Why don't we all vote for Gary Johnson?

[smilesammich 10,727]

Yup, got it from your other post now...I was just writing mine while you posted that so didn't see it, and the results are in...

Viola. Just where I thought. I mean who do you vote for with this kind of result?

i dunno. i'm right on emma goldman's eye, but i don't think she's running. maybe i'll write her in. eta lol i just noticed hillary is more to the right of trump. ha

Edited September 2, 2016 by smilesammich

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Yeah ok that still doesn't answer my question.You said EVERY supporter you talk to. You must come across some crappy people.

Because that's truth. Do I need to post from my TF to prove this? And what question did you ask?

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Aaahh the gold standard of anecdotal evidence. If I told you that I know plenty of Trump supporters that I've never heard a bigoted word from and several local Democrats who I have? What then? These people feel much more comfortable with Clinton than Obama because she is that old white Southern slave owner type. She's certainly no threat to the racists still in the Democratic party, if anything she is just another good old white boy Republican of years past.

The gold standard would be all the violent, disrespectful acts that take place at Trump rallies.

Tell you what, why don't you post some videos of Clinton rallies where they are spitting on people, punching folks in the face, or out right jumping on someone. How about when some Clinton supporters run up and beat up a guy because he's an undocumented citizen.

You can't talk about racism in the Democratic party without addressing Trump who's sole platform is being driven by it.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Why is Hillary Clinton next to Mussolini? Was this chart made by Breitbart?

[smilesammich 10,727]

In the introduction, we explained the inadequacies of the traditional left-right line.

If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.

That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.

Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitrary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities existed in Spain during the civil war period

You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.

The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)

The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples social Darwinian right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.

In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.

A Word about Neo-cons and Neo-libs

U.S. neo-conservatives, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values, tend to be more authoritarian than hard right. By contrast, neo-liberals, opposed to such moral leadership and, more especially, the ensuing demands on the tax payer, belong to a further right but less authoritarian region. Paradoxically, the "free market", in neo-con parlance, also allows for the large-scale subsidy of the military-industrial complex, a considerable degree of corporate welfare, and protectionism when deemed in the national interest. These are viewed by neo-libs as impediments to the unfettered market forces that they champion.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

i dunno. i'm right on emma goldman's eye, but i don't think she's running. maybe i'll write her in. eta lol i just noticed hillary is more to the right of trump. ha

I'm Noam Chomsky!

Actually, I'm sexy Noam Chomsky, which requires wearing a very short skirt, high heels and a rumpled Dad sweater.

Edit to add: I'm totally going as Sexy Noam Chomsky for Hallowe'en this year.

Edited September 2, 2016 by Killary

[smilesammich 10,727]

I'm Noam Chomsky!

Actually, I'm sexy Noam Chomsky, which requires wearing a very short skirt, high heels and a rumpled Dad sweater.

Edit to add: I'm totally going as Sexy Noam Chomsky for Hallowe'en this year.

whoa, i didn't know chomsky came in any flavor but sexy!

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

I'm Noam Chomsky!

Actually, I'm sexy Noam Chomsky, which requires wearing a very short skirt, high heels and a rumpled Dad sweater.

Edit to add: I'm totally going as Sexy Noam Chomsky for Hallowe'en this year.

Hey, I was perched on Noam Chomsky's head. Let's party!

[Jacque67 7,328]

Disgraceful!!!!!!!

[smilesammich 10,727]

scandalous!!!!!

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

All these high fulating charts and what not to classify folks. I got this and it woks just as well and is much easier.

[OriZ 3,157]

i dunno. i'm right on emma goldman's eye, but i don't think she's running. maybe i'll write her in. eta lol i just noticed hillary is more to the right of trump. ha

That's actually not surprising considering he is a life long democrat. He is more to the left on this scale economically, but not socially. Many of his policies(like trade for example) are quite a ways to the left. I guess I'm closest to Friedman on there, which wouldn't be too surprising considering he would be one of my favorite economists, as much as any of them can actually be. However I always have and always will disagree with him in regards to interventionist monetary policy.

[TBoneTX 46,443]

Horizontal line, third square from right, barely above but still touching line... just southwest of Thomas Hobbes.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

[smilesammich 10,727]

All these high fulating charts and what not to classify folks. I got this and it woks just as well and is much easier.

well, by my chart i'm in the deepest left corner. guess you could call it a ditch.

lol, getting close! the doors are coming off the hinges!