Pew Research: Where Do You Fit in the Political Typology?

[OriZ 3,157]

I got young outsider as well.

This relatively young, largely independent group holds a mix of conservative and liberal views. And while more lean toward the Republican Party than the Democratic Party, Young Outsiders generally express unfavorable opinions of both major parties. They are largely skeptical of activist government, as a substantial majority views government as wasteful and inefficient. Yet many diverge from the two conservative typology groups – Steadfast Conservatives and Business Conservatives – in their strong support for the environment and many liberal social policies.

Sounds like....ME!

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I got young outsider as well.

This relatively young, largely independent group holds a mix of conservative and liberal views. And while more lean toward the Republican Party than the Democratic Party, Young Outsiders generally express unfavorable opinions of both major parties. They are largely skeptical of activist government, as a substantial majority views government as wasteful and inefficient. Yet many diverge from the two conservative typology groups – Steadfast Conservatives and Business Conservatives – in their strong support for the environment and many liberal social policies.

Sounds like....ME!

I am not young, but some views are very conservative and some very liberal. The whole poll was silly and only gave choices from two very extremes .

[eieio 1,594]

Your best fit is...

Business Conservative

along with 10% of the public.

Share your results:

Read more in the full report: Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology

• SOLID LIBERALS
• FAITH AND FAMILY LEFT
• NEXT GENERATION LEFT
• HARD-PRESSED SKEPTICS
• YOUNG OUTSIDERS
• BUSINESS CONSERVATIVES
• STEADFAST CONSERVATIVES
• BYSTANDERS

2012 vote: 9% for Obama | 81% for Romney

Business Conservatives generally are traditional small-government Republicans. Overwhelming percentages think that government is almost always wasteful and it does too much better left to businesses and individuals. Business Conservatives differ from Steadfast Conservatives in their positive attitudes toward business and in their strong support for Wall Street in particular. Most think that immigrants strengthen the country and take a positive view of U.S. global involvement. As a group, they are less socially conservative than Steadfast Conser

[TBoneTX 45,328]

Your best fit is...

Steadfast Conservative

along with 12% of the public.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

The quiz was pretty much BS. It asked questions at 2 very extremes of the spectrum. However I got

Your best fit is...

Young Outsider

along with 13% of the public.

Same result that I got. See, we are quite level minded and see both sides of the coin. Liberals and conservatives are whack jobs.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Your best fit is...

Next Generation Left

along with 12% of the public.

Generally young, well-educated and financially comfortable, the Next Generation Left have very liberal attitudes on many issues, including homosexuality, abortion, the environment and foreign policy. While overall supportive of an activist government, most are wary of expanding the social safety net. Most also have relatively positive views of Wall Streets impact on the economy. While most affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic, few consider themselves strong Democrats. Compare groups on key issues.

[Jacque67 7,328]

Your best fit is...

Next Generation Left

along with 12% of the public.

Generally young, well-educated and financially comfortable, the Next Generation Left have very liberal attitudes on many issues, including homosexuality, abortion, the environment and foreign policy. While overall supportive of an activist government, most are wary of expanding the social safety net. Most also have relatively positive views of Wall Streets impact on the economy. While most affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic, few consider themselves strong Democrats. Compare groups on key issues.

You, too!!

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Same result that I got. See, we are quite level minded and see both sides of the coin. Liberals and conservatives are whack jobs.

You got that right. Both ends of the spectrum frag the middle to hades

Imagine what we could get done on immigration if we could dump the " the illegals are breaking no laws" and the "Build a 1000 ft wall with flamethrowers" that populate both ends of the spectrum

[mota bhai 2,675]

lol @ flamethrowers.

my favorite crazy right-wing talking point about the border involves machine guns. i imagine its the kind of thing that makes a tame right-wing get together in a man cave somewhere break out into full scale circle jerk orgy.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

lol @ flamethrowers.

my favorite crazy right-wing talking point about the border involves machine guns. i imagine its the kind of thing that makes a tame right-wing get together in a man cave somewhere break out into full scale circle jerk orgy.

