what political orientation are you?

[batgirl]

I did a test and I was reasonably far left for economics and dead center in between libertarian and authoritarian

[heatherrose]

Voted other

I am a Constitutional Republican
socially far left (consenting, adult human beings.)
Fiscally far right (I have it by virtue of the sweat of my brow
and no one may take it from me unless I give it to them)

I believe if all of humanity were honest, hard working and treated their
neighbor as they would expect to be treated, communism would be the perfect
political system but because there are people, as there has always been, who lie, cheat
and steal, constitutional republicanism is (IMO) the next best thing.  Democracy
a system where everything is voted on by everyone, does not work and has failed
every time it has been tried for the same reasons communism does not work.

Democracy is like two wolves and a lamb, each having an equal say
voting on what is for dinner. In a constitutional republic, the lamb as an
individual has a constitutionally protected right to remain unmolested and
has the right to redress of it's grievances, should the wolves harm it.

[BraydenKid]

right wing

[InMyWrittenHeart]

I have no clue what I am

[muiredachau]

I put other mainly becuase when i vote i usually put the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal/Nationals Coalition last on the ballot. Usually Inderpendents get vote 1

I wonder if the Australian Sex Party will last long

[Orla86]

Center Left. 

[Beth Andrea]

I don't like any of the two major political parties (in the US). I think it is atrocious that in a country of 300 million people, we have only developed TWO "parties"...and both of them are owned by "Wall Street."



I also think it's atrocious that all of us are hog-tied to the idea of enforced diversity. Annual "classes" on diversity? Sounds like indoctrination + propaganda to me. Can't associate (or not associate) with whomever you want? Sounds like a proletariat paradise to me...

I despise the ignorance of the average American...and I suspect most people in the world are about the same level.

George Carlin pic I came across recently:



I don't mind capitalism, but when it subjugates everything to The Almighty Dollar..."Houston, we have a problem."

[dalebert]

My politics are driven by my philosophical/religious beliefs and as a Quaker, I am firmly opposed to violence in any but an absolute last resort and so I'm drastically opposed to violence against innocent people. I tend to self-describe as a left libertarian, meaning I share the social goals of most who self-describe as leftists but I'm only willing to get there via non-violent means and modern governments are practically defined as violent entities, i.e. the silver bullet solution to all problems--threaten people with punishment so they behave how they're supposed to whether that's making people behave (socially right wing) or forcing people to be charitable (economicly left).

I'm really impressed with the number of people who have expressed some kind of small "L" libertarian viewpoint, meaning not necessarily a member or even a fan of the official Libertarian party but opposed to violent solutions.

[heatherrose]

I'm really impressed with the number of people who have expressed some kind of small "L" libertarian viewpoint,
meaning not necessarily a member or even a fan of the official Libertarian party but opposed to violent solutions.

I am a Constitutional Republican

In what I posted, I hope it is not construed that I support and/or align myself with the "Republican Party"
I do not. The only difference between the Republican and Democrat parties, is their names.
Both sides use our, hard fought and died for, Constitution for toilet paper.
My line of thinking is more in line with that of the Libertarian Party than any of the others.
Actually. I would rather that there were no governments but people squabble with each other,
so in the natural order of things, alliances are formed and governments are created.
I would have there be rule from the bottom rather than from looking scornfully down from above.
When there is rule from the bottom, the right of self determination is held dearer.

IMHO

[Medusa]

2 dalebert: nice, I would love that society, but democracy give so much power to "Olivers" which want to force "George" to give him money
And in this sad time of ACTA and other sad events, it will be just worse 

[veritatemfurto]

straight up Independent

I vote privately rather than rally. The biggest subjects I support are the Military being a responsible one that supports its troops rather than agendas, continued Space Exploration, improving Education, and Civil Rights- particularly OUR Civil Rights (thanks Obama! would've had to revert to an M on my license in Florida even though it was already F in Texas for four years if it wasn't for the Passport Loophole! and thanks again for including Amanda Simpson! Though I suspect the best is yet to come in the next four years... heard a rumor from a friend, if it happens I'll be VERY happy

updated 02-13-2012 13:51 for better clarity

[dalebert]

A follow-up video by the same people who did George Ought to Help. Once again, it explores the actual results of efforts that were grounded in good intentions but have unintended consequences. I believe this is to be expected from any attempt to use violence or the threat thereof to fix problems.

[tekla]

The biggest subjects I support are the Military...

You realize that the 'on the books military spending' - I say that because billions and billions more in military spending are hidden, and what is not hidden is put 'off books' and sold off as debt -  is higher than our TEN next closest competitors.  Combined.  We build weapons systems that the military does not want, build ships the Navy does not need or want, and suffer coast overruns that would make the devil's own bookkeeper blush with shame.

[veritatemfurto]

The biggest subjects I support are the Military...

