Someone explain to me what my results mean
Also post your results.
"I found out about politics yesterday"
What
>>69907109
You're a boring centrist. Grow up, develop some opinions and try again in a few years.
>>69907109
I dont know man I think you've just found out about politics last day.
>>69907304
I actually did the test two years ago and got the top right green part, now it's moved more right, so you gotta give me credit
>>69907452
Okay. Have some credit.
>>69907402
So what's the difference between the blue and purple right wing?
>>69907452
How could you have possibly changed so little in the last two years?
>>69907525
Personal liberty. Guns, drugs, porn, sex, morals etc. Blue is less purple is more.
>>69907593
I'm not a regular on 4chan. I just thought you guys would know since y'all love politics, and I also wanted to see the results of some people on here.
>>69907354
>Iraq
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0kcaziP-0o
>>69907109
Good quarter, but you are still a centist faggot.
>>69907109
Oh Shit
>>69907437
>>69908497
Armchair Hitler.
>>69908614
which is a good thing, right?
Moonbase please
>>69908683
Sure, *tips respectfully in your direction*.
>>69908159
Noice
March 21st 2003 was the best day of mu life
hi fellas
>>69908730
Post yours good sir *vapes*
>>69908761
Oh, I was trying to upset you
damn
Rate me, gentlemen
I got into politics about a year ago. Slowly moving away from the center.
now i'm >>69908799
but i used to be pic related
>>69907109
Your results mean you are a typical pleb that will go with whatever way the wind blows.
They also mean that you may not even be worthy of licking my nationalist boot
>>69908917
this is me now, what does this mean????
>>69909081
you have no strong feelings one way or the other
>>69909200
i consider myself fiscally conservative and socially liberal fwiw.
>>69908862
That would only upset 20% of Iraq i.e. salty arab sunnis
>>69909229
what the actual FUCK you trash commie
get out get out get out go to revleft instead you homo
>>69908869
7/10, not socialist but slightly nationalist.
>>69909009
Calls me pleb but you have android
Anyway I did it again cause I felt I just didn't carefully read some questions
>>69909359
>>69909400
>apple user calling ANYONE a pleb
wew
>>69909283
idk try taking the test again, maybe you didn't understand some questions?
the chart in >>69908917 is very centrist and doesn't tell much except i used to lean slightly to the right
>>69909283
oh the "i'm greedy and like to suck dicks" mindset
>>69909312
ISIS world domination when
>>69909422
I don't even like Hitler, but in communism only the jew wins. Are you Jewish?
>>69907109
anything at the bottom is normal/ /pol/. Top-right is nu/pol/. Top-left is SJW.
>>69909724
I'd only suck white dicks
>>69909816
Does this mean I'm cool now?
>>69909471
>>69910020
Hello friends
>>69909471
>>69910020
>>69910157
>>69909471
>>69910020
>>69910157
Not being snarky, serious question:
Why are you on /pol/?
>>69910020
>legalize it bro
>it's just a plant
>all natural and comes from the earth
>it cures cancer duuuuuuuude
just took the test again. previous one (>>69908799
) was a couple of weeks ago
>>69910266
This applies to you too, k i k e b o y
>>69910300
Because I like to dispute with people who have different opinions and I like to make fun of red pilled idiots
>>69910317
this is just dumb. try again, redneck.
did i do good?
>>69910518
I'm neither jewish nor communist. You seem to be though. Keeping the goyim down while you profit from their sweat.
>>69910662
>clinton
>right wing
i wonder who's behind this one
>>69907109
You have strong and perhaps conflicting opinions on a range of issues, and there are some things you just don't care about.
>>69910662
Clinton:
>Anti gun
>Anti drug
>Anti free speech
>Anti free press
Somehow still lower down than the Republicans.
I sense $$$ at work.
>>69910748
>>69907109
You don't know anything about politics
>>69909816
>>69910009
Seriously guys, what does this mean? Must I commit soduko?
