This test allegedly pinpoints where you are with politics. This is where I am according to this test. https://www.politicalcompass.org/test
Thanks was going to ask If you have a political stance but aren't that experienced with economy and stuff, the reading probably won't be that accurate. You should expect to land in the right if you're right or left if you're left, but it might not be exactly accurate if you don't know much about economy.
Glad to see that the majority of us are liberal or left leaning. Progress, science, rationalism, fuck yeah!
Left is for less economic freedom and right is for more economic freedom. I answered the questions against these businessmen and for the majority. Me preferring Trump over Hillary does not make me right. Besides if I really could vote I would have been for Jill Stein. Anyway have you tried taking the test and seeing where you landed?
Err yes it does. It makes you economically conservative. Thus you fall right on the political spectrum when it comes to economy. Plus, you thought Clinton was evil (typical right wing propaganda) so it's clear to me you're more conservative. You're right. It doesn't make you right, it makes you wrong. There are several reasons why economically Trump is bad. There are also several reasons why socialist policies are good. You think Trump would do de better economically? Lol. California has socialist policies and is far wealthier and more progressed than the rest of the states. California ranks 7th or 8th in the world when it comes to GDP. We're a state. We have the highest minimum wage so far if I remember correctly. Why would you not prefer socialism? You can still work your ass off to get rich and simultaneously eliminate issues such as poverty and homelessness. Look how well it's work for us Californians and supposedly we have less economic freedom according to you. I took the test. I was in the left-libertarian quadrant.
I agree there are several positive aspects about socialism and is arguably the best economic system. And what are those reasons? I thought the economics where the only good thing about his presidency. What? Hillary clinton is evil. She was for stop and frisk, she instigated terrorism and used to be a segregationist. Just because it is against you does not mean it is propaganda. And what is up with you and the labeling?
Did you not read my last reply to you? I easily disproved that. It's not that it's against me. It's that it's not true. Hence why I say stop spreading misinformation and propaganda. That's the point of this thread, idiot. What else did you start it for? Lmao no. Again, for proof, look at California. @lluigi look at this guy ignoring all my huge walls of text. Has the audacity to say what I had refuted him on days ago. Funny, he was so quick and eager to reply to each of my responses but on that last one he stopped replying and made another thread. Has yet to talk about it. lol
Since you don't seem to get the idea... Stop and frisk: Watch the debates again. She's clearly against stop and frisk. Trump was the one who supported it. Are you being willfully ignorant? Are you in denial? ISIS: Republican party came up with the stupid idea to invade Iraq in 2003 for no good reason. Despite CIA finding no evidence of WMD's, Bush administration ignored them and went anyway. Clinton voted for it, like many other politicians did. She later regretted it. She did nothing wrong. Civil Rights Act of 1964: Onceagain, stop spreading misinformation. Clinton did show support for Barry Goldwater at the time. However, it's important to note that Goldwater was not some racist prick. In fact, he had supported civil rights movements before. He voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because the bill contained a clause regulating the behaviour of private enterprise which he found unconstitutional. He thought that this portion of the bill was not enforceable without a federal police force. He feared the bill would lead to racial quotas, hence his vote against it. "I realize fully that the Federal government has a responsibility in the field of civil rights, but it would serve no purpose at this juncture to review my position as to just where that Federal responsibility appropriately lies. I supported the civil rights bills which were enacted in 1957 and 1960, and my public utterances during the debates on those measures and since reveal clearly the areas in which I feel the Federal responsibility lies and Federal legislation on this subject can be both effective and appropriate. Many of those areas are encompassed in this bill, and to that extent I favor it. I wish to make myself perfectly clear. The two portions of this bill to which I have constantly and consistently voiced objections, and which are of such overriding significance that they are determinative of my vote on the entire measure, are those which would embark the Federal government on a regulatory course of action with regard to private enterprise in the area of so-called 'public accommodations' and in the area of employment — to be more specific, Titles II and VII of the bill. I find no constitutional basis for the exercise of Federal regulatory authority in either of these two areas; and I believe the attempted usurpation of such power to be a grave threat to the very essence of our basic system of government, namely, that of a constitutional republic in which fifty sovereign states have reserved to themselves and to the people those powers not specifically granted to the central or Federal government. If it is the wish of the American people that the Federal government should be granted the power to regulate in these two areas and in the manner contemplated by this bill, then I say that the Constitution should be so amended by the people as to authorize such action in accordance with the procedures for amending the Constitution which that great document itself prescribes. I say further that for this great legislative body to ignore the Constitution and the fundamental