Yay Hillary is running

[FromCityToRural]

Hillary's waaaaay far on the liberal side for me. Yeah, she claims centrism, which is nice and all, but that's just for the campaigns. I'd love to have a woman president...I'd just rather have one whose taxes I'd be able to afford.

[Gusterfell]

Does it not seem to bother any of you that Hillary is a pathological liar? When we first went to war with Iraq, she said verbatim that she looked at the intelligence herself and knew that Saddam had WMD's and that it wasn't a decision based on politics. Now she's saying that Bush "tricked" her.

[FromCityToRural]

Briefly, look at her record as First Lady (don't know squat about her work up in New York), and isn't raising taxes the Dem party line? They do favor bigger government, after all.

[Gusterfell]

Briefly, look at her record as First Lady (don't know squat about her work up in New York), and isn't raising taxes the Dem party line? They do favor bigger government, after all.

[Snowguy716]

Democrats and Republicans both like to spend money. Democrats spend it on education, healthcare, and the poor. Republcians spend it on large corporations, tax cuts for the rich, and defense.

Democrats refuse to cut taxes when we can't afford them. Republicans don't care about that, and are willing to run very large deficits at our own peril.

Republicans accuse the Democrats of being tax and spend because they want to repeal Bush's tax cuts to eliminate the deficit that he created.

Republicans really have no room to spout off about low taxes and being business friendly, because they aren't. If you own a small business, you're in bad luck with Republicans, because their buck stops at large corporations.

Democrats also refuse to create legislation telling you how to live your life.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see anything but empty rhetoric in the Republican party: "Secure the homeland", "stay the course", "tax-relief for 'hard working' Americans"... Please.

Every time Republicans give out a tax cut, the deficit skyrockets and our financial state goes to hell. It is repulsing that the largest portion of our national budget goes to loan interest payments on our national debt created almost exclusively by Republican presidents. They're like the teeny-bopper girl at the mall with daddy's credit card... spurning the man outside asking for a dollar to buy himself a warm meal but spending $250 on a pair of jeans for themselves.

[monsoon]

Briefly, look at her record as First Lady (don't know squat about her work up in New York), and isn't raising taxes the Dem party line? They do favor bigger government, after all.

[nowensone]

Democrats and Republicans both like to spend money. Democrats spend it on education, healthcare, and the poor. Republcians spend it on large corporations, tax cuts for the rich, and defense.

Democrats refuse to cut taxes when we can't afford them. Republicans don't care about that, and are willing to run very large deficits at our own peril.

Republicans accuse the Democrats of being tax and spend because they want to repeal Bush's tax cuts to eliminate the deficit that he created.

Republicans really have no room to spout off about low taxes and being business friendly, because they aren't. If you own a small business, you're in bad luck with Republicans, because their buck stops at large corporations.

Democrats also refuse to create legislation telling you how to live your life.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see anything but empty rhetoric in the Republican party: "Secure the homeland", "stay the course", "tax-relief for 'hard working' Americans"... Please.

Every time Republicans give out a tax cut, the deficit skyrockets and our financial state goes to hell. It is repulsing that the largest portion of our national budget goes to loan interest payments on our national debt created almost exclusively by Republican presidents. They're like the teeny-bopper girl at the mall with daddy's credit card... spurning the man outside asking for a dollar to buy himself a warm meal but spending $250 on a pair of jeans for themselves.

[Snowguy716]

lol, thanks.

I don't think simple tests can tell you everything about your political ideology, but they can give you a sense as to where you stand on the political spectrum.

http://www.n00bshop.com/polimatrix/thetest.php

This test in particular follows a "compass" method, which rather than situating itself on a left-right line, uses a plane with the horizontal axis representing economic beliefs from leftist to libertarian, and also a social, vertical axis, which goes from authoritarian to libertarian.

Those in the top left quadrant tend to be Statists in the extreme form (Stalin, Lenin), communitarians in the more centrist form (for example, populists in the plains/midwestern U.S). The top right quadrant are where most of our politicians come from. George Bush is considered a reactionary, but with his ample government spending on corporations could associated more towards the center on economics, but with a strong authoritarian streak.

The lower left quadrant is that of radicals. This is where the green party and other famous figures like Gandhi and Nelson Mandela fall, promoting personal freedom with more leftist views on the economy. The lower right quadrant is a modern day libertarian who views government involvement as bad, instead looking for free-market economics and little involvement in personal affairs.

See where you score.

Mine is Economic score: -6.19

Social score: -6.09

I am an economic leftist and a social libertarian. I'm roughly the mirror image of George Bush.

[Charlotteman]

Well put snowguy. I agree with everything you said.

[kayman]

Briefly, look at her record as First Lady (don't know squat about her work up in New York), and isn't raising taxes the Dem party line? They do favor bigger government, after all.