>>69910796
Political compass believes that only conservatives can be authoritarian, the questions are biased to make the authoritarian left look like free-speech hippies.
There are questions about homosexuality but no questions about "hate speech" which is where the authoritarian left shines.
>>69910300
Nice digits. There is usually something going on here, good memes, lots of discussion. We're between anime seasons so /a/ is kind of flat right now too. And I love making fun of delusional trumpfags, he is literally unelectable. I'm soaking all the hype up now for a massive spree of shitposting when he gets schlonged in the general election. It's going to be glorious.
>>69910748
>>69910796
She's pretty authoritarian when it comes to national security and is pretty much a neo-con economically. This is coming from a lefty who is going to vote for her.
>>69907109
it means you're a fence-sitting loser
>>69911030
shit and i don't even post on reddit
>>69911169
Your political views are a contradiction in terms. If a man is not free to do what he wishes with his assets then in what way is he free?
>>69910300
Just trying to figure out the essence of the board and check the newest memes of US pres elections.
Why is this considered to be a Jew meme zionist thing? It actually represents the opposite of what they they theoretically push (PC, SJW, multiculturalism, etc.).
>>69911717
>Keep the goyim down while you make money
It's the prefect jew ideology which is why all the jews in power follow it - >>69911169.
how did i do
>>69911944
I think you are supposed to be going in the opposite direction
>>69911944
"Apathetic normie who reads the news on his browser homepage every few days and likes Facebook posts"
I don't use the compass because it's inherently leftist and I usually end up in the blue even though I'm mostly anti-state, mostly because I think the NAP doesn't apply all the time.
>>69910973
Someone plz
>>69907109
>>69907525
Treading vs not treading on me
>>69912132
Wow I didn't know any libertarians were left on this board, it's been a rough few years for you guys
what do mine mean?
Probably means you need a third dimension to the graph. I end up in (-5,-5) usually.
It's inaccurate to position yourself like that. There should at least be a heatmap on these. Not that that reflects you well still. Better though.
>>69912285
Do you enjoy interracial gayporn? Sure seems like it
>>69912285
C
U
C
K
>>69912264
In November I think instead of voting I'm going to stand outside my local polling place waving a Roman legion flag for a few hours. Maybe I'll get on the news or something.
>>69912222
the fuck is this
>>69910894
Its impossible that obongo lands there
>>69909471
>>69910020
>>69910157
>>69911169
>>69911944
hey pals
>>69910300
you fascists can be pretty funny every once in a while
>>69912476
Quads
>>69912523
that's politicalcompass.org for you
if you're not a hippie, you're literally hitler
>>69911497
Reddit is that way >>
>>69912470
New York Times Democracy best government
>>69912285
What's the link to this test?
>>69912470
We don't score that poorly on political freedom. It's just that cucks judge you for your opinions. Which I hate but it has nothing to do with the politics/law directly.
Or I guess inciting violence would be a free speech thing.
>>69912476
His political evolution I assume.
>>69912840
which one
>>69910894
>>69912523
>>69912733
>nigger pushes for gay marriage and gibsmedats
>still nearly on par with Santorum and Gingrich
What the fuck are they doing
>>69911944
fervent Trump supporter here, I keep getting exactly this result too, what gives
>>69912523
*rushes in*
DID SOMEONE SAY
*makes college free*
A POLITICAL
*dies of old age*
REVOLUTION???
>>69912790
jokes on you i was just pretending
my actual chart
![chart[12].png](https://i.imgur.com/yHfg54A.png "chart[12].png")
wut m8 im far right religious fundamentalist
>>69913229
>>>/JIDF/ is that way --->
>>69913246
Just like Mao and Stalin.
>>69907109
i'm only 20 lads
>>69911819
B-but I think all countries should follow something close to that, bashing leftcucks and being nationalist while praticing good and old free market capitalism
>>69910796
Yeah she's definitively right wing as from a global perspective.
