willhud9 wrote:

Willie71 wrote:All I can say is the world is going to have to pay for whichever fucktard the American idiots put into office this winter. There is no lesser of two evils here. A buffoon reality show idiot, or the leader of the world's arms trading with the world's worst civil rights abusers, with a bunch of economic corruption thrown in. What a fucking choice.

Um? Clinton guarantees...

Nonsense.

Willie71 wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

I mean by the economic standards that the world outside of the US uses. You guys think everything is left, with no real frame of reference.

and what exactly is your frame of reference for that chart aside from a select group of people's opinions on where those select people fall.

I have taken so many political tests and I have come out in so many spots on those kind of charts all depending on who and what is running the test.

There is no clear frame of reference aside from the people/organizations you choose to believe have the more accurate representation of the political spectrum.

Except in all honesty the political spectrum is not a square. It is not a line. It is a complex web of different ideologies that twist and become involved in different ways.

For example if you were to ask me my stance on the environment I would give you a complicated answer involving both government regulation along with deregulation and private sector. If you were to ask my opinion on guns I would say yes and no to different questions and would seem on paper to be contradictory. This is because political opinions are complex and a political identity can not be pegged by simply describing something as left or right wing from an arbitrary stand point.

Wrong, there are defined terms for left and right. It doesn't matter which tests you have taken. The only frame of reference that matters is the accepted academic definitions. You could actually broaden your knowledge by looking into this a bit more, rather than hand waiving it away. You are so blinded by what you want or hope Clinton to be, you can't see what is right in front of you.

So what defined terms, hm?

The traditionalist approach to right and left win in which right wing meant support of the traditional means of government i.e. the monarchy and left meant traditional liberal values of those of the enlightenment who believed in what is now known as classical liberalism?

Or the spectrum which defines left and right as a scale of government ranging from authoritarian on the far left and libertarian on the far right?

Or the spectrum that places communism on the far left and fascism on the far right?

or the spectrum that places oligarchy on the far left and anarchism on the far right?

All of these are correct views of the political spectrum.

Limiting your view of the world and policies to binary definitions of left and right is almost as meaningless as limiting yourself to gender binarys.

For example on the issue of gun control I have left wing views which blend with right wing views, but I am not a centrist. They don't cancel each other out and make me a moderate. But this is because politics is a complex thing and not a dichotomy.

So don't tell me to research something I am quite familiar with.

willhud9 wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

I mean by the economic standards that the world outside of the US uses. You guys think everything is left, with no real frame of reference.

and what exactly is your frame of reference for that chart aside from a select group of people's opinions on where those select people fall.

I have taken so many political tests and I have come out in so many spots on those kind of charts all depending on who and what is running the test.

There is no clear frame of reference aside from the people/organizations you choose to believe have the more accurate representation of the political spectrum.

Except in all honesty the political spectrum is not a square. It is not a line. It is a complex web of different ideologies that twist and become involved in different ways.

For example if you were to ask me my stance on the environment I would give you a complicated answer involving both government regulation along with deregulation and private sector. If you were to ask my opinion on guns I would say yes and no to different questions and would seem on paper to be contradictory. This is because political opinions are complex and a political identity can not be pegged by simply describing something as left or right wing from an arbitrary stand point.

Wrong, there are defined terms for left and right. It doesn't matter which tests you have taken. The only frame of reference that matters is the accepted academic definitions. You could actually broaden your knowledge by looking into this a bit more, rather than hand waiving it away. You are so blinded by what you want or hope Clinton to be, you can't see what is right in front of you.

So what defined terms, hm?

The traditionalist approach to right and left win in which right wing meant support of the traditional means of government i.e. the monarchy and left meant traditional liberal values of those of the enlightenment who believed in what is now known as classical liberalism?

Or the spectrum which defines left and right as a scale of government ranging from authoritarian on the far left and libertarian on the far right?

Or the spectrum that places communism on the far left and fascism on the far right?

or the spectrum that places oligarchy on the far left and anarchism on the far right?

All of these are correct views of the political spectrum.

Limiting your view of the world and policies to binary definitions of left and right is almost as meaningless as limiting yourself to gender binarys.

For example on the issue of gun control I have left wing views which blend with right wing views, but I am not a centrist. They don't cancel each other out and make me a moderate. But this is because politics is a complex thing and not a dichotomy.

So don't tell me to research something I am quite familiar with.

Who's talking about binary views?

Your responses suggest you don't know much more than you recently looked up on wikipidia,

Willie71 wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

and what exactly is your frame of reference for that chart aside from a select group of people's opinions on where those select people fall.