I had a far right buddy at work. He seriously advocated building a huge wall with machine guns, motions sensors land mines etc. Deploying combat divisions along the border.The absurd ramifications of that are mind numbing. He actually said, shot anything that moves on the border.

How many Innocent people do we blow away by mistake ? combat division with police power inside our borders, and the obvious. The massive redirection up the Gulf coast by boat.

Then you got the far left, who thinks we should grant them all amnesty and open the border.

I think we mostly all agree here, impose tough criminal penalties on those that hire hem, and cut off all but life essential services for them. I think the problem would end.

So if it's that simple and almost all of us agree, why can't we get it done?

[Jacque67 7,328]

I had a far right buddy at work. He seriously advocated building a huge wall with machine guns, motions sensors land mines etc. Deploying combat divisions along the border.The absurd ramifications of that are mind numbing. He actually said, shot anything that moves on the border.

How many Innocent people do we blow away by mistake ? combat division with police power inside our borders, and the obvious. The massive redirection up the Gulf coast by boat.

Then you got the far left, who thinks we should grant them all amnesty and open the border.

I think we mostly all agree here, impose tough criminal penalties on those that hire hem, and cut off all but life essential services for them. I think the problem would end.

So if it's that simple and almost all of us agree, why can't we get it done?

Coz money, special interest groups are involved.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Coz money, special interest groups are involved.

BINGO. Most of us in here really agree on a lot

[mota bhai 2,675]

I had a far right buddy at work. He seriously advocated building a huge wall with machine guns, motions sensors land mines etc. Deploying combat divisions along the border.The absurd ramifications of that are mind numbing. He actually said, shot anything that moves on the border.

How many Innocent people do we blow away by mistake ? combat division with police power inside our borders, and the obvious. The massive redirection up the Gulf coast by boat.

Then you got the far left, who thinks we should grant them all amnesty and open the border.

I think we mostly all agree here, impose tough criminal penalties on those that hire hem, and cut off all but life essential services for them. I think the problem would end.

So if it's that simple and almost all of us agree, why can't we get it done?

They don't get life essential services where they come from. That's enough of a draw.

There is simply no humane way to keep them out. Central America is in very, very, poor shape. Build a wall, they'll boat up the coast, as you point out. But where they live sucks so much in comparison to here, they will come.

One thing people seem to forget is that borders always change, people always move, capital always moves. It's how the world has always been.

The best we can do is keep things nice and somewhat stable during our lifetimes. We can't affect anything at a macro level.

ETA: I looked up the apartment complex my parents lived in when I was born on city-data.com. In a town in south jersey, a philly suburb. My mom has fond memories of it from the mid 70s. It was apparently where all the Indian immigrants liked to rent, the way immigrants of one nationality tend to cluster around each other. Anyway, the place is garbage now. High crime. Lots of narco raids. Infested with cockroaches and lice and other nasty stuff. Moral of the story? Nothing is forever. Change is constant.

Edited July 1, 2014 by mota bhai

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

I had a far right buddy at work. He seriously advocated building a huge wall with machine guns, motions sensors land mines etc. Deploying combat divisions along the border.The absurd ramifications of that are mind numbing. He actually said, shot anything that moves on the border.

How many Innocent people do we blow away by mistake ? combat division with police power inside our borders, and the obvious. The massive redirection up the Gulf coast by boat.

Then you got the far left, who thinks we should grant them all amnesty and open the border.

I think we mostly all agree here, impose tough criminal penalties on those that hire hem, and cut off all but life essential services for them. I think the problem would end.

So if it's that simple and almost all of us agree, why can't we get it done?

Articles with titles like "Despite Obama, Immigration services continue to separate families" seems to indicate everyone is not in agreement.

Looking at some of the provision of the immigration bill..