Maybe not in the US. Obama was considered center right according to most respectable political commentators.
>>69913498
jokes on you i was just pretending
my actual chart
If you answer any question about business in any way other than "Big businesses are amazing" then you're instantly placed on the left side of the spectrum.
Pretty shit test to be honest.
>>69907109
Judge me /pol/
>>69910978
>voting for Hillary
Are the presidential candidates decided already or are you a moron? You're clearly not a lefty if you can vote for Hillary.
>>69907109
Im new to politics, what does my graph say about the type of person i am.
Its okay to meme me guys
>>69913246
>får right
Review the questions and see wtf you did that's right wing.
>>69913898
weak
>>69913910
Yes I can, Bernie would be a horrible president. Politics is about compromise and Clinton is a compromise
[spoiler]still voting trump[/spoiler]
>>69907109
Green - Tumblr
Purple - reddit
Blue - /pol/
Red - /leftypol/
>>69914191
>>69913498
I'm more paleo right,
modern sense of right wing has shifted very much,
majority of slavs, be they right or left get upper left for some reason
I'm socially 100% right, way more than general 4chan, but I guess i get that because I don't want some "free" (jew) market to turn the world into anarchy
>>69915295
>Purple - reddit
Is this true?
>>69915712
Nah m8, I'm just meme-ing.
>>69914559
She's a liar who doesn't hold a stable position. She's the epitome of corruption in politics.
Anon there's just no way you've looked at this enough. Bernie has been a senator for many many years and their compromises are well known and have been brought up many times in the presidential debate. You're insane if you think he won't have to compromise.
Tell me what makes Hillary so good at compromise. Because she's right of Obama? Is Obama what you wanted? I have no problem if you're positioning yourself where you like but don't call it being leftist if you're not. Voting Democrat has not been left in a long time and now you get Eisenhower vs Clinton and you consider Clinton the compromise? It's ridiculous.
I hope Americans in general care about their country more than I do. You have a military that's too large to be irresponsible with.
>>69915712
No. Both tumblr and reddit are green.
/pol/ is a mix of all other 3.
>>69916077
p.s. Given your statements I should make it clear that Eisenhower is Sanders. Not Trump.
>>69916077
i wish more people here thought as you do
tfw commie
My communist levels have improved from the last one at least
>>69917010
if everyone has potatoes, everyone is happy
>>69916077
I get what you are saying, but Sanders has an incredibly partisan voting record, his rhetoric is partisan. I want people who at least can pretend they will work across the aisle. You think Obama's election drove people to the right in this country? Sanders would do even more so.
But it's not even about that. This election is about Supreme Court seats. Hillary is a guaranteed 2 term president while Sanders would never get re-elected.
Not being an american you may not understand my logic. I may be a leftist, but I'm also a pragmatist. If you try to shove an ultra-progressive agenda down america's throat, it's going to backfire horribly.
>>69916391
I'm just describing a small part of you political history.
>Clinton administration - today
>Eisenhower and the new deal
At least one of those should be common knowledge right? Just one is enough.
I don't see what I've shown in terms of thinking. All I've shown that I'm thinking is that I care about anon expressing him/herself (cmon, it's a her, vote for female president without a clue) politically according to their beliefs.
>>69917415
also I'm the guy you were replying to, new ID because I got on my computer
>>69909229
BASED, who else here /Strasserist/
>>69907109
sosach /po review
>>69907402
Nice taste anon
Rate me, /pol/.
I'm sorry senpai I have failed
But in 6 months of browsing /pol/ I've moved 3pts. up and 3pts. right.
>>69907109
>>69918115
Where can I take the bottom test?
>>69911030
cool im lil'budd
>also true freedom incoming
>>69917415
Not when they see the effects. Anon people are easily swayed by nice change. Bernie will win everyone that matters over.