I have taken so many political tests and I have come out in so many spots on those kind of charts all depending on who and what is running the test.

There is no clear frame of reference aside from the people/organizations you choose to believe have the more accurate representation of the political spectrum.

Except in all honesty the political spectrum is not a square. It is not a line. It is a complex web of different ideologies that twist and become involved in different ways.

For example if you were to ask me my stance on the environment I would give you a complicated answer involving both government regulation along with deregulation and private sector. If you were to ask my opinion on guns I would say yes and no to different questions and would seem on paper to be contradictory. This is because political opinions are complex and a political identity can not be pegged by simply describing something as left or right wing from an arbitrary stand point.

Wrong, there are defined terms for left and right. It doesn't matter which tests you have taken. The only frame of reference that matters is the accepted academic definitions. You could actually broaden your knowledge by looking into this a bit more, rather than hand waiving it away. You are so blinded by what you want or hope Clinton to be, you can't see what is right in front of you.

So what defined terms, hm?

The traditionalist approach to right and left win in which right wing meant support of the traditional means of government i.e. the monarchy and left meant traditional liberal values of those of the enlightenment who believed in what is now known as classical liberalism?

Or the spectrum which defines left and right as a scale of government ranging from authoritarian on the far left and libertarian on the far right?

Or the spectrum that places communism on the far left and fascism on the far right?

or the spectrum that places oligarchy on the far left and anarchism on the far right?

All of these are correct views of the political spectrum.

Limiting your view of the world and policies to binary definitions of left and right is almost as meaningless as limiting yourself to gender binarys.

For example on the issue of gun control I have left wing views which blend with right wing views, but I am not a centrist. They don't cancel each other out and make me a moderate. But this is because politics is a complex thing and not a dichotomy.

So don't tell me to research something I am quite familiar with.

Who's talking about binary views?

When you post pictures of a political chart "representing" the scaling of someone's political worldview you are choosing an arbitrary and subjective view of that worldview. It doesn't mean its incorrect, or bad, but it does tend to get weary when its used as the only means of defining someone's views as being left or right wing.

Your responses suggest you don't know much more than you recently looked up on wikipidia,

Or that its common knowledge....which it is.

Here's some common knowledge for you.

The enduring appeal of The Political Compass lies in its universality, and the fact that it's not a fly-by-night election-time survey, but a continually accessible profile of a political personality applicable to all democracies. Although we'd like the time to develop more updates than we can sometimes offer, we remain a tool for comparing the politics of countries and well-known political figures, past and present. We invite you to check out some of our other features, such as the Iconochasms — a word that we coined in our early life, and one which is now widely used on the internet.

Our essential point is that Left and Right, although far from obsolete, are essentially a measure of economics. As political establishments adopt either enthusiastically or reluctantly the prevailing economic orthodoxy — the neo-liberal strain of capitalism — the Left-Right division between mainstream parties becomes increasingly blurred. Instead, party differences tend to be more about identity issues. In the narrowing debate, our social scale is more crucial than ever.

We're indebted to people like Wilhelm Reich, Hans Eysenck and Theodor Adorno for their ground-breaking work in this field. We believe that, in an age of diminishing ideology, The Political Compass helps a new generation in particular to get a better idea of where they stand politically — and the sort of political company they keep.

https://www.politicalcompass.org

You should have known, being the expert you claim to be.

Willie71 wrote:Here's some common knowledge for you.

The enduring appeal of The Political Compass lies in its universality, and the fact that it's not a fly-by-night election-time survey, but a continually accessible profile of a political personality applicable to all democracies. Although we'd like the time to develop more updates than we can sometimes offer, we remain a tool for comparing the politics of countries and well-known political figures, past and present. We invite you to check out some of our other features, such as the Iconochasms — a word that we coined in our early life, and one which is now widely used on the internet.

Our essential point is that Left and Right, although far from obsolete, are essentially a measure of economics. As political establishments adopt either enthusiastically or reluctantly the prevailing economic orthodoxy — the neo-liberal strain of capitalism — the Left-Right division between mainstream parties becomes increasingly blurred. Instead, party differences tend to be more about identity issues. In the narrowing debate, our social scale is more crucial than ever.

We're indebted to people like Wilhelm Reich, Hans Eysenck and Theodor Adorno for their ground-breaking work in this field. We believe that, in an age of diminishing ideology, The Political Compass helps a new generation in particular to get a better idea of where they stand politically — and the sort of political company they keep.

https://www.politicalcompass.org

You should have known, being the expert you claim to be.

A) You are putting words in my mouth I am no more an expert on poli-sci than you are.

B) Again politicalcompass is just ONE group of people who think they have a definition for what constitutes an accurate representatiuon of political ideology. Just because they claim it ius universal does not make it so.

