deskthority

Just out of intrest i did the political compass thing .
Dont know how its would compare to anyone in the US political sphere but in the UK the only thing thats close is Plaid Cymru , thats interesting.

andrewjoy wrote:
Just out of interest i did the political compass thing.

I hit almost exactly the same place as you. I suspect that jacobolus would be directly below us by a notch or 2.

It would be interesting to see where the right-wing teenagers land.

Here's mine.

Redmaus wrote:

fohat wrote:
I give detailed arguments, link sources, and give people sites to go to where they can make their own decisions on the matter.

I look at politicians actual issues,

My assessment of this situation is precisely the opposite. Your "arguments" are empty of both substance and detail, and your links are irrelevant.

I always strongly encourage people to "look at politicians" and "make their own decisions"

I would be very curious to hear your analysis of the Sullivan article.

fohat wrote:

seebart wrote:
You can tell peoples ages online fohat?

No, although my impression is that you are 40-something.

I do know that Redmaus is ~16 and that Photekq is ~18 because that's just how I am - I pay attention to these things.

A person's lifeline informs and colors how they navigate their way through life, and their understanding and expectations of others and of society as a whole.

Disclosure: Donald Trump and I share a birthday, although he is 6 years older than I am. Do I "respect" him as my "elder" - NO

As a child of the 1950s-1960s, and a very real candidate for slogging through the jungle in the Vietnam War, it is difficult for me to comprehend teenagers with right-wing attitudes. That is my prejudice. But as a lifelong student of history and society and art and literature, I have a long and deep understanding of the human race, and its history, as a whole. How many books have I read in my life? 1000? absolutely - 2000? probably - 3000? possibly.

As the father of teenage children, I "get it" - they are feeling the power of spreading their wings and they do not want to be held back.

Believe me, I get it. But do they "get it" ?

That is the far more important question.

You impression is very correct, the bottom line is that life experience cannot be substituted by anything. It usually takes any young aldult some time to realize and accept this. A good education can and should supplement life experience, the other way around does not work although I often encounter people in their twenties that truly believe that and proclaim they "know all they need to know" already.

fohat wrote: It would be interesting to see where the right-wing teenagers land.

Usually I would never complete one of these. Firstly, I absolutely hate the "wing" system, since a very large number of people have a mix of right and left leaning opinions. I, for instance, absolutely have a mix and yet people instantly assume that I'm (sometimes far-)right because of my opinions on immigration, race and sex. Secondly, this "scale" has moved so far to the left in Europe. For example, people call UKIP a right-wing party, and yet it's certainly left leaning. It's not so bad in America though. The only reason I use the wing system is that everyone else does

Anyway, in order to satiate your curiosity :



What a surprise! I'm not right-wing

-----

Will have time later to expand on my earlier post.

This is where I'm at, by the way. Slightly more libertarian than I was a few years ago, but still very close to the center.

edited: info. already known

Hi, welcome to the thread! What else did you think we were talking about?

A clear path to the shitehouse you mean. He's a great campaigner for the Democratic cause.

Muirium wrote: Hi, welcome to the thread! What else did you think we were talking about?

A clear path to the shitehouse you mean. He's a great campaigner for the Democratic cause.

ok, missed the post on the other page

I'm less worried about him now than earlier in the campaign.

First: he's a right long shot according to the polls. Which makes a lot of sense as Hispanics and women in general are not groups a presidential winner can afford to piss off.

And second: he's made so many enemies amongst the Republican Party now that even if he did win, he'd have congress burning him in effigy just like they did Obama.

Trump also has lowered himself to the redneck and trailerpark level with his speeches and ideas. I think there are quite a few more of those than Hispanics and level headed female voters.
Is he the first candidate in the last years has addresed him/herself to this population?
Also, the polls may have not taken this kind of population into accord.
One other thing that might help him is the fact that he has been bankrupt a few times and bounced back stronger and richer every time, which to the uneducated looks like a miracle.
Also, he is the patron of shows like Miss Universe and The Apprentice, which have been wildly popular.
But I think you have already discussed this

It depends which polls you look at Mu. Many have shown that he is edging ahead of Hillary, while many show the opposite. I don't think any can be trusted; we should just wait and see.

Muirium wrote: I'm less worried about him now than earlier in the campaign.

First: he's a right long shot according to the polls. Which makes a lot of sense as Hispanics and women in general are not groups a presidential winner can afford to piss off.

And second: he's made so many enemies amongst the Republican Party now that even if he did win, he'd have congress burning him in effigy just like they did Obama.

Right considdering the success he's had I'd figure he'd change his ways a bit now since there's only Hillary left to attack, but the trumpet guy just cannot let it go apparently, he actually suggested that Ted Cruz's father was involved in the assasination of JFK.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop- ... her-222730

If he does get elected it's going to be a very strange and difficult outset for him depending on the advisers he's able to get. Washington and it's system is not going to change for this guy or anyone. At least Hillary knows the game inside out.

Indeed. I consider him a rank outsider at actually winning the presidency, but it's far from impossible. I'm just loathe to parrot his message. Trump win! Trump smash! Gaaaah!

Can't say I saw all of this coming. (No one did.) But Trump's celebrity is absolutely something I saw in his favour. Arnie blazed that path in the hostile terrain of California, like Reagan long before him. We better all prepare ourselves for more celebrity campaigns, and ultimately presidents.