I don't think Obama drove people right. I think Obama drew out the spectrum by closing the gap on some issues and remaining where he is on others. Both Clinton, Sanders and Obama have talked about how problematic partisanship. If you look at Bernies outreach to Liberty university and the response to that perhaps you will change your mind. They don't agree on everything. But that's not required. Clinton has so much weight against her on both sides. She's saying she's entirely left right now and she was entirely right (lol) before.
Voting based on how much you think people will dislike what is implemented based on prejudice doesn't make sense. Look on opinion polls on most of the issues they've talked about. Look at subsets of the population. That's what I do here. It works very well to predict response. Especially when goals are as clear as Bernie makes them. Hillary isn't clear at all, can't judge what she will do. And to be completely honest. Trump is a nationalist. It's not unfeasible he'd be better for your country than Hillary if he'd chill with the aggressive attitude towards the ME. Because Hillary is also for war clearly. She has shown it time and time again. She's also for the global assassination campaign which is absolutely nuts. I'm not sure how to convey it to you well. It's literally 'kill whoever you like and their families without trial' . Do you think that shows the US as a power for peace. Torture is better. Turkey does that. We don't like Turkey but they're at least not as insane as the assassination campaign.
I guess I'm mini Hitler
>>69918486
>True freedom
>Not allowed to engage and distribute your own assets as you see fit
>Constantly under threat of government expropriation
Yeah sure. Come back when you're over 18.
>>69919213
communism is red einstein
>>69919552
ops
meant
>>69919449
>>69907109
Literally just posted a thread. Shit, here's mine.
>>69919552
He doesn't think you can create anarchist communism without the proletariate.
While all this means is that you will associate with like-minded individuals in an anarchic society.
>>69918581
First off, I doubt Bernie will win over the people who matter, you fail to understand how bought out and fucked up washington is. Second, Obama's election did drive the Republicans to the right, just look at the 2010 elections and the emergence of the tea party. Third, USA has never been a power for peace, that's pure propaganda. The USA protects its own economic interests on the global stage as it has been doing for most of its history. I disagree with it but these are all things out of my control. One man, bernie, can not solve all those issues. Our government is really fucked up. Hillary is a product of it and she knows how to navigate the ins and outs of Washington. I am not her biggest fan by any means but I think she is the best person for the job. Gonna disagree with you about trump there, he is a flip flopping megalomaniac loose cannon who only cares about his own image and fortune.
honestly it's refreshing to talk to a Swede on here who actually reflects your society's values instead if all the usual self hating Sweden is dead fascists
well shit
>>69907109
It means your little red dot is up and a little to the left of the center of the axes
>>69920626
Shit, right
im not seeing enough purple here
>>69920403
there are many elements at it here, but the main point is, freedom is only possible without society, and safty is only possible in the collective
so all other decisions come after this
>>69920457
>Obama
Yeah I said he spread out the spectrum. I don't think he moved the country more left he just got Republicans to be more towards the left. Perhaps I put it poorly.
>i doubt Bernie
He's gonna run against Trump. Look at the polls, he's a winner unlike Trump. He also has a lot of support from Republicans in his home state.
>The US has never been a power for peace
Yes I know. But that's the problem, Bernie or Trump is looking towards the nation or in the case of Trump, himself. Trump isn't in the war industry right now. He has far more to gain from other endeavours. Personally I don't see why he'd be after more money and power but I guess that's greed, often illogical.
>our government is fucked up
Yes. And Hillary is the only candidate left that takes money from super PACs. That's not a compromising politician looking to edge the country left. That's a politician looking to serve power.
How do you expect her to fix government? You think she will just forget the donations when she wins?
She doesn't 'navigate' at all. She's terrible at that. She's shown to be a straight up liar. She doesn't navigate and work for herself.
