Strange thing is that despite being polar opposite with Eklipse on this test, his comments completely reflect my own.

I think pretty much anyone who doesn't neatly fit on the common "Left to Right" spectrum feels like both the Democrats and Republicans fail to represent a good chunk of the populace.

I find it a real shame that there is no real mechanism for moderates to succeed politically in the USA

I agree fully. We need someone who can take the best of both parties and bring them together. Someone who can negotiate between both sides of the aisle and not blindly blame everything on the "stupid liberals" or "evil conservatives".

I think the most important questions, which are not in these quizes and which should be, are:
questions which talk about:

How to change laws to make it easier for small businesses and new ones to enter market with their products.

Rewrite laws and make it easier and understandable for common citizen, deregulate markets.

Give more sovereignty to states.

Generally make laws better and less bureaucratic

and hundreds more

Edited 11/7/2015 02:17:55

BNP is a defunct and dead party in Britain. No need to label them dangerous...they don't exist.

The SNP is dangerously incapable of handling their own finances in my opinion, but I agree with self-determination sentiments. Catalonia, Flanders, Scotland, Transnistria, Donetsk and Luhansk, Kosovo, etc should all receive referendums on independence. The only reason they've been placed within their native countries is because of WWII and Cold War map divisions.

Compass:

Economic Left/Right: -7.88 (left)
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.41 (libertarian)



ISideWith:

http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/1487731291

98% Sanders
93% Hillary
80% O'Malley
36% Paul
23% Bush
19% Trump
7% Carson
6% Cruz

Taking this now...oh man first question is a killer: "If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."

Why on Earth is this a killer? Did you really have to think about this one? The answer was so easy, I think this frain makes asking bias. No, I favour transnational corporations rather than humanity, sorry.

Country: The United Kingdom
Party in office : The Conservatives
Opinion: I hate them and I hate Cameron.
Next election: I will vote for labor
Most dangerous party : UKIP

^Mostly my choice if I lived in Britain; UKIP are on the verge of fascism (Foreigners - out!) We are not European anymore, we are Atlantic, sorry. We're converting our armoury to harpoons as we speak.). Labour is, I think, the best party, but it's only the smallest evil. It's still pretty right, but who is left? The "drugs are cool" party and "Respect" party?

What really you see UKIP as dangerous? I track British politics pretty closely and they seem to have the best interests of British working and middle class folks. The massive influx of immigration has long term negatives associated with it that politicians and EU social reformers and progressives cannot begin to foresee and imagine. And I am not being a racist here...it doesn't matter the religion or ethnicity of the immigrants. The scale currently allowed by Germany, the EU, and the last liberal government before Cameron took over are going to fundamentally transform Europe and England. I hope UKIP pushes hard for UK to leave the EU.

Let me start off by saying that most every party says that they have the best interests of the middle class. That's where the vote is supposed to come from. Now, immigration supposedly causes negatives. Really? This is just a myth and it's been disproved so many times. Immigration is a net gain to a population; there's been so many studies done on this, here are a few:

https://hal.inria.fr/file/index/docid/800617/filename/13013.pdf (survey on 22 OECD countries)

http://www.cebi.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/PDF/wp25_Economic_effects_of_immigration.pdf (specifically relating to Britain)

http://www.oecd.org/migration/OECD%20Migration%20Policy%20Debates%20Numero%202.pdf (OECD talk)

Immigrants? Get as many as you can. What long-term negatives does it have associated with it, other than perhaps "cultural collapse"? You can't see a nonexistent obstacle, so just pretend it doesn't exist. The scale allowed by Germany is normal. The scale allowed by Britain and most OECD countries: statistically negligible (10,000 is nothing. To put it in perspective, Jersey has 100,000 folk; Mann has 85,000; Guernsey has 65,000; Tortola (in the British Virgin Islands) has 20,000).

What's the point of leaving the EU? Leaving from a free market of other countries, to co-operate with France and Germany to get their economies as strong as possible, and for what? The Commonwealth? A shipping nightmare?

If the EU would solidify, it could become more powerful than America; but the nationalist UKIP would never be bit of that project.

Most dangerous: Greens (won't get significant powers for a long time (or ever hopefully)) and SNP have some fairly crack policy's one threatons national security and the other threatens the unity of the UK.

Greens aren't dangerous; they're just going to legalise some weird things, and lower the authoritarianism. As for SNP, I agree with most of their policies, but I don't agree with Scotland leaving Britain.

The SNP is dangerously incapable of handling their own finances in my opinion, but I agree with self-determination sentiments. Catalonia, Flanders, Scotland, Transnistria, Donetsk and Luhansk, Kosovo, etc should all receive referendums on independence. The only reason they've been placed within their native countries is because of WWII and Cold War map divisions.

Well, Pridnestrovia, Donetsk, Luhansk, and Kosova are independent, voted to be independent already, declared independence; it's just recognition. Also self-determination hurts everyone involved in the long-run. In unity, it's stronger; would America be so strong as 51 independent countries?