But here is the fundamental issue with political compass which many people seem to skip over:

The questions are loaded and the choices are too limited and narrow. For example:

Question #1: If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

I have four options of strong disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree.

When my actual answer is a jumbled combination of all of those. It erects a dichotomy and expects to gain an accurate picture of my political ideology?

Question #3 No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it's foolish to be proud of it.

Again a dichotomy. Either its foolish to be proud of your country or its not. But its a matter of I both strongly disagree and strongly agree with this statement. I can be proud to be American, and take pride when my country's football team kicks England's team's ass in the world cup. I can be proud to be American when an American scientist discovers the cure for HIV in the future. But it is foolish to be proud of America because we are "free" or "great" etc. and when people usually use the term proud to be an American I usually roll my eyes. But that does not counter the fact that I have felt a certain pride and sense of nationalism for my country in certain things.


And both of those are on the first page.

The issue with the test is it does not accurately reflect my ideology. Each time I take it, which is usually around election time, I usually end up with something different. Not because my views necessarily have changed, but because my perspective of the question is not as clear.

And the way the questions are set up, it would not be an accurate or reliable means of gauging someone's political leanings.

I will stick to quotes and I would rather have people write detailed responses to what they think the solutions to these questions are rather than rely on simplified strongly disagreed to strongly agreed answers.

purplerat wrote:

crank wrote:This is pretty good. It starts out with how lucky they are that they're both running against the only person they could beat.

Well except for all the people they both already beat.

As for Clinton do you really think she couldn't have beaten just about any GOP candidate? Cruz, Carson, Santorum, Fiorina, Huckabee, Paul, Christie, Perry - all would have wiped the floor with Clinton?

It's a joke, you do know the Daily Show is comedy?. I think she'd probably win if she ran against me, or Martin Shkreli. Right now, shits too volatile, I wouldn't risk betting on anything political or economic

Hillary "has run to the right of the Obama administration on every major foreign policy issue"...

Hillary Clinton’s Support for the Iraq War Was No Fluke

Hillary Clinton has run to the right of the Obama administration on every major foreign policy issue — and she’s left a trail of devastation in her wake.

By Medea Benjamin
March 9, 2016.
...

...
On Afghanistan, she advocated a repeat of the surge in Iraq. When the top U.S. commander in Kabul, General Stanley McChrystal, asked Obama for 40,000 more troops to fight the Taliban in mid-2009, several top officials — including Vice President Joe Biden — objected, insisting that the public had lost patience with a conflict that had already dragged on too long. But Clinton backed McChrystal and wound up favoring even more surge troops than Defense Secretary Gates did. Obama ultimately sent another 30,000 American soldiers to Afghanistan.

Clinton’s State Department also provided cover for the expansion of the not-so-covert drone wars in Pakistan and Yemen. Clinton’s top legal adviser, Harold Koh, exploited his pre-government reputation as an advocate for human rights to declare in a 2010 speech that the government had the right not only to detain people without any charges at Guantanamo Bay, but also to kill them with unmanned aerial vehicles anywhere in the world.
...

...
Clinton advocated arming Syrian rebels long before the Obama administration agreed to do so. In 2012, she allied with CIA Director David Petraeus to promote a U.S.-supplied-and-trained proxy army in Syria. As a U.S. Army general, Petraeus spent enormous amounts of money training Iraqi and Afghan soldiers with little success, but that did not deter him and Clinton from seeking a similar project in Syria. Together, they campaigned for more direct and aggressive U.S. support for the rebels, a plan supported by leading Republicans like John McCain and Lindsey Graham.
...

Full text at:
http://fpif.org/hillary-clintons-support-iraq-war-no-fluke/

crank wrote:

purplerat wrote:

crank wrote:This is pretty good. It starts out with how lucky they are that they're both running against the only person they could beat.

Well except for all the people they both already beat.

As for Clinton do you really think she couldn't have beaten just about any GOP candidate? Cruz, Carson, Santorum, Fiorina, Huckabee, Paul, Christie, Perry - all would have wiped the floor with Clinton?

It's a joke, you do know the Daily Show is comedy?. I think she'd probably win if she ran against me, or Martin Shkreli. Right now, shits too volatile, I wouldn't risk betting on anything political or economic

It's not like it's some one off joke. It's a narrative anti-Clinton folks, particularly on the left, have been trying to build that she's a terrible candidate in terms of electability when in fact the opposite is true which is that she is as dominate a candidate as we've seen in a long time in US presidential elections.

If that's a joke, stick to your day job. If it's not a joke, it's a joke.