It's refreshing to see someone supporting Hillary that doesn't just fall over flat. But it's rather frustrating because I don't see the sense in it. Tbqh it sounds like you're giving me a poor excuse really. None of the stuff you're pointing at is really grounded in reality. It's all doubt and prejudice about what Republicans are. Republicans are a rather radical insurgency which could easily be subdued by giving them a few treats like holding off on gun control. It's a significant portion of your country who vote for that reason alone. Now you don't see Bernie or Hillary do this. But Hillary is a liar so you can't trust her even if you're a Republican. Do you think Republicans would vote for her because she's lying about something they like?
centrist libertarian-lite, I guess
Daily reminder that the further away from the center you are, the more immature you are.
Ideologies are retarded. Policy shouldn't be set in stone, it should change according to the situation we are into.
>>69912470
Capitalizt is best system
Excuse me, master race coming through.
>>69920809
The color is unimportant though, unless you're partisan.
>>69922233
Pretty true.
Here I answered in way that you shouldn't trust the rich guys and answered for more freedom and general social support among people.
So instead of quite authoritarian centrist I got a bit less authoritarian and quite leftist score.
How bad it is?
>>69922814
>>69923134
>commander
>feeling not thinking
Hitler.
>>69919552
If it's left of centre you implicitly agree wealth redistribution and, therefore, disagree with the harm principle.
>>69923008
You like the idea of armed men coming to your place of residence at night, seizing your assets and depriving you of your freedom.
Get it girl
>>69923897
Isn't that Stalin tier?
>>69924116
Yes...
rate
>>69924193
I'm not so authoritarian for it.
I just wanted corps kept in check, dammit.
>>69909471
test defines me a social democrat too, which would be true under peaceful circumstances, but I'm strongly against mass immigration, extremist feminism and the whole PC movement. I like /pol/'s tone about these issues.
>>69923766
See
>>69920403
It's voluntary redistribution/working for the collective.
Generally on a very local level. Really communists are proof that it's not impossible. It requires cultural backing, just like voluntarism would.
>>69924339
Corporations can only exist in a legal framework drawn up, provided for and enforced by the state.
>>69924480
Well, I meant big businesses, rich guys.
Because going full communism cannot end well.
>>69912470
NEW YORK TIMES DEMOCRACY GIB PLS
>>69924480
No anon not really. You can have a hierarchical structure in an anarchy. What's to say you couldn't?
>>69924357
And if someone doesn't want to 'volunteer' to have their assets 'redistributed'? Option a) the state uses force to seize said assets - authoritarianism. Option b) person refuses and wealth redistribution does not occur - libertarian capitalism.
>Really communists are proof that it's not impossible.
It's a contradiction in terms. Communism, if anything, is proof that option a is the most likely outcome.
>>69924638
Again, state-backed. The legal framework that allows corporations to enjoy the same rights as people (without the responsibilities) can only exist within tight government control. You really think that Comcast or Oracle would be doing nearly as well as they are without their state-sponsored monopolies litigation?
>only 3-4 purple in this thread
I remember when there used to be alot more purples posting. Those were better times on /pol/
>>69924438
>>69924718
If someone doesn't want to volunteer they don't belong in the commune. They can't take an unfair part of the profits because they've agreed when they went there to live. If you're born into the situation you're also free to leave at any age.
Anarcho-communism doesn't aspire to have big 'states', that's where moving becomes such a major inconvenience you're essentially forcing them.
>>69924716
The difference being that in a capitalist situation the hierarchy is natural, meritocratic and accountable. I would have thought someone from Sweden would understand the nightmares involved dealing with monopolies.
>>69925155
Yeah tell that to the millions of Soviet defectors executed/disappeared for attempting to cross the border.
>>69924967
It's alright bro, we're here for you.
how'd I do boys
>>69924947
Wait, I do not want to fund any firm.
I'm all for free business, but I do prefer to just keep an eye if some doesn't do any underhanded methods.
>>69925298
>in a communist society while under the proletariate
Yeah they were definitely in an Anarcho-communism m80. Because they'd be rounded up by the non existent government.
Stop being so closed minded. I'm for right wing liberalism too but you can't deny that it's a left-right spanning ideology when it's part of the idea to allow for just such freedoms.
