Your political identity?

[SomeRandom]

So this is just me being a little curious.

How would you describe your own political “identity?” The policies you support?
The politicians you support?
What you dislike about your chosen politicians? What you would want to see in the future?
And why?

Since this is in a rather general area, all are welcome to participate. But perhaps a little clarification or maybe even translation may be in order???

Have at it and let me know!!



And I know this is politics, but try to remain somewhat civil, guys.
Please

 

[Revoltingest]

Card carrying Libertarian
Agenda...
Whatever policies government has,
make them as libertarian as possible,
ie, maximize liberty & benefit per cost,
with no more government than is necessary.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Libertarian.

I support: smaller government, self accountability, and individual liberty.

 

[Estro Felino]

Political Identity: Socialist, Souverainist, Populist.
I support Statism and State Control.
That is, the State surely gives any citizen freedom of thought, but any economic of social aspect of a country must necessarily be monitored, controlled and okayed by the State, through the administrative apparatuses.
The State must necessarily have monetary sovereignty in order to implement all reforms that will limit free enterprise.
Free economic enterprise is allowed, unless it is carried out against the Common Good, the Citizens' general welfare.
The Banking system is entirely controlled by the Treasury, either directly or indirectly.


The weakest classes' interests prevail over the wealthy's interests.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Democratic socialist.

What I support:

• A constitutional republic with codified rights for all. I oppose direct democracy.

• Constitutionally enshrined separation of religion and state.

• Separation of powers to prevent overreach or the formation of a dictatorship.

• Universal, free health care.

• Free education (up to and including university).

• Laws against public expressions of inciting hate speech, such as neo-Nazi and racially supremacist rhetoric.

• More regulation advancing non-human animals' rights to reduce abuse and suffering in places like industrial farms and slaughterhouses.

• Low business taxes but capital taxes proportional to one's income.

• A rehabilitative rather than retributive justice system.

• Stronger environmental regulations, a bigger push toward renewable energy and away from fossil fuels, and tighter controls on corporate lobbying.

• Having a strong military for defense and deterrence but not aggression or imperialism.

This doesn't cover everything, but it summarizes some of my main positions.

 

[Rival]

Disraelite Conservative/One Nation Conservative.

Low taxes, economic freedom, socially traditional values. The richer have the noblesse oblige towards the poorer. Social welfare schemes for the common man.

 

[Father Heathen]

Democratic socialist.

What I support:

• A constitutional republic with codified rights for all. I oppose direct democracy.

• Constitutionally enshrined separation of religion and state.

• Separation of powers to prevent overreach or the formation of a dictatorship.

• Universal, free health care.

• Free education (up to and including university).

• Laws against public expressions of inciting hate speech, such as neo-Nazi and racially supremacist rhetoric.

As much as I hate bigots, I'm not comfortable with suppressing speech, aside from threats, harassment, and the "yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theatre" thing.

• More regulation advancing non-human animals' rights to reduce abuse and suffering in places like industrial farms and slaughterhouses.

And puppy mills.

• Low business taxes but capital taxes proportional to one's income.

• A rehabilitative rather than retributive justice system.

• Stronger environmental regulations and tighter controls on corporate lobbying.

• Having a strong military for defense and deterrence but not aggression or imperialism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Democratic socialist.

What I support:

• A constitutional republic with codified rights for all. I oppose direct democracy.
• Constitutionally enshrined separation of religion and state.
• Separation of powers to prevent overreach or the formation of a dictatorship.
• Universal, free health care.
• Free education (up to and including university).
• Laws against public expressions of inciting hate speech, such as neo-Nazi and racially supremacist rhetoric.
• More regulation advancing non-human animals' rights to reduce abuse and suffering in places like industrial farms and slaughterhouses.
• Low business taxes but capital taxes proportional to one's income.
• A rehabilitative rather than retributive justice system.
• Stronger environmental regulations, a bigger push toward renewable energy and away from fossil fuels, and tighter controls on corporate lobbying.
• Having a strong military for defense and deterrence but not aggression or imperialism.

