Forums → WEPR → What are your politics and why?

31 9172
09philj
offline
09philj
2,826 posts
Jester

Given the success and usefulness of this thread, I decided to make a similar one for politics. What are your political beliefs and why, and also what political party you vote for, or would vote for if you could. Note that due to conflicting views as to what left and right wing are across nations, (Obama is right wing from my perspective, but not from others) taking this test would help, so we have an objective measure. Here are the scores for a variety of world leaders:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/internationalchart.png
and mine:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-6.88&soc=-7.28
I'm pretty left wing left wing, as a result of a combination of my wish that everyone should be free to have the chance to succeed combined with my view that without government support to create a more even playing field, this won't be the case. Being right wing is, in my view, for the selfish or naive.

Unfortunately, the UK electoral system is biased towards parties that get a lot of votes in localised areas, so voting for my ideal party of choice, the Greens (the only party in the UK to even get into the same quarter of the chart as me), would essentially be wasted in most of the country. Thus, I would probably vote Labour, because they're the biggest party which is more left wing, but not much. (Their leader is Ed Miliband, shown on the above chart. He is quite close to the main right wing leader, David Cameron.)

  • 31 Replies
xeano321
offline
xeano321
3,158 posts
Farmer

Link a dink

I've always favored the conservative side a little bit, plus a bit of national pride doesn't hurt.

I wouldn't say this is a truly accurate test though. It really only bases your results on the major issues, rather then overall IMO. If I changed my opinion in a couple questions, I would be a hardcore liberal.

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,932 posts
Grand Duke

National pride isn't a solely right wing characteristic xeano..

Pretty sure my views have became less authoritarian leaning than when I had previously done the test. Threading a fine line here.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-4.25&soc=-0.21

Greggor
offline
Greggor
5 posts
Jester

post test, disregard

EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,450 posts
Jester

6.12, -8.72
Near the bottom of the lower right corner.

I want as little government as possible, and as few restrictions as possible, while preventing harm reasonably caused by the actions/decisions of others.

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,560 posts
Jester

I feel like it would be a lot more helpful to see everyone's answer sheets instead of the Cartesian graph... I'm in the middle of the bottom left according to the test, but I don't feel that's quite right because I had to answer a lot of questions on assumptions and generalizations.

09philj
offline
09philj
2,826 posts
Jester

If you can find a better test not based on any one country, be my guest. I know the test isn't ideal, but I can't find a better one.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,190 posts
Regent

Of course the test would be more accurate with even more questions, but then who would take the time to fill out everything? Anyway, here's my graph, pretty close to the OP's:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-5.75&soc=-5.85

People who know me might know why I am relatively libertarian in social issues. Concerning being more left-wing, this is certainly because I do not see economic growth as the Holy Grail of well-being.

Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,519 posts
Jester

If you can find a better test not based on any one country, be my guest. I know the test isn't ideal, but I can't find a better one.

We used the I Side With in the thread I made in March. This is much more detailed and actually compares you with major parties, while showing you which candidates fit you best. This would be VERY HELPFUL for us, seeing as how the November elections are coming up.

How to make a better House/Senate:

1. Take this test

2. Vote for candidates who are *not* going to be taking bribes from Lobbyists. If this is impossible (Lets be real, who hasn't taken a 'legal' bribe from special interest groups?), then simply vote for new candidates who you believe best fit the peoples' interests at heart and not SuperPACs.

3. Do *not* vote for any senators and representatives who were in term before.

4. ?????

5. Profit!

09philj
offline
09philj
2,826 posts
Jester

The main problem with the I side with test is that that it's based on the politics of one country, in this case the US, which is, objectively, very right wing. Since the Democrat party is as far right as the main right wing party in the UK, it won't be especially useful for separating out those who are left of the Democrats.

thebluerabbit
offline
thebluerabbit
5,346 posts
Farmer

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-2.25&soc=-5.38

well thats me. cant say im surprised.

Ishtaron
offline
Ishtaron
359 posts
Blacksmith

So according to the first test I'm basically Alexis Tsipras which is odd considering I generally side with the U.S. right wing parties more often than not. And according to the I side test I side with the right wing parties more than 70% of the time at minimum.

In general, my political ideals are a matter of people doing the smart thing and taking some personal responsibility. Why pour money into "green" energy when there's already ways to safely and cheaply power the entire country with nuclear energy? Is it really wise to legalize drugs like marijuana when they harm the people that use them and pose a potential threat to others just because some people want to get high? Wouldn't it be better to try phasing out currently legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol? With policies like these I usually wind up supporting republicans more often than democrats, but both parties are so corrupted and self-centered that I can't say I truly approve of either.

Being right wing is, in my view, for the selfish or naive.


I find it funny you'd say that since the left wing, in my view, tends to be focused on putting personal desires above the good of the general public and are rather naive in their tendency to believe that left to their own devices people will do the right thing. Drug legalization tends to be supported by the left wing, but only really benefits those who intend to abuse the drugs. And government provided health care is a staple of the left wing political views but requires a huge amount of trust in the government to manage it properly as well as a massive tax increase in order to change the entire country's health care system to benefit the roughly 40 million uninsured out of a population of over 300 million (less than 13% of the U.S. population was uninsured before Obamacare was put into play and now there's a fine for anyone who isn't insured).
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,519 posts
Jester

Why pour money into "green" energy when there's already ways to safely and cheaply power the entire country with nuclear energy?