>>69925573
Define 'underhanded methods'. Because, despite the cliched phrasing, it's a slippery slope.
>>69925706
They weren't, because anarcho-communism is a contradiction in terms. Someone will always be willing and able to seize power and before long your idyllic little nation of communes is a Glorious Union of Socialist Republiks being ruled over by a tyrant (glory be His name).
People unwilling to defend their assets are, by definition, vulnerable to tyranny.
>>69925158
>capitalist
Maybe in a voluntarist society.
But no, you really misunderstand how our system works. We have tons of legislation that attempts to keep government out of messing with things and structures that encourage conversation with unions. That's the solution here. Unions are huge here.
Monopolies happen due to government regulation of how a company is supposed to operate. There's that too but the worst we have is an anti-competition law that prohibits the state from taking over things. Lately (and this upset me) it was used to ensure that a municipal couldn't set up tax-paid WiFi Hotspot all over a city. That's retarded.
>>69925770
True.
The truth is that you cannot kept anyting static forever, that's why empires fall.
>>69926107
You're saying anarchy is unsustainable. ok i guess that's a point of view. But you're not accepting it's anarchy you're fighting not the combination Anarcho-communism. Anarcho-capitalism has the exact same 'problem'. (>implying people can't undertake large projects collectively if they want)
>>69926354
Well, to answer the question, I mean tax avoiding, misleading people, governemntal corruption and polluting the environment for starters.
>>69926577
>implying people can't undertake large projects collectively if they want
They can. The difference is that in a capitalist society the collective elements must be beneficial or the endeavour will fail. In a communist society the collectives can be propped up by the state for decades before they collapse and 30 million die to famine.
>>69926608
>tax avoiding
It's the government's job write the tax code and collect taxes. If it cannot write an efficient and enforceable tax code (see Britain's 17000 page monstrosity) then it deserves to lose money.
>misleading people
Companies which mislead people tend to go out of business pretty fast. Unless, of course, they're granted a monopoly such as ISPs or 'utilities'.
>governemntal corruption
I don't see how this is the fault of companies. Unless, of course, you're referring to the concept of lobbying i.e. collusion on the part of interested parties within the government. This kind of corruption could be easily sidestepped by outlawing corporate donations and forbidding special interests from holding office.
>polluting the environment
This is tougher, I completely agree with you on the matter of things like the dumping of toxic waste but carbon emissions seem to be self-regulating once a country enters a post-industrial stage of development. It's a lot easier to sell a product which doesn't come with a hefty load of carbon guilt.
>>69926786
Yes in a communist society that can happen. But communism is top left, not bottom left which is what anon had posted himself as.
How are you still confusing the two? Why really you even saying communism. I've told you if the world becomes free enough you don't need the proletariat. So the collectives would choose if they want an army to protect them. Anyone who doesn't pay is fair game obviously. Simultaneously a voluntarist movement (individuals who choose to work in hierarchies instead, really, since they don't have to have cohesive neighborhoods even) can also pay this very same army to protect the sovereignty of the region.
It's the two most compatible extreme ideologies that exist and you're not getting it. It's such a simple concept. I'm tired of this discussion now because you can't even use the right words.
>>69927820
And I'm tiring of you not understanding that people who are unwilling to defend themselves and their assets (i.e. wishy-washy greenies) are vulnerable to tyranny.
>>69928023
Oh wait. So you're just prejudice against Anarcho-communists. Trust me left+liberal doesn't mean gun control everywhere.
Political spectrum isn't that simple.
It all makes sense now famalam.
>>69925093
>these are all people I'd send to the gulag
Sure thing cuckservative
>>69928515
Not exactly, though I am observant enough to notice that the kind of person who truly believes his fellow man in inherently good and kind is exactly the kind of person who will be trodden on by the reality of self-interest.
I very much approve of collectivism for mutual benefit but I know to watch my back because mutual benefit doesn't stay mutual forever.