- boarder security will get 46.3 Billion of initial funding

- the diversity visa goes away (55,000 per year) but we get two additional visas:

- new merit based visa awards points based on skill/education and allows in an additional 250,000 people a year

- new "W" visa is for unskilled workers will allow in an additional 200,000 people a year

- the H-1b for foreign workers goes from 65,000 to 110,000 per year and and allows for expansion to 180,000

- agriculture workers here illegally for at least two years will get a greencard if they agree to stay in agriculture for five more years also an updated visa for foreign ag workers will be added.

- the yearly limit on LPR family sponsors is eliminated.

- anyone currently here illegally can enter "provisional" status by paying a 500 dollar fine - assuming no criminal activity is on record. After 10 years of "provisional" status they can upgrade to "Permanent Resident"

- citizens will no longer be able to sponsor siblings or married children

- Student visa now have an option to stay permanently

- Additional Visa for older Canadians to stay much longer (Money grab!)

- E-verify restrictions increase and becomes required in four years.

I had lots of comments here but I removed them - the supposed long term effects to the economy: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/guide-s744-understanding-2013-senate-immigration-bill

How would S. 744 affect the U.S. economy?

S. 744 would boost the output of the U.S. economy. According to CBO estimates, the bill would increase the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 3.3 percent ($700 billion) in 2023 and 5.4 percent ($1.4 trillion) in 2033.

How would S. 744 affect wages?

S. 744 would produce an increase in average wages by 2025. The CBO anticipates “that average wages for the entire labor force would be 0.1 percent lower in 2023 and 0.5 percent higher in 2033 under the legislation.” The initial miniscule drop in average wages would be fueled largely by the presence in the labor force of new immigrants who make less than the average wage. According to the CBO, “the estimated reductions in average wages…do not necessarily imply that current U.S. residents would be worse off, on average, under the legislation than they would be under current law.”

Edited July 1, 2014 by OnMyWayID

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Articles with titles like "Despite Obama, Immigration services continue to separate families" seems to indicate everyone is not in agreement.

Looking at some of the provision of the immigration bill..

- boarder security will get 46.3 Billion of initial funding

- the diversity visa goes away (55,000 per year) but we get two additional visas:

- new merit based visa awards points based on skill/education and allows in an additional 250,000 people a year

- new "W" visa is for unskilled workers will allow in an additional 200,000 people a year

- the H-1b for foreign workers goes from 65,000 to 110,000 per year and and allows for expansion to 180,000

- agriculture workers here illegally for at least two years will get a greencard if they agree to stay in agriculture for five more years also an updated visa for foreign ag workers will be added.

- the yearly limit on LPR family sponsors is eliminated.

- anyone currently here illegally can enter "provisional" status by paying a 500 dollar assuming no criminal activity is on record. After 10 years "provisional" status can upgrade to "Permanent Resident"

- citizens will no longer be able to sponsor siblings or married children

- Student visa now have an option to stay permanently

- Additional Visa for older Canadians to stay much longer (Money grab!)

- E-verify restrictions increase and becomes required in four years.

I had lots of comments here but I removed them - One little point pulled from here on the long term effects to the economy: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/guide-s744-understanding-2013-senate-immigration-bill

How would S. 744 affect the U.S. economy?

S. 744 would boost the output of the U.S. economy. According to CBO estimates, the bill would increase the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 3.3 percent ($700 billion) in 2023 and 5.4 percent ($1.4 trillion) in 2033.

How would S. 744 affect wages?

S. 744 would produce an increase in average wages by 2025. The CBO anticipates “that average wages for the entire labor force would be 0.1 percent lower in 2023 and 0.5 percent higher in 2033 under the legislation.” The initial miniscule drop in average wages would be fueled largely by the presence in the labor force of new immigrants who make less than the average wage. According to the CBO, “the estimated reductions in average wages…do not necessarily imply that current U.S. residents would be worse off, on average, under the legislation than they would be under current law.”

I would bet the vast majority of us think, we should stop the flow before we tackle the issue of those already here. I think you cut out all employment opportunities most will go home. The maybe LPR status for those that have been raised here.