[peaceloveunderstanding]

See where you score.

[Captain Worley]

Economic score: +6.32

Social score: -0.87

Your score pegs you as economically capitalist and socially centrist.

-----

Pretty cool.

[Gusterfell]

My scores:

Economic score: -4.52

Social score: -3.3

Your score pegs you as economically moderately leftist and socially moderately libertarian.

It would be interesting to see where some of our politicians (especially Hillary Clinton) fall on this test.

[Recchia]

Hmm I'm -2.45 economic and -2.78 social. Economically center-leftist and socially center-libertarian.

"Economic centre-leftists typically support above average controls on free trade, raising or maintaining the current tax levels, but still support free trade.

Social centre-libertarians generally have moderate social views, with a slight lean toward avoiding government intervention. However, they support government intervention in matters that they see as threats to society."

[monsoon]

Economic score: -3.74

Social score: -5.22

Your score pegs you as economically moderately leftist and socially libertarian.

Moderate economic leftists generally support regulation of free trade and business to assure that workers are fairly treated and prices remain stable.

Social libertarians generally believe that the government should not judge morality, and are generally against the illegalization of things that do not directly affect other people in a negative way. Many strong social libertarians may also be social progressives, favouring legislation to correct what they see as socially backwards governmental regulation, although some simply wish for the government to make little judgment on social matters.

[cinco]

economic score: -4.52

social score: -2.43

according to this - i'm a moderate leftist when it comes to economics and i'm a centre libertarian on social issues.

i must admit i chose neutral on a few of the questions... b/c i either "flip flop" on that particular issue or i'm open minded and still gathering knowledge on it. < both, qualities of a liberal.

[peaceloveunderstanding]

Economic score: +8.39

Social score: -4.87

[cinco]

^ the problem with extremes in politics... it either ends up with some groups being oppressed or a bloody revolution. i think it's safe to say if this country it's up in the hands of extreme capitalists... there will be an intervetion. it just won't be the government that intervenes... rather the people. which i'd be all for.

[peaceloveunderstanding]

Oppression? Capitalism is the opposite of oppression. You're confusing fascism for capitalism.

---

You can find where major politicians are on the spectrum at sites like ontheissues.org. For example, you can see Hillary Clinton's position by scrolling to the bottom of the page.

[nowensone]

Economic score: -0.77

Social score: -3.48

Your score pegs you as economically centrist and socially moderately libertarian

*This is a very good test (along with our answers) for the "Are you a Democrat or Republican thread", though it looks as if none of us so far are really strictly in either camp..

[Snowguy716]

Extreme capitalist societies tend to move to the left over time through slow government intervention as a response to "problems" as they come up (England), or more violently (the U.S in the 1930s).

This happened in the midwest in the early 1900s when corporate barons were supressing the wages of workers to maintain profits and simply firing those that dissented and replacing them. Eventually, enough people became angry and took matters into their own hands halting shipment of raw materials and paralyzing the corporations until the higher-ups bent to their desires. Unions began to form and when business owners tried to circumvent the unions by hiring replacements, things often turned violent.

This attitude remains in Minnesota during strikes. As recently as 2005, a teachers strike that left many students out of school for over a month really turned the community in on itself with many union families standing by the teachers while others were against.

I remember a school bus drivers' strike in Bemidji School District in 2000 led to a lot of angry people. Many people would curse at the picketting bus drivers as they drove by while some would wear buttons in support or even bring the bus drivers food and stuff.

A combination of such events led Jesse Ventura, a libertarian leaning governor, to propose illegalizing strikes for public servants (edit)

Part of the essence of being a libertarian, I guess, would be that market forces will push people to form unions to represent their interests. The minute you start pushing government legislation to stop unions, the minute you move up from libertarian into authoritarian territory, and eventually you have a corporatist state. (Much like today's reactionary Republicans including Reagan, Bush, Bush II, etc.)

[cinco]

Oppression? Capitalism is the opposite of oppression. You're confusing fascism for capitalism.

[Snowguy716]

I had a history professor that said "You can gather a lot of very important information from a person by asking them where they stand on the French Revolution."

[Charlotteman]

Fun test.

-1.16 centre left economically

-5.74 social libertarian

[nowensone]

^^ On most issues I think the best course of action is not a broad standard, but one dependent on circumstances, so my political barometer tends to swing.. Regarding the striking teachers you mentioned in MN, I would support such a strike because I see no other way for our society in it's current form to wake up and realize how important yet overlooked and underfunded our education system is. Leaders in every party must realize it is in this state, and support improvement, which makes it even worse that nothing has changed or is being done. But striking transit workers, for example, can cause serious problems for the country, such as with NYC last year, I'm kinda neutral on authoritarian style govt. intervention on that one.