Come on, even the Great and Wonderful Bernie Sanders couldn't even come very close to beating her.

purplerat wrote:Come on, even the Great and Wonderful Bernie Sanders couldn't even come very close to beating her.

Bernie Sanders.

One cant mention his name.

willhud9 wrote:

Willie71 wrote:Here's some common knowledge for you.

The enduring appeal of The Political Compass lies in its universality, and the fact that it's not a fly-by-night election-time survey, but a continually accessible profile of a political personality applicable to all democracies. Although we'd like the time to develop more updates than we can sometimes offer, we remain a tool for comparing the politics of countries and well-known political figures, past and present. We invite you to check out some of our other features, such as the Iconochasms — a word that we coined in our early life, and one which is now widely used on the internet.

Our essential point is that Left and Right, although far from obsolete, are essentially a measure of economics. As political establishments adopt either enthusiastically or reluctantly the prevailing economic orthodoxy — the neo-liberal strain of capitalism — the Left-Right division between mainstream parties becomes increasingly blurred. Instead, party differences tend to be more about identity issues. In the narrowing debate, our social scale is more crucial than ever.

We're indebted to people like Wilhelm Reich, Hans Eysenck and Theodor Adorno for their ground-breaking work in this field. We believe that, in an age of diminishing ideology, The Political Compass helps a new generation in particular to get a better idea of where they stand politically — and the sort of political company they keep.

https://www.politicalcompass.org

You should have known, being the expert you claim to be.

A) You are putting words in my mouth I am no more an expert on poli-sci than you are.

B) Again politicalcompass is just ONE group of people who think they have a definition for what constitutes an accurate representatiuon of political ideology. Just because they claim it ius universal does not make it so.

But here is the fundamental issue with political compass which many people seem to skip over:

The questions are loaded and the choices are too limited and narrow. For example:

Question #1: If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

I have four options of strong disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree.

When my actual answer is a jumbled combination of all of those. It erects a dichotomy and expects to gain an accurate picture of my political ideology?

Question #3 No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it's foolish to be proud of it.

Again a dichotomy. Either its foolish to be proud of your country or its not. But its a matter of I both strongly disagree and strongly agree with this statement. I can be proud to be American, and take pride when my country's football team kicks England's team's ass in the world cup. I can be proud to be American when an American scientist discovers the cure for HIV in the future. But it is foolish to be proud of America because we are "free" or "great" etc. and when people usually use the term proud to be an American I usually roll my eyes. But that does not counter the fact that I have felt a certain pride and sense of nationalism for my country in certain things.


And both of those are on the first page.

The issue with the test is it does not accurately reflect my ideology. Each time I take it, which is usually around election time, I usually end up with something different. Not because my views necessarily have changed, but because my perspective of the question is not as clear.

And the way the questions are set up, it would not be an accurate or reliable means of gauging someone's political leanings.

I will stick to quotes and I would rather have people write detailed responses to what they think the solutions to these questions are rather than rely on simplified strongly disagreed to strongly agreed answers.

It's ok that you don't understand this. Look at the FAQ. Many of your "concerns" are addressed.

Part of the reason you don't get the questions is that you are a product of American propaganda. It's always the Americans (not all Americans ) who have a problem with this. It contradicts the propaganda in your textbooks.

You really think you are smarter and better informed by the numerous people who have based their careers understanding political science to come up with this? A bit narcissistic, isn't it? Another American trait. College dropouts thinking they know more than experts in the field.

purplerat wrote:Come on, even the Great and Wonderful Bernie Sanders couldn't even come very close to beating her.

The problem is, you can't fix stupid, ....... Or corruption.

Willie71 wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Willie71 wrote:Here's some common knowledge for you.

The enduring appeal of The Political Compass lies in its universality, and the fact that it's not a fly-by-night election-time survey, but a continually accessible profile of a political personality applicable to all democracies. Although we'd like the time to develop more updates than we can sometimes offer, we remain a tool for comparing the politics of countries and well-known political figures, past and present. We invite you to check out some of our other features, such as the Iconochasms — a word that we coined in our early life, and one which is now widely used on the internet.

Our essential point is that Left and Right, although far from obsolete, are essentially a measure of economics. As political establishments adopt either enthusiastically or reluctantly the prevailing economic orthodoxy — the neo-liberal strain of capitalism — the Left-Right division between mainstream parties becomes increasingly blurred. Instead, party differences tend to be more about identity issues. In the narrowing debate, our social scale is more crucial than ever.