Here is my chart, though I doubt it is useful to the discussion.

I don’t think this questionnaire really gets close to serious leftist positions though, or any other non-mainstream politics. It’s all pretty milquetoast.

No questions like “should the people rise up in a violent revolution to overthrow the bourgeois state” or “should autonomous self-organizing communities of workers own the means of production”, or “should the top marginal tax rate be above or below 90%”, or “agree or disagree: free movement of goods and capital without free movement of people is fundamentally unjust”, or “states built on the back of slavery and imperialism have a moral responsibility to provide some reparations to the descendants of their victims”, “all or most property should devolve to the state after a person’s death, with no special consideration given to a family or other heirs”, or “all people deserve food, shelter, healthcare, and education as a fundamental right”, or “capitalism as an economic system alienates people from themselves and their labor and is therefore fundamentally incompatible with human flourishing”, etc.

Similarly no real “libertarian” questions, like, say, “taxation is morally equivalent to theft and military conscription is morally equivalent to murder”, or “any contract which does not harm those outside its parties should be allowed, including prostitution, organ sales, and indentured servitude”, “when individual rights conflict with community norms, the community can shove it”, “‘intellectual property’ rights should be permanent, and treated just like physical property”, etc.

There are some pro-authoritarian questions about racial inferiority and so on, but nothing that even rises to the level of Trump-ism, much less serious fascism. Where’s the question about “militarily strong nations should seize whatever lands and peoples they can”, or “borders should be strongly secured by militarized fences and undocumented migrants should be jailed for a few months without access to a lawyer and then deported”, “if people die of dehydration in the desert or drown when their shitty boat capsizes in attempted migration to rich countries, it’s their own fault”, “legal immigrants from poor countries to rich countries should be given second-class status without access to the full set of rights enjoyed by richer immigrants or citizens, with no path to citizenship”, “there’s no such thing as a (political/economic/..) refugee, those illegal aliens are just tricking you by playing on your sympathy”, “politically marginal groups should be forced to wear special marks on their clothing expressing their status”, “the police should use torture as a crime-solving tool”, “the state should use unlimited surveillance to track political dissidents”, “the best place for scholars is a remote labor camp”, “military aid and training to military dictators and right-wing paramilitaries who will use it to massacre civilian populations is an example of smart realpolitik” (this last example is mainstream US policy supported by both major parties for the 60+ years), etc.

jacobolus wrote:
I don’t think this questionnaire really gets close to serious leftist positions though, or any other non-mainstream politics. It’s all pretty milquetoast.

It doesn't get to any "strong" questions at all, and the "authoritarian" questions were posed in a way that would offend anyone. I doubt that even Ted Cruz or Donald Trump would climb very far out of the center in the upper right quadrant.

In fact, I would be very surprised if even 10% of people who took it ended up in the top-most quarter and right-most quarters combined, even though that is almost half the area of the chart.

derp

davkol: why are you linking this?

From that site:


As politics, it’s moronic. Anyone who takes such a caricatured position immediately discredits himself as a bigot with weak grasp on reality. More “Benghazi” bullshit as the headline issue? Seriously?

Did these people watch Clinton take on the “Benghazi committee”? She eviscerated them.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be skeptical about Hillary Clinton as the presumptive next president (too cozy with bankers, too hawkish, support for foreign autocrats, only weak support for labor or the environment, a history of political triangulation, Bill Clinton’s selling his values out to promote the GOP policy wishlist in the early 90s, etc.), but the now-standard list of right-wing smears is just sad.

An actor is leading the Republican charge for the 2nd time.

Don't expect reality to intrude too far into the drama.

I realized, while taking that test, that I'd done so years ago. Like 10+ years ago! I wound up right in the libertarian left quadrant back then and I did so again just now. Just as extreme as Jacobulus. Despite the fact I'm perfectly mainstream around these parts, and definitely do *not* consider myself a libertarian by any stretch. As Webwit knows: you can't invite me to a wedding in the desert without a helicopter gunship showing up in my absense!

I'm a big state kind of guy when it comes to welfare, enforcing equality in the workplace, and especially when punishing corporations. But I'm a small state type when it comes to the encryption debate (strong cyphers for all!) and easing off as much as possible of this post 911 bullshit with paramilitary police patrols and mass surveillance. Up here in Scotland there's no shortage of political parties with those same views (Greens, SNP, and various internecine socialists) and I vote accordingly. In America, however, I'd go with Hillary. Because the lesser of evils aligns with getting shit done.

Wedding bombing is less evil than...?

Than gay wedding bombing, natch.

Democracy is where idiots vote evil into power, because otherwise the other evil guy would get in.

If you were American, what would you do in November? Abstain? Doesn't matter. You still get a president, whether you vote or not.

Their political system sucks. As does their foreign policy. We are but ducks on the wind, my friend. Foreign ones at that.

Abstain. It indeed doesn't matter, because the idiots will pre-select two evil people representing the same evil. I'll never vote a fascist, it's the way of the dodo, and I like to sleep at night, knowing I didn't vote in favour of bombing weddings.

derp

webwit wrote:
it's the way of the dodo,

I am afraid that the assumption of privacy and security being a "human right" or an expectation is the dodo.

After reading most of Philip K Dick's books, today I am feeling that they are more prescient than I used to think years ago.

@Webwit. Armed overthrow of the US government then. Uh… after you!