This doesn't cover everything, but it summarizes some of my main positions.

Well, you also stated my positions.

 

[Audie]

So this is just me being a little curious.

How would you describe your own political “identity?” The policies you support?
The politicians you support?
What you dislike about your chosen politicians? What you would want to see in the future?
And why?

Since this is in a rather general area, all are welcome to participate. But perhaps a little clarification or maybe even translation may be in order???

Have at it and let me know!!



And I know this is politics, but try to remain somewhat civil, guys.
Please

Political refugee

 

[VoidCat]

Liberal and feminist.

 

[Father Heathen]

Political Identity: Socialist, Souverainist, Populist.
I support Statism and State Control.
That is, the State surely gives any citizen freedom of thought, but any economic of social aspect of a country must necessarily be monitored, controlled and okayed by the State, through the administrative apparatuses.
The State must necessarily have monetary sovereignty in order to implement all reforms that will limit free enterprise.
Free economic enterprise is allowed, unless it is carried out against the Common Good, the Citizens' general welfare.
The Banking system is entirely controlled by the Treasury, either directly or indirectly.


The weakest classes' interests prevail over the wealthy's interests.

So why you you idolize politicians whose ideology is antithetical to yours?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Anything that maximizes both individual liberty and economic freedom.

Government role through federalism is strictly for addressing foreign power via diplomacy and war, global trade, and leaving states with each their own authority and rights under parameters of an agreed constitution.

 

[an anarchist]

I am an anarchist as the name implies.

Ron Paul is cool, if I had to pick a politician. His son Rand Paul turned me from a Republican to a Libertarian when I watched him in the 2016 presidential debates and that led me down the path to becoming an anarchist eventually.

Ron Paul seems to be rather respected in anarchist circles, which is an oddity for a politician. But out of all the politicians he is the loudest advocate for genuine Austrian economics and free market theory. Also, I've yet to see another politician openly talk about the true history and function of the federal reserve, among other things. Ron Paul is labeled a conspiracy cook by the mainstream because he actually does not tow the propaganda line. I have been surprised to have seen Ron Paul make interview appearances on sites that I frequent for news. And I'm not talking about CNN/Fox News.

I would love to see the implementation of anarchism. Perhaps in the form of small independent communities. Ancapistan (Anarcho capitalist land) is in the realm of hypothetical. In free market economic theory, a lot of it is hypothetical how it would work. I want to take Ancapistan out of the world of hypothesis and manifest it into reality and see what works and what doesn't. Or more accurately, how it works.

 

[Stevicus]

So this is just me being a little curious.

How would you describe your own political “identity?” The policies you support?
The politicians you support?
What you dislike about your chosen politicians? What you would want to see in the future?
And why?

Since this is in a rather general area, all are welcome to participate. But perhaps a little clarification or maybe even translation may be in order???

Have at it and let me know!!



And I know this is politics, but try to remain somewhat civil, guys.
Please

Overall, I would say democratic socialist, although not necessarily aligned with the party of that name. I look more at policies and principles rather than labels - which can often be deceptive.

Some of the things I support:

- Free, unfettered, and unrestricted labor unions (right-to-work states will be abolished)
- Wage, price, and rent controls
- Restrict free trade only to those nations designated as "Free" (by Freedom House standards) and only where the target nation's average wage is equal to or greater than that of the United States.
- Refrain from trading with any nation which does not have free and open labor unions
- Ending all military aid and alliances with any and all nations which are not designated as "Free" (by Freedom House standards)
- Ending the war on drugs, along with harsh sentences for judges, prosecutors, and police officers who violated the Constitution in the execution of said war on drugs
- Ending qualified immunity for police officers, and again, harsh sentences for violating the Constitution.

 

[Estro Felino]

So why you you idolize politicians whose ideology is antithetical to yours?

I don't.
In the thread of US president candidates, if you have noticed my reply, I wrote RFK Jr.