We're indebted to people like Wilhelm Reich, Hans Eysenck and Theodor Adorno for their ground-breaking work in this field. We believe that, in an age of diminishing ideology, The Political Compass helps a new generation in particular to get a better idea of where they stand politically — and the sort of political company they keep.

https://www.politicalcompass.org

You should have known, being the expert you claim to be.

A) You are putting words in my mouth I am no more an expert on poli-sci than you are.

B) Again politicalcompass is just ONE group of people who think they have a definition for what constitutes an accurate representatiuon of political ideology. Just because they claim it ius universal does not make it so.

But here is the fundamental issue with political compass which many people seem to skip over:

The questions are loaded and the choices are too limited and narrow. For example:

Question #1: If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

I have four options of strong disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree.

When my actual answer is a jumbled combination of all of those. It erects a dichotomy and expects to gain an accurate picture of my political ideology?

Question #3 No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it's foolish to be proud of it.

Again a dichotomy. Either its foolish to be proud of your country or its not. But its a matter of I both strongly disagree and strongly agree with this statement. I can be proud to be American, and take pride when my country's football team kicks England's team's ass in the world cup. I can be proud to be American when an American scientist discovers the cure for HIV in the future. But it is foolish to be proud of America because we are "free" or "great" etc. and when people usually use the term proud to be an American I usually roll my eyes. But that does not counter the fact that I have felt a certain pride and sense of nationalism for my country in certain things.


And both of those are on the first page.

The issue with the test is it does not accurately reflect my ideology. Each time I take it, which is usually around election time, I usually end up with something different. Not because my views necessarily have changed, but because my perspective of the question is not as clear.

And the way the questions are set up, it would not be an accurate or reliable means of gauging someone's political leanings.

I will stick to quotes and I would rather have people write detailed responses to what they think the solutions to these questions are rather than rely on simplified strongly disagreed to strongly agreed answers.

It's ok that you don't understand this. Look at the FAQ. Many of your "concerns" are addressed.

Part of the reason you don't get the questions is that you are a product of American propaganda. It's always the Americans (not all Americans ) who have a problem with this. It contradicts the propaganda in your textbooks.

You really think you are smarter and better informed by the numerous people who have based their careers understanding political science to come up with this? A bit narcissistic, isn't it? Another American trait. College dropouts thinking they know more than experts in the field.

So citation to those numerous of people who have based their careers understanding political science.

Go on. Once you do that then I can provide political scientists who say the opposite, because too be honest, anyone who thinks political science is a rigid sociological field is not worth the time of day to be taken seriously.

Just like economics, the concept of political science is fluid, dynamic, and not set in stone. Different opinions can all have factual basis and be correct in many ways.

But if simply expressing an opinion is narcissistic than you sir fit right in that definition.

Willhud is a college drop out? Dafuq?

willhud9 wrote:I'm still waiting for the substantiation of the claims that Clinton lied.

Lied over what - she's lied so much who the fuck knows what to believe from her putrid mouth anymore. Sniper fire in bosnia anyone?

Corneel wrote:

crank wrote:Most of all the hoopla seems completely misdirected. Who the fuck cared if she was emailing TS shit? Most of it is BS and shouldn't be labeled with any security level. The real question is why she had her own server, and what non-secure emails is she hiding? All the non-indictment talk of the FBI seems narrowly directed at the question of transmitting classified documents through email, when to me the real question is what other dealings might be revealed if they had access to all the emails, which they never had as for as I know.

And what sinister dealings might be revealed if we had a look at your e-mails?

Are you suggesting that the FBI should have access to all e-mails of any person? Or is that just Hillary Clinton that should be treated as such?

How on earth does your brain work? You think someone in public office should be immune from investigation? Do you think your emails will be "immune" from the police if they ever investigate you?

willhud9 wrote:And no one batted an eyelash when other secretary of states did this, and other high up government officials used private servers. Just when Clinton does it omg how unethical. Puh-lease.

Were they running for president?

Teague wrote:

willhud9 wrote:And no one batted an eyelash when other secretary of states did this, and other high up government officials used private servers. Just when Clinton does it omg how unethical. Puh-lease.

Were they running for president?

who cares? what does running for president have to do with the fact that what Clinton did was not really unethical except from arbitrary parameters.

I will even go so far as to say realpolitik nails this closer on the head than our current legal system does:

In order for substantial communication between world leaders and governments to actually do meaningful change sometimes communications have to be off-the-record. You may see that as dodgy and gives leeway for abuses, but considering a) there is no reason to suspect Clinton that she abused her power in any significant way or b) was acting against the interest of the United States I really see no harm or foul in what she did.

You and others may choose to nitpick on little things like this, but I am of the mindset that that serves nothing but a distraction, much like the Republicans did with Bill Clinton while he was in office.