You realize that the 'on the books military spending' - I say that because billions and billions more in military spending are hidden, and what is not hidden is put 'off books' and sold off as debt - is higher than our TEN next closest competitors.  Combined.  We build weapons systems that the military does not want, build ships the Navy does not need or want, and suffer cost overruns that would make the devil's own bookkeeper blush with shame.

I guess I should clarify that- I do NOT Blindly support the Military, I support having a Responsible Military that protects our own country first, then our allies if needed, and should be made available to assist with humanitarian aid during peacetime and natural disasters, but should NEVER be used as an unprovoked power play in world politics. Warring actions should NEVER be used unless absolutely necessary. However, if the need arises, the response better be precise and not drawn out- which as we've seen in 'Nam and Iraq always leads to unneeded collateral damage. Plus, those who wield such force must take full responsibility and be held accountable for such actions and the potentially worse outcome they can cause...

I think our troops should have what they need to get a job done right the first time and have the proper medical care and treatment they deserve, including coverage for PTSD and even GID... There are a good percentage of TG's that went in and did their time and still don't regret serving their country, just that they couldn't do anything openly about their transitions, like my democratic ex-partner... I would've too if my dysphoria wasn't so severe before 9-11, even though I despised the dips***** in office back then ever since the mistake that was DADT. But now I'm getting off-subject...

I think that we should have available whatever supplies and equipment our forces need to do their jobs more efficiently, but think it is ridiculous to go with the highest bidder just because they have a better "reputation" with the pork and/or are "made in america" versus elsewhere and just licensed to be "produced in america".  I DO NOT think that there should be an Imperialistic agenda anywhere for any reason whatsoever, nor do I think we should have an Absolute Isolationist agenda either.

You're right about most of the off-the-books projects that have shot through the roof and all the way to alpha-centauri- those are indeed outlandish... But there are some projects "out west" and "down south" that have to stay off the books (which are in the trillions rather than billions)... which I can't talk about...

[Julie Marie]

Whoever Goldman Sachs is donating the lions share of campaign money, will be the next president.

With Citizens United, we now have a billionaire battle waging in the Pub presidential race.  Which billionaire will get their candidate elected?  Who needs all those people at Goldman Sachs when you can find one billionaire to do the same thing?  And if you get elected, you only have to pay one guy back.

I think the average donation for the Pubs is something like $150,000 while the average for O is like $30.00. 

"of the people, by the people and for the people" - Abraham Lincoln

[tekla]

a) I'm sure that the people at Goldman (and most of their corporate brethren) will continue to do what they have always done, which is support both sides, that way - either way, it's a WIN for them.  That, BTW is the way 'corporations as institutions' "think".  As such they have mostly been a wash except in obvious vested interest stuff like say gun manufacturers and gun laws.  In terms of corporate money I don't think the effect will be as huge as it's been for those who have seemingly unlimited sums to spend on a personal (and hence, unaccountable) level.  It's been pretty much a loose affiliation of millionaires and billionaires with either political/cultural axes to grind, or a hugely vested interest financial-wise, or both.

b) Citizens United is - among some pretty outstanding legal gymnastics combined with total bonehead thinking that produced decisions like Dredd Scott and  Korematsu - pretty close to the worst SCOTUS decision ever.  Ever.  Not only in the issue of 'person-hood' (gee corporations have 'person-hood', they are about to give it to fetuses and zygotes, and I'm sure that 'potential person-hood' will be conferred upon eggs and sperm, and 'virtual person-hood' on internet stuff.  Why hell, just about the only persons who won't be 'persons' under the law anymore will be adult human beings) but also regarding transparency - ie. just who is giving this money out.  So far we know, but that's because it's new and they are not used to it yet.  The Fosters and Sheldons of the future will not be nearly as clumsy and as obvious.  Those two need a "Yakkaty Sax" soundtrack, but the next bunch you will never see.

Now I don't get to see much of this, as we're not having an election out here really.  Really.  Unless you turn on national news you'd never know there was a big election coming up in Cali.  No big ballot stuff yet.  DiFi is up for re-election and I don't even think that less than one year away the 'Pubs have even found anyone to run against her.  (She's never lost a single election in her career, no one ever wants to run against her.)  So I haven't seen the barrage of ad's that CU is ginning up in states that 'currently matter' (Iowa matters for a few hours, one night, every four years - and at that they couldn't count this year) in this clown-car primary the Republican Party is treating us to. 

Then again.  Look at what $10 million buys you.  Newt Gringrich?  Really?  Ten fricking million dollars and all you get is some short and squat little replica of the Pillsbury Doughboy who's a serial adulterer and on a personal level easily one of the most unlikable people ever, and who's current wife looks like Stepford model 0001, and has a background oozing with corruption, slime and backhanded deals.

You used to be able to buy a lot better quality politician for $10 mil.