Are you a Democrat or a Republican? Are you on the Left or on the Right? Before I'd got more familiar with politics I took a quiz on which party backed this bill or that bill. I scored 50%; the same as totally random guesswork. Estimates suggest the U.S. auto industry lost around 350,000 jobs, or about a third of its workforce, between 1994 and 2013, coinciding with the implementation of NAFTA and the relocation of car factories to Mexico. The term of President Clinton was Jan 20 1993 to Jan 20 2001 and he passed NAFTA. I had thought Democrats would protect jobs, I was wrong. More wars were started under Democrat Presidents than Republican, but that might not be significant because both parties started or expanded wars. As for Left or Right, I have posted polls and been unable to get clear definitions as to what those terms mean. The closest I got was in a poll answered by 34 people the only two to agree said the Left favors abortion and the right opposes it. But what do you think? Is Democrat/Republican a useful choice? Is Left or Right a useful choice?
Oh, I forgot Globalist/Nationalist. That pretty much aligns with Democrat/Republican. I'm pretty sure that Biden wanting to destroy the dollar and increase crime in the US and destroy Russia and the US if necessary, all fits into the Globalist agenda of destroying the independence of nations and rolling them all into one big global government and fits in with the Obama / Clinton Globalist vision.
Aw, darn it, Yang -- you could have at least given us unaffiliated Independents a 'box'! I used to be a Republican, but became NOTHING. Most of the time I have Libertarian viewpoints, but you didn't have a 'box' for them, either. I couldn't vote in the poll as-is.... ONE thing is for sure, though -- I haven't been a Democrat since achieving adulthood, and can never be as long as the party is run by a klatch of America-hating 'woke' clowns who trade welfare handouts for votes. **** that, forever! Now... if Democrats ever find candidates like John F. Kennedy again, then I may be 'all-in'... but not until.
I put into ChatGPT my viewpoints on everything, and asked it to label me politically. It said I could be labeled as a “Left Libertarian Progressive”, lol. Small government with strong social safety nets, with a government that focuses on the well-being and happiness of its citizens, while putting an emphasis on individual freedoms and rights, such as the first and second amendments.
I did think of putting other, or unaffiliated but then thought usually to get a say you have to pick one of the main party candidates. I'm primarily anti war so I'd have gone with JFK if I'd been old enough, but anti war is a stance that in a President could get you dead, so there aren't very many of those at that level. And the 'defense' lobby funds campaigns and the media goes with the weapons funding, and just try to get anywhere in Washington if you oppose killing Palestinians. You won't.
I'm about the same but with anti war as the primary decider. Not that I'm against defense, I'm in favor, but we don't have any anyway. Maybe the big scary military means nobody would ever consider any type of attack, even a 9/11 attack. I'm a realist and know guns are a big help in keeping law and order.
Yeah, you can definitely add anti-war to the description I gave. There is ALWAYS a better way, except in immediate self-defense.
On a personal level, guns do help in many situations I'm sure, though the police where I live are very quick to respond. On a national level, omitting WW2 which was very complicated, I can't think of an occasion when the US actually defended ourselves. It could be said if we didn't have a huge military then there might have been occasions when we would have been attacked, but I doubt if we need the gigantic military we currently have.
I agree. I often say we need to slash our defense budget at least in half. There are far better ways we can use that money.
Dichotomy is for dichs. Pretty much nobody can be truly attributed in to any of these generic and ill-defined groupings, and it typically only happens when it is being used to criticise, demonise or divide people. Talking about people being "left or right" is as meaningful as talking about people being "big or small", "dark or light" or "fast or slow". The terms are meaningless without context and that context will pretty much always introduce the complexities, variations and conditions of reality. Party labels are entirely different, since they relate to specific organisations with defined principles and policies, but even those shift over time, covering a massive range of topics that no two individuals could complete agree on and therefore cover much wider ranges of people, some that could even overlap on some factors.
I vote Republican on the national level. Unless a Democrat shows an actual independent streak BY THEIR VOTING RECORD IN CONGRESS, you can pretty much assume that they will vote like robots when they get to Congress. The leadership will tell them how to vote, and that's how they will vote. Increasingly that vote will agree with AOC and the Squad. AOC is the future face of the Democrat Party. Moderate Democrats are going to have to decide if they will robotically support her or form their own party. The test is coming if AOC knocks out Schumer in the New York Senate Democrat primary. As bad as Schumer is, he’s got more sense than she has. If she wins, you can see that the Democrats will be going full blown socialist.
Generally the right believes in small government and 100% employment, with those who can't work are taken care of. The left believes in supporting a population who are able to work but who will not. Guv Newsom of California is far left, het his brain fart of $20 an hour in fast food, gutted the fast food jobs. So what do we call him?
A Globalist. They destroy their own countries so they can get rescued and absorbed by the global government.
i don't think you can really call him a globalist. perhaps merely an opportunist, like most of the democratic party.
remember there are libertarian rightists (I am) and traditional rightists (AKA bible thumpers). we disagree on things like gay marriage, abortion, and prayer in school.
Yes..... Canada's Trudeau was certainly "globalist" and I fear that P. M. Mark Carney is as well.... I am hoping that Canadians choose Pierre Poilievre on April 28.... President Trump and his team have an astonishing amount of damage to try to undo but they are making progress...
I should have said that I don't know anything about Gov Newsom in particular, but was referring to those in general in the Democratic Party with destructive tendencies. Those tendencies seem puzzling until you consider their overall objectives, the globalist Utopia they think they are working toward, but the cost to the common person will be too great to reach that objective intact. It won't work out anyway because global is well above the optimum size for a political entity.
One very old dichotomy is between order and chaos. Which can be represented by the yin yang symbol. Or by dry land and sea, as in the beginning of the book we call 'Genesis'. You can build structures on dry land, but not usually on the sea. Is it the case that libertarians provide their own order following their own rules, and want only the necessary law enforcement from the state?
what is true of newsome is also true of the vast majority of democratic lawmakers. newsome's own proclivities are to cater to the rabidly pro-lbgtq+ san francisco liberal tree huggers and the los angeles pro-illegal immigrant crowd, but this is just his version of legislating to ingratiate himself with the virtue signalers and those who hunger for immediate gratification. none of them ever look further than the next election cycle and they ignore the long term damage they do to the country. that they are destructive is obvious and that they play into the hands of globalists is certain, but they are incapable of looking beyond their own thirst for power. while this is true to a certain extent on both sides of the aisle, it is the democrats and their voter base that have turned this myopic form of governance into a way of life. globalists? hardly. global governance would leave them relatively powerless. that they serve the globalists with their action shows just how short sighted they really are.