 

[Debater Slayer]

- Restrict free trade only to those nations designated as "Free" (by Freedom House standards) and only where the target nation's average wage is equal to or greater than that of the United States.
- Refrain from trading with any nation which does not have free and open labor unions

I can see valid reasoning behind this, but I think it could end up not working out well in practice. The reason is that countries not designated as "Free," assuming the criteria for such are robust and consistent, are almost guaranteed to be dictatorships with no freedom of voting or representation of the average citizen and worker. Consequently, sanctions and isolation would affect the general population—who have little to no say in how their country is run—far more than they would affect the elites and oligarchs who have millions or billions of dollars at their disposal and could still live lavishly.

Iran is a prime example of this. The sanctions imposed on the country were supposed to punish the government, but the ruling class are still able to drive luxury cars, live in privilege, and have wealth. Meanwhile, many among the population are impoverished and have reduced access to the Western world because of the sanctions.

Syria is now reaching a similar point. Assad is still ruling what is left of the country and living in wealth, but those affected by the earthquake couldn't get sufficient international aid due to sanctions, and many refugees are at risk of being deported to a nearly uninhabitable and isolated country in ruins.

 

[Stevicus]

I can see valid reasoning behind this, but I think it could end up not working out well in practice. The reason is that countries not designated as "Free," assuming the criteria for such are robust and consistent, are almost guaranteed to be dictatorships with no freedom of voting or representation of the average citizen and worker. Consequently, sanctions and isolation would affect the general population—who have little to no say in how their country is run—far more than it would affect the elites and oligarchs who have millions or billions of dollars at their disposal and could still live lavishly.

Iran is a prime example of this. The sanctions imposed on the country were supposed to punish the government, but the ruling class are still able to drive luxury cars, live in privilege, and have wealth. Meanwhile, many among the population are impoverished and have reduced access to the Western world because of the sanctions.

Syria is now reaching a similar point. Assad is still ruling what is left of the country and living in wealth, but those affected by the earthquake couldn't get sufficient international aid due to sanctions, and many refugees are at risk of being deported to a nearly uninhabitable and isolated country in ruins.

Well, when it comes to humanitarian aid and helping people in need after a disaster, then that would be different. It seems that they should waive all sanction rules when it comes to international relief, such as earthquake relief in Syria. (However, as a side note, I see that the US has suspended all food aid for Ethiopia due to widespread theft: US suspends all food aid for millions in Ethiopia after investigation finds 'widespread' theft)

All I'm saying is that we should adhere to a consistent set of principles.

 

[ChristineM]

How would you describe your own political “identity?

I really don't know what i am but i know what I'm not. I'm not right everything else is a mish-mash

The policies you support?

Price control, particularly for required utilities, food etc.
Reduced military funding
No trade with nations that ignore human rights

The politicians you support?

Eh? Politicians. Something I don't support

What you dislike about your chosen politicians?

They a politicians

What you would want to see in the future?

I'd like to see the UK back in the EU.

And why?

Brexit hss caused so many ongoing problems for the UK. Free travel and trade would elevate some of those problems

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So this is just me being a little curious.

How would you describe your own political “identity?” The policies you support?
The politicians you support?
What you dislike about your chosen politicians? What you would want to see in the future?
And why?

Since this is in a rather general area, all are welcome to participate. But perhaps a little clarification or maybe even translation may be in order???

Have at it and let me know!!



And I know this is politics, but try to remain somewhat civil, guys.
Please

Ideologically, I'm fairly left-leaning. I tend to agree most with Green or NDP platforms.

Practically, I tend to vote ABC. I also wouldn't consider voting for the Green Party of Canada until they get their **** together, administratively speaking.

 

[Debater Slayer]

No trade with nations that ignore human rights

Where would the line be drawn, though? Even many developed countries could be said to be ignoring human rights in one area or another. I can see the ethical point behind the position, but I don't know whether it could be applied consistently in practice.