Why are people with green or red squares on this board? I respect your beliefs and all, but this is /pol/. I accept purplefags though.
>>69918486
Holy fuck go kill yourself
>>69927568
So I guess the solution is, ironically, small government which isn't strong enough to police everything, including citizens rioting over company dumping toxic waste.
That would require people to be activ, though.
>>69922194
Sorry for taking a while to respond to your post.
First, are we referring to the same terms about "left" and "right"? Because by right I mean conservative, republican, etc. And Obama did not drive republicans to the left, they lurched hard to the right. Like I said, the emergence of the Tea Party and the Freedom Caucus. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for this, including the radicalization of this very board.
We're going to have to agree to disagree about Bernie's chances to win. If you look at the data it seems clear to me that Hillary has a much better chance of taking Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. And that is actually my number one priority is getting a liberal candidate who can win so that we can have a liberal supreme court. That is the fundamental basis of my support for Hillary. I'm from Chicago, which is very diverse, but I've spent time in rural areas. Socialism and a radical progressive agenda scare people, and that is what Bernie stands for. It's hard to explain how adverse americans are to the term socialism, but we've had intense propaganda and cultural conditioning against it for well over a century. Change in this country needs to happen slowly, and Bernie stands for radical progressive change, whereas Hillary stands for more incremental progressive change. That leads me to issues.
The democratic candidates are actually pretty similar. However, they do have some differences. One important one to me is healthcare. I'm a big supporter of Obamacare, but I see the flaws and think it needs to be fixed. I'm in line with Hillary here. Bernie's plan to expand medicare is politically nonviable, and I'm not sure there is a way to pay for it. Look at the MASSIVE opposition to Obamacare. Bernie would face several times that in trying to implement a single payer system. It couldn't happen, and it might lead to a republican getting elected who would dismantle the ACA.
1/2
>>69922194
>>69930264
As for foreign policy, I think we need to be a stabilizing force in the middle east. After all, we fucked it up. Complete non-interventionism is going to backfire down the road. ISIS needs to be taken out. Obama fucked it up bad but his strategy is slowly eroding their territory. We need to continue that and find a diplomatic solution. Bernie is too much of a dove to handle the real foreign policy issues going on.
On college and minimum wage, Bernie also goes for the top-down approach of imposing massive, expensive government policy on the whole country. Hillary’s college plan is more reserved than Bernie’s, and more realistic. $15/hour across the country is stupid and should not be a mandate. What works in downtown Chicago might not work in Lincoln, Illinois. The states should have time to experiment with that. Raising minimum wage is a part of Hillary’s economic plan, but not the cornerstone. I think she wants to see how the experiments in Seattle and California go before implementing federal legislation (that could just be my own projecting).
>It's all doubt and prejudice about what Republicans are
Not in the least. Republicans are many things, and I know many of all different stripes. But what they are not is compromising. The hardline voices in the party bully the more moderates into submission. The moderates are afraid because if they try to compromise, the hard line opposition will fund campaigns against them and get them thrown out of their seats. This has happened several times. The republican led congresses since 2010 have been some of the most ineffective sessions of governance our country has ever had, and congress has abysmal ratings.
2/3 I guess
>>69930328
You think you can throw them a bone, but it isn’t that easy. There are people in the party (ie Cruz) who would literally dismantle half the US government, sell off government assets, and destroy any semblance of economic or environmental regulation, all the while cutting taxes and doing nothing for the national debt. There is no compromise about women’s health or gun rights. I feel that Hillary is better equipped to deal with Republicans than Bernie is.
Anyway those are my reasons for preferring Hillary to Bernie, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on some things, but I hope you got some insight into why I would pick the pragmatist over the idealist in this primary. I have things to do so I can't stick around to have an extended discussion
Daily reminder that this is a bullshit test, because it's for normies.
Also, thanks to /pol/ redpilling, I'm no longer in the lower left corner.
