I took the test again now that Ron Paul is no longer an option and my opinions have changed a bit since then.
I'm now 93% in common with Gary Johnsonk, while being only 64% in common with Mitt Romney.
I don't believe illegal immigrants should be immediately granted benefits or the rights citizenship entails, but neither do I wish to deport/imprison working persons doing hellish farm jobs that no citizen in their right mind actually wants.
The thing with that is that I don't believe that those jobs would even exist if the illegal immmigrants who are working off the books were not here. Instead, the jobs would have better conditions, and pay better. They'd have to. First of all, there is a minimum wage (I know I said I opposed federal minimum wage standards on my policy position thing linked above. That's because of different costs of living in different places. I'm fine with state or local level standards on wages) and secondly, people who are legally here have a safety net and the like. They have the right to legally work. They have some bargaining power. Those illegally here don't. And they shouldn't. There are twelve million illegal immigrants here, that's potentially twelve million less jobs.
That being said, a full-scale deportation would probably be impossible, and I don't support cracking down on everyone's civil liberties in order to do it, nor do I support exceptionally cracking down on Hispanic Americans (Some of, which, believe it or not, are legally here
) in order to do so. These days I think the Arizona law might well cross that line, even though it only can be applied when, at minimum, a traffic infraction or some such is received. If we could force people to show ID just whenever, it would CLEARLY cross the line, no questions asked.
What we need to do is reduce foreign involvement, bring our troops home, and have enough troops on the Mexican border that illegal crossings will not happen anymore. Then we can discuss under what circumstances LEGAL immigration is to be permitted (I'm in favor of legal immigration as much as is possible while not increasing unemployment, and I don't know what those numbers are). From what I've heard, Mexico's immigration laws are even tougher than ours, so they shouldn't be complaining about it.
So I'm rock-ribbed against giving freebies and benefits to people who are here illegally, which is conservative,
I'm also against wholesale deportation and imprisonment, which you'll find Reps and Dems are both against. Except for extreme whackjobs like Michael Savage.
And I want to improve wages and working conditions, which is definitely liberal.
Imprisonment is clearly whackjob material, but I don't think deporting illegal immigrants when we do catch them is radical at all. If you catch someone breaking the law, the correct response surely isn't to let them continue to do so.
I support tactical strike to eliminate Iran's nuke facilities, but no ground war.
I'm iffy on this one. But I'll address it below where its discussed in the posts I quoted below. Needless to say, I'm very interested in the foreign policy discussion.
Legalize all drugs, to reduce violent crime associated with it and release people with a medical and psychological addictive condition from prison, which is for criminals, and hopefully get the people who are addicted the help they need.
They're people, by the way. I have family who suffered from addiction. People need help to overcome it. Prison isn't help. I support an aggressive anti-drug and anti-addiction campaign. Medical help is LESS EXPENSIVE THAN PRISON.
I agree with this, or at least, "Decriminalize all drugs" is a statement I would agree with. I also think most of them should be legalized. Not sure that people should be allowed to use cocaine or heroin or the like though. It sounds good in principle, but for anyone who has a family there will almost certainly be some kind of abuse or neglect going on with those kinds of drugs. I don't think use should be "Criminal" though. It needs to be treated as a health problem. Not a problem which we can conveniently throw people into a cage and forget about them. If that's what you are going to do about it, it would be better to just not do anything.
Apart from that, solid Green/Democratic all the way.
You didn't address the Patriot Act at all, what do you think about it? I recall to you saying you opposed it elsewhere.
Sadly, the debate on the Patriot Act seems to be "Keep it" (Romney) VS "Reform it" (Obama.) Neither candidate will actually get rid of it. Amazingly, ALL of the third party candidates want to get rid of it. Even Virgil Goode, who political compass has for some reason at the top of its chart, wants to get rid of it. Yet Romney and Obama both agree they want to keep it. What gives?
In any case, on fiscal issues and gun rights I tend to agree with the Republicans, I am more pro-life than practically any Republican other than Rick Santorum (Who I agree with on almost nothing else, BTW
), I really wish Federal politicians on both sides would shut up about gay marriage (Constitutionally speaking, its a state issue), on a lot of social issues I do side with a lot of liberals, although Obama rarely agrees with us, and on foreign policy I'm slightly less isolationist than Ron Paul, but far more isolationist than anyone else.