Nuclear energy is a good source, and it's certainly better than fossil fuels. While we build nuclear reactors, however, we can slowly build what is now solar-powered roadways. These are neat. We can drive over them and they gather energy from the sun whilst being more stable than asphalt and does not hinder drivers with erosion. This is green energy *and* it saves the country millions in energy costs per year if done.

Is it really wise to legalize drugs like marijuana when they harm the people that use them and pose a potential threat to others just because some people want to get high


Compared to other drugs, like alcohol, caffeine, and the really nasty ones like cocaine and such, marijuana is relatively mellow, no pun intended. The most it can do is infect the lungs, and the worst effects mostly are just euphoria and paranoia. We should really place awareness for hard drugs and alcohol before we even touch marijuana.

both parties are so corrupted and self-centered that I can't say I truly approve of either.


Agreed. Both use SuperPACs and take legalized bribes from Lobbyists.

Drug legalization tends to be supported by the left wing, but only really benefits those who intend to abuse the drugs


The problem with this statement is that 'drug abuse' is a very broad term. When I think of drug abuse, I think of people so into drugs that it damages them and the people around them, such as hard drugs and alcohol. What is 'marijuana abuse' when the damage is negligible compared to others?

And government provided health care is a staple of the left wing political views but requires a huge amount of trust in the government to manage it properly as well as a massive tax increase in order to change the entire country's health care system to benefit the roughly 40 million uninsured out of a population of over 300 million (less than 13% of the U.S. population was uninsured before Obamacare was put into play and now there's a fine for anyone who isn't insured).


I'm more into a government-provided preventative health care. You know, routine checkups. A 50 dollar prostate exam is much better than, say, a 40K cost in metastasized prostate cancer treatment. So yes, despite the good intentions of a national health care coverage (the guys over in Europe and Canada do it really well), the plan put forth in the US's Congress has holes needed to fill.

But let's not pretend that the insurance companies can manage healthcare better than government officials, seeing as how, because they are in it for profit, they will not cover pre-existing conditions, which is a serious deal.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,560 posts
Jester

we can slowly build what is now solar-powered roadways. These are neat. We can drive over them and they gather energy from the sun whilst being more stable than asphalt and does not hinder drivers with erosion. This is green energy *and* it saves the country millions in energy costs per year if done.


Kind of off topic, but solar roadways are bull****. There are a lot of reasons why they wouldn't work.
Ishtaron
offline
Ishtaron
359 posts
Blacksmith

Compared to other drugs, like alcohol, caffeine, and the really nasty ones like cocaine and such, marijuana is relatively mellow, no pun intended. The most it can do is infect the lungs, and the worst effects mostly are just euphoria and paranoia. We should really place awareness for hard drugs and alcohol before we even touch marijuana.


First of all, you're including caffeine in a list with alcohol and cocaine? Do you even know what caffeine is? Aside from workaholics and students who are panicking over exams, caffeine is rarely more than a drink additive people use to wake up faster in the morning.

Secondly, marijuana is not "mellow". The THC in marijuana is actually increases your odds of developing certain cancers more than cigarettes. There are literally thousands of carcinogenic additives in cigarettes which makes the reality of that statement mind-blowing. The high of marijuana also has several similarities with an alcohol induced buzz that would make it equally dangerous for driving. The fact that there are so few deaths linked to marijuana use in the U.S. is largely because it is illegal and people are much less likely to use with the public frequency of cigarettes or before driving the way so many alcoholics do.

Third, even a single use of marijuana leads to 30 days of significantly reduced cognitive ability. Every time someone smokes pot they're guaranteeing themselves at least a month of literal mental retardation, even if it's their first time ever smoking. And all of that has been proven in studies unlike the theoretical link between pot use and psychoses like schizophrenia that still needs more research before a definitive conclusion is reached.

The problem with this statement is that 'drug abuse' is a very broad term.


I use "drug abuse" for anyone who uses drugs for purely recreational purposes. If the only reason you're using a drug is because you enjoy the way it makes you feel, you really shouldn't be using that drug. There's far too many negative effects of drug use to excuse recreational use as "harmless" even if you aren't so addicted that you've destroyed your life.

But let's not pretend that the insurance companies can manage healthcare better than government officials


Better? No, but they can't do much worse. Social security was originally meant to help people that paid into it until it was placed in a general fund and opened up to immigrants that had never paid into the program in the first place. We could do a lot more good by having the government regulate the industry rather than having the government take over. One of the main reasons medical care is so expensive in the U.S. is because insurance companies throw lawyers at hospitals until they only have to pay about 1/3 or less of the bill so hospitals in turn have jacked up the prices to 100 times that in other countries. A law limiting how much insurance companies can negotiate the price and how much hospitals can charge would be far cheaper, and likely more effective, that handing control completely over to the government.

Kind of off topic, but solar roadways are bull****. There are a lot of reasons why they wouldn't work.


That's the problem with a lot of green energies. There's so many complications and expenses that they're really not as useful as people believe.
09philj
offline
09philj
2,826 posts
Jester

caffeine is rarely more than a drink additive people use to wake up faster in the morning.


Caffeine can also cause nervousness, irritability, restlessness, insomnia, headaches, and heart palpitations when you overdose. Overdosing on pretty much anything will make you ill, or kill you, water and oxygen included. It's about the dosage and frequency of use.

As for healthcare, it can work when controlled by the state. Just look at the NHS. Yes, it appears to be in perpetual crisis, but it's been running since 1948, so must be doing something right.
Showing 1-15 of 31

We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing analytics and serving ads.
Learn More

Got It!