And also, for obvious grounds: it won't matter. No country will let go of their land for naught.

---

My country: Belarus
Ruling party: Lukashenka: Party-independent (fits most to national socialism)
Opinions: Fine as far as parties go; he pulled Belarus out of the dashing 90s road that Russia went down, and now Belarus has one of the lowest nonworking rates (<0.5%), and very high income equality and is somewhat stable, in a mild economic slipspace.
Vote: Lukashenka. He's not great, but communist party, nationalist party, far-right party, mild-right party...he's definitely the best.
Dangerous: United Civic Party and various exopartisans.

And no, Belarus is not the only country in Europe to have the death punishment, against folk's belief.

My score on this compass:
-2.75; 0.1 (right on the line); a socialist

Edited 11/8/2015 05:12:35

But Infection , don't you live in America?

No ukip have a bad way of looking at things before they changed it last year, their group had their eyes set on shifting British citizens who they deemed "immigrants" even though most was born here and their parents before them was as well,even though most have a job and pay taxes they are deemed as "benefits stealers" even though half the people on benefits are English and have all experienced one go on the Jeremy Kyle show.

Thanks juq, that's exactly how I look at it.

They are similar to a Facebook page called Britain first, where it's false propaganda against anyone who isn't British. Check them out its unbelievably crazy.

I have no political standing it seems.

I did the Isidewith questionnaire, trying to do it from the perspective of an American citizen...

Marco Rubio 89%
Carly Fiorina 85%
Ben Carson 85%
Ted Cruz 80%
Donald Trump 79%
Jeb Bush 77%
Hilary Clinton 57%
Bernie Sanders 44%

Sided with the Republicans on mainly social, economic, immigration and foreign policy, though as a non-American I oppose her foreign policy more often not. Sided with the democrats in environmental, science and domestic policy.

This is the problem with the world ^^ If you 85% with Ben carson and 80% with Ted Cruz/Donald Trump then there is something seriously wrong with you.

Marco Rubio doesn't matter and Carly Fiorina in the words of Donald Trump "Doesn't have a nice face". How can you be pro-science and support Carly when she knows nothing about science.

Edited 11/7/2015 17:57:07

^^I though you retired from warlight??? Guess that was lie.

Just to let you know: "Marco Rubio doesn't matter" is not a factual statement whatsoever and is more subjective than anything. If that's your only argument for why you say "something is seriously wrong with you" please go take a class in basic logical arguments.

but I don't agree with Scotland leaving Britain.

Scotland can't "leave" Britain. Britain is an island. Unless there are major plans to create a canal physically separating Scotland from England, they are not going to "leave" Britain, any time soon.

My reply to
Жұқтыру:


First off the political theorists and economists have no definitely concluded that mass immigration is a positive. Anyone who says that something is absolutely clear and a 100% correct is dangerous and obviously a non-realist. Nothing in political and economic theory is a 100% correct or proven correct. Just as you showed studies that "correlated" immigration with favorable changes in a country there are many studies that prove the strains placed by immigrants on housing, land, schools, hospitals, water supply, and transport systems make mass immigration on the scale seen by UK and Germany as very harmful to a country's long-term economic sustainability and social stability.


This is how I see it though. Even if the UK and Germany want to destroy and implode their own nation by the forced influx of muslim-islamic immigrants from 3rd World Countries...let them. What I have such a problem with is the EU forcing member states (Poland, Hungary, Croatia) to take in migrants against their own wishes and the members of their nation. This is an abhorrent violation of self-determination. The EU should be a capitalist free-market union of states and not a globalized-internationalist political empire meant to rule over the continent as if they are one people and one culture. Croatia is not the UK, and certainly Belarus is not France. Laws should be country and culture-specific.

See:

http://www.civitas.org.uk/immigration/LSI

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/82ii.pdf

http://ftp.iza.org/dp9107.pdf

Bernie Sanders: 96%
Hillary Clinton: 94%
Martin O'Malley: 77%
Jim Webb: 37%
John Kasich 31%
Rand Paul: 30%

This quiz is obviously biased also because the questions are made in such a way that even if you have right-wing opinion it put you in middle or left.(unless you choose pro multinational corporations answers.) Right wing is not only about big corporations...

Edited 11/7/2015 22:46:37

If you 85% with Ben carson and 80% with Ted Cruz/Donald Trump then there is something seriously wrong with you.

Ah yes. If you are against immigrant control you are xenophobic. If you think the feminist movement is a sham you are a woman hater. If you are dubious about the idea of gay marriage, you are automatically a hate preacher and a bigot. No higher corporate taxes to fund the lives of people who don't want to work, so that they can buy more marijuana after we've legalized them? You are a monster! No free college tuition, payed for by those who spent decades trying to pay off theirs? You are a monster! If you agree with this and this politician, there is something seriously wrong with you. Not because you just simply have a different opinion and look at the world from a different perspective. Always because there is something wrong with you.

These type of left wingers are the biggest hypocrites of them all.