurleyBird]

link to compass?

https://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html

 

[UglyCasanova]

link to compass?

https://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html

 

[Amused]

I am slightly right and moderately liberal/libertarian.

This means I believe in a regulated free market economy with maximum individual freedom within pragmatic limits.

In the age of the ultra nationalist alt-right and Trumpism, right wingers like me look leftist in comparison.

But just because the GOP is WAY up in the upper right hand corner of this graph doesn't make me a left winger. It makes them authoritarian batshitters.

 

[HurleyBird]

Try the gotoquiz one if you get the chance, it's significantly better.

 

[Indus]

It put me here:

 

[blackangst1]

 

[fskimospy]

I think if you can make a good case for a utilitarian morality you can make a pretty good case for why the radical left would lead to the death of millions.

I doubt it.

 

[fskimospy]

What do you mean by inherent aspects of our system?

Like the senate favoring small, low population states, things like that.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I belong to the party who won't tolerate corruption within its ranks and always puts the nation above its self interests.

 

[Atreus21]

 

[ivwshane]

I have read the gamut of treatises on politics and economics -- books on libertarianism, Marx, Adam Smith -- you name it. I concluded that ideologies are like toolboxes; that no single book contains the entirety of the Truth; that common-sense is the main imperative and blind adherence to an ideology departs from common-sense as a lazy man's solution to thinking and reading.

In my callow youth after college, I had some very simplistic ideas about these political choices, and actually chose the GOP, thinking that they championed "free market competition." Then I discovered that the GOP was less interested in "perfect competition," drew its biggest supporters from concentrated industries, and had been co-opted by Big Oil, possibly Big Defense and interests that lean against the public well-being.

After that, I was watching the campaigns and elected officials over the past two decades, verifying the Liars and the Lies through my own investigation. Around 2004, I changed my voter registration to "Democrat," because there were no other feasible choices for my alignment which had any chance of winning major elections.

And I've long since come to realize that one very often doesn't have a smorgasbord of choice about anything. If a Dirty Asshole-Sandwich ran against Trump, I'd merely swallow my frustration and vote for the Dirty Asshole Sandwich.

I have realistic expectations, you see . . .

Same here. It's also why I'm an independent, no party has a monopoly on good or bad ideas. That doesn't mean that the current republican party has anything of value to offer and so it's the democrats that typically get my vote.

 

[Jaskalas]

I belong to the party who won't tolerate corruption within its ranks and always puts the nation above its self interests.

Table of one must be lonely.

 

[UNCjigga]

I'm a center-left social moderate. I used to hold some more libertarian views, but somehow Trumpism has made me yearn for a stronger (competent) government of the people.

 

[ch33zw1z]

 

[woolfe9998]

I think you can make a pretty good case for a criminal code based on utility and not morality. Murder should be outlawed because a society where people could walk around killing at will wouldn’t function, for example.

I get if you reduce things far enough maybe it’s a moral thing (ie: why is being alive better than being dead) but I think of one assumes being alive and having your basic needs met is ‘good’ a utilitarian criminal code is not just feasible but preferable.

Those kinds of distinctions are not something you would expect people answering a test question to make.

Legislating morality would be what then? Like anti-sodomy laws perhaps? I guess the idea of "legislating morality" means controlling behaviors which are essentially victimless? It's just a bad test question, and there are in fact 2 such questions on this test, both referring to "legislating morality." Not exactly a self-defining phrase. Also, why would you ask if healthcare is a right instead of just asking if the government should take over health insurance? The questions are a bit esoteric.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I landed in the center of the square, just one box over into the left authoritarian quadrant.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Since I have been acutely aware of politics (Reagan era) it seems that in general all leaders have to be connected to folks with power and wealth in order to get elected. If you can serve a purpose, you can get influential people like Donald Trump to back you in an election. It makes sense that Joe Sixpack never gets elected because he don't have the connections and cash necessary to have a successful campaign.

So what you say makes a certain amount of sense to me. A huge part of the Democratic party is poor white, black, and Hispanic people. On a local level Dick can get his neighbors to vote him in a councilman for his district or something. Without being rich and connected, he's just a Dick. We are unduly dependant on money to determine our leadership.

On the flip side you have to consider that Joe Sixpack, much like Donald Trump, has no fucking clue what being President entails. Learning curve is too great. Prez needs to hit the ground running (not in circles).

running a campaign isn't free. hillary and trump averaged $1B each in the 2016 election

for me, the turning point was a) having a medical emergency w/o insurance and realizing most of america would have been screwed if they had been in the same boat b) learning just how badly our social and economic systems have been skewed into screwing people over (and republicans continue to espouse that legacy)

 

[HurleyBird]

I'm a center-left social moderate. I used to hold some more libertarian views, but somehow Trumpism has made me yearn for a stronger (competent) government of the people.

I mean, that's fine and all but I don't quite understand how that works. Your dislike of Trump makes you want more government power? That means that the Trumps of the world get more power too. Seems somewhat counter-intuitive. Maybe you can better detail your thought process here?

 

[Jaskalas]

"And why"

A lot of my current reasoning formed as a result of absorbing some hard truths found in the video Inequality For All.
It presented a new way of looking at things that I already knew.

 

[ivwshane]

I mean, that's fine and all but I don't quite understand how that works. Your dislike of Trump makes you want more government power? That means that the Trumps of the world get more power too. Seems somewhat counter-intuitive. Maybe you can better detail your thought process here?

The problem with your thinking is that you think that because an anti government party can't run a country means a pro government party can't either. I certainly wouldn't hire people who tell me they want to actively tear down my business and I'm not sure why people elect politicians whose views are essentially that they want to tear down government.

Being against Republicans and trumpism is the same as being against incompetence and those that hate government. Wanting better government and being against trump and Republicans is acknowledgment that republicans aren't capable of delivering that.

 

[HurleyBird]

Ignoring the obvious strawman ("trim fat" -> "burn it down") and overall massive oversimplification... Well, yeah I do lean towards small government but that wasn't an argument I was making. I'm interested in the thought process that leads one from "I hate this administration" to "therefore I'm changing my opinion and think we should have more government power in the future."

 

[ch33zw1z]

Ignoring the obvious strawman ("trim fat" -> "burn it down") and overall massive oversimplification... Well, yeah I do lean towards small government but that wasn't an argument I was making. I'm interested in the thought process that leads one from "I hate this administration" to "therefore I'm changing my opinion and think we should have more government power in the future."

I read UNC's post as he wrote it. "Stronger (compentent) government of the people"

That's not necessarily "more power", whatever that means. If I'm agreeing with UNC, it's because I yearn for a functional government, elected by a majority, that serves the voters primarily. That's something we dont have right now. Republicans have had two years to put their money where their mouth is, and as expected....haven't.

 

[UNCjigga]

I mean, that's fine and all but I don't quite understand how that works. Your dislike of Trump makes you want more government power? That means that the Trumps of the world get more power too. Seems somewhat counter-intuitive. Maybe you can better detail your thought process here?

Two words—Deep State. May seem like an oversimplification, but I think a large federal apparatus run largely by apolitical workers has been a crucial check on Trump’s “deconstruct the state” administration. Smaller government would be much more susceptible to corruption at the top or a faster dismantling of our institutions. I used to think a large government was wasteful and inefficient, and now I understand some of that is by design.

Of course, the point that such a government needs to be run by people who actually believe in good governance is also true.