I am hoping that Barack Obama wins the election. Between the Patriot Act, the way the TSA treated the Paul family "To protect Mitt Romney" (It was completely absurd) without Mitt Romney openly condemning it, the way Ron Paul supporters were treated at the RNC, and foreign policy, I don't identify with the Republican Party at all anymore. And amazingly, the two areas where Romney is more liberal is fiscal policy and abortion, the two issues I actually agree with the GOP on (Romney is saying he's pro-life now, but "Except rape, incest, and the life of the mother being in danger. I like, a lot of Republicans, think only that last exception is valid as its a form of self-defense, but think that in cases of rape or incest that murder isn't an approrpriate response.) Not that I expect you guys to agree with me there, I'm just saying, its like Romney is a conservative only on the issues I DON'T agree with them on, namely, on social and foreign policy, while being liberal or moderate on areas I'm conservative on, like fiscal policy and abortion.
Obama really isn't much better for me. He's even more liberal on the areas that I'm conservative on. He's a bit more libertarian on social issues, but not enough for me to care much. "Reforming" the Patriot Act is not the same as abolishing it. He actually increased TSA powers to the point where they can all but rape people and get away with it. Neither side wants to do anything to help drug users but instead just wants to lock people up. Neither side is interested in reducing funds across the board to get out of this recession like Gary Johnson is willing to do. Neither side likes the free market much, rather, both sides support both the top and the bottom of society while leaving the middle class behind, and paying the highest percentage of taxes. Neither side is actually going to stop printing money repetatively and devaluing our currency. Both sides have proven more than willing to start foreign wars.
The main reason I'm rooting for Obama is, other than that he's not quite the epic flip flopper that Mitt is, is that he only gets four more years, period. If Mitt Romney wins, I am almost guaranteed to have nobody to vote for in 2016, since I am not voting for Romney, ever.
So yeah, that's where I stand. If I could vote, I'd vote for the LP candidate and forget it this year
The way people just say stuff like this so casually. God damn.
This is the same country that threatened, and continues to threaten, to wipe countries off the map, and has developed the long range rockets necessary to deliver a nuclear weapon into Israel.
Now, when they repeatedly promise that they will obliterate Israel, I take them at their word, and knock the gun out of their hand and say no, that's a bad Iran, no biscuit.
If it were about nuclear power then the international community has offered to help set them up, and provide the low-grade fuel they need. Instead they choose to enrich it well past that point, the only possible purpose being to make nuclear weapons, which they will use to destroy the infidel, as they've promised they would.
The real question is whether or not Israel has nuclear weapons. Nobody really knows. If Israel has nuclear weapons, than I imagine that it would not lead to a nuclear war that Iran has them as well. I don't think Iran wants to get blown up. They want to kill Israel sure, they want to dish it out, but they do not want to take it.
If Israel is NOT nuclear armed than, if we don't want Israel nuked, we'd darn well better not let Iran have one. Sure they MIGHT not launch one, but its not like I trust them.
Now, ground war, on the other hand, should ABSOLUTELY be off the table. No more foreign wars. That's what GOT us the Patriot Act, the new regulations, exc. foreign policy. Its all connected. That's a realization I came to fairly recently, and I'm so glad I've realized it.
I can see how you think people have a cavalier, gung-ho, cowboy attitude towards bombing Iran.
However, I think most people take Iran at their word that they will wipe Israel out. I think where you differ from the people who would bomb Iran is that you don't (correct me if I'm wrong) see any reason to ever intervene anywhere for any reasons. The rest of us do see some places and reasons where it would be appropriate to intervene, this being one of them. I also don't think anyone wants a strike to be a first option.
I think we're all for any solution that keeps Iran from getting the bomb and avoids bloodshed. The Iranians seem dead-set on provoking just that.
Civver is a total isolationist AFAIK, and he doesn't support Israel at all either.
I am pretty much a pacifist in most respects and I don't like offensive war where diplomacy/sanctions can get the job done.
That said, when someone says they will obliterate you the first chance they get, and defy the entirety of the world in attempting to gain the weapons to do so, and continually fund terrorists which openly attack your nation decade after decade, and this nation has also historically threatened other nations in the middle east and south asia, and is a totalitarian government which abuses its own people, its kind of hard to sit down and have a spot of tea and say "Well, you can have nukes. You also know you can fire them and we can't stop you from doing so. And you also think that firing them will gain you instant access to heaven. But, please accept this lovely gift basket should you decide not to first strike Israel with nukes!"
And if that is your plan, since all sanctions and diplomatic efforts have failed to deter, I want you to know that I am very glad you are not in charge.
That is precisely analogous to doing absolutely nothing when you see someone pull a gun and aim it at someone. I am very glad you are not in charge.
I wouldn't agree with that last analogy. As a country we can't stop all war, obviously. Nuclear war is a step above "Normal" war, however.
In the light of what MagisterCultuum posted I should just make clear that I didn't make thee claim that Iran was going to attack Israel. If accurate, that is even more reason not to touch Iran.
Who are you addressing that to?
I believe he was addressing Civver764.