concepts of our governmental system is to act in a manner which could ultimately destroy the freedom of all American citizens, including the freedoms of the very persons whose feelings and whose liberties are the major subject of this legislation. My basic objection to this measure is, therefore, constitutional. But, in addition, I would like to point out to my colleagues in the Senate and to the people of America, regardless of their race, color, or creed, the implications involved in the enforcement of regulatory legislation of this sort. To give genuine effect to the prohibitions of this bill will require the creation of a Federal police force of mammoth proportions. It also bids fair to result in the development of an 'informer' psychology in great areas of our national life — neighbors spying on neighbors, workers spying on workers, businessmen spying on businessmen, where those who would harass their fellow citizens for selfish and narrow purposes will have ample inducement to do so. These, the Federal police force and an 'informer' psychology, are the hallmarks of the police state and landmarks in the destruction of a free society. I repeat again: I am unalterably opposed to discrimination of any sort and I believe that though the problem is fundamentally one of the heart, some law can help — but not law that embodies features like these, provisions which fly in the face of the Constitution and which require for their effective execution the creation of a police state. And so,because I am unalterably opposed to the destruction of our great system of government and the loss of our God-given liberties, I shall vote "No" on this bill. The vote will be reluctantly cast, because I had hoped to be able to vote "Yea" on this measure as I have on the civil rights bills which have preceded it; but I cannot, in good conscience to the oath that I took when assuming office, cast my vote in the affirmative. With the exception of Titles II and VII, I could whole-heartedly support this bill; but with their inclusion, not measurably improved by the compromise version we have been working on, my vote must be "No."" So no, Goldwater did not vow for segregation at that time. That is a completely false claim and is right wing propaganda. Clinton was a self proclaimed "Goldwater girl" at the time, but her political views later changed. Remember, she was only 16 at the time that she supported Goldwater, and could not even vote at the time. She did not support him for opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Following Martin Luther King Jr's assassination, Clinton organised a two day strike at Wellesley college, working with African American students to recruit more African American students and staff. At this point she began to lean left. It's obvious that she really cared about the civil rights of everyone and was clearly not a segregationist. When she attended the 1968 RNC, Clinton was upset due to the way Nixon's campaign portrayed Rockefeller, and felt that his portrayal had racist overtones. At this point, Clinton left the Republican party for good and became a Democrat. Quit spreading false unsubstantiated claims and misinformation. So no, Clinton is not evil. If you claim she's a segregationist but don't even know who Barry Goldwater is, please just don't say shit. That's a clear indicator to me that it's bullshit hearsay you've heard somewhere.
I mostly supported Trump because he's lowering taxes. My mom had to sell her business when Obama was president because apparently the tax increase just killed a lot of businesses. (Politics thread... so I can say this ayyye) Also, I'd take the test, but I'm not very educated on politics.
Ok. Bribing companies with money so they don't leave the USA? That's bad, because any company can just say that they'll leave with no proof and they'll get free money. Trump so far saved thousands of jobs with that. Funnily enough, some companies still fired some of their employees after getting their money. Obama on the other hand, saved 1.6 million jobs without bribing anybody. Huge difference. Second, I really don't think being stuck with $40,000 in college debt is economic freedom. This will affect the majority of us on this forum and people of similar age. Socialism addresses this issue.
I don't know if this article will counter what you're saying. But it's not just an opinion, it's a fact that small businesses were having trouble with Obamacare. "The survey found 56 percent of the 2,500 small businesses polled say they are losing quality employee candidates because of the rising costs associated with employer-provided health care plans under Obamacare." Here's the article if you're interested.
I mean obviously Obama's system has some flaws. Obamacare was ok. I'm really glad with the fact that he tried though. Makes me glad. However, small companies have to be looked at too, I know that. But still, Trump being elected is incredibly bad timing for me. I'm looking at being drowned in tons of debt in college. Can't believe you've got to pay so much for textbooks. Why the fuck must I pay so much for education?!
Yeah idk why either, it's been that way for a while. The geography text books at my school are like $60 each, holy shit. Teachers encourage us to learn, but how are we supposed learn if we can't afford it?
I did my research and he voted against the voting rights act because it is "unconstitutional". You just proved yourself wrong and contradicted your own philosophical beliefs.
Read the fucking paragraph. He found the economic part unconstitutional. He didn't find the actual Civil Rights part unconstitutional. He supported prior civil rights bills in the past. No I didn't. I simply stated what she voted for, like various other politicians of both parties did. Nice try though.
Racism, extreme religiousness, and authoritarianism are all political stances. Those are bad stances lol
Tbh I was gonna say apart from everything u listed but it was like 2am for me, so I couldn't be fucked
