POLL: Political Self Evaluation/Rating 1-10 (environmentalist, Giuliani, abortions, dollar)

[Dave_n_Tenn]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
and of course there are "contrarians".

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by snebarekim

OK, Ill help you out since you are struggling obviously. Kathy Tran (leftist) and the "Repeal Act" bill brought to the Virginia state legislature last January. She proposed 9 month abortions of a viable child up to and during labor. The governor suported the bill as presented when queried.

The source was National Review.

Like Tall Traveler said, many of us have multiple views across the spectrum, but he (and I) do not trust the left to manage things we may happen to support, without going off the la la loony deep end.

Im not struggling, you are.

The previous law stated that if a pregnancy wasnt viable, or if the life of the mother was threatened, The family must have 3 doctors sign off on termination. The new law simply says it needs to be one.

No one can simply end s pregnancy just because they want to(which is what you are claiming), there has to be a medical reason.

Your definition of "viable" comes form right wing groups, who make the argument that as long as God exists, life is possible. a 1% chance is not viable to most doctors, but it is to Right wing groups. National Review is partial to that same belief system.

Do you understand the flaw in the sources you are using now ?

EDIT

To add to this post, this is actually what Northam said and the context is clear as day to anyone who doesnt have blinders on since he even includes the phrase, not viable

The article also includes Tran's statement on the issue, where she was clearly tripped up on the way the question was asked. She assumed people wouldnt take her comment out of context, they did anyways.

The uproar also targeted Gov. Ralph Northam (D) — a pediatric neurologist — who was asked about Tran’s remarks in a radio interview Wednesday and gave an answer that was later used by Republicans to suggest he favored killing live babies.

Northam told WTOP that late-term abortions are “done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s not viable. So in this particular example, if a mother’s in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...c17_story.html

He and Tran are both talking about births where the child will not survive. Why pretend they are not ? Why not have an honest conversation and not twist their words ?

[whogo]

Originally Posted by craigiri

We all know that the Political Quiz and Compass were just online click bait done by Libertarian forces. I'm sure a left leaning think tank could come up with the "official political quiz" that made most people come out moderate or left.

In the USA today I feel there is only ONE divide.

That is AUTHORITARIAN or NON-AUTHORITARIAN.

The test is pretty simple. If one believes that Government officials need to be loyal to a person - or that they themselves need to be loyal to a person or small group of people, they are Authoritarian.

If they feel that they intensely dislike allowing any small group or person to dictate things, then they are anti-authoritarian.

Another quick test is the fear based one. If fear is a lot of the calculation driving one's politics then they are like Authoritarian. If one questions ALL of the fear-based political propaganda then they are likely anti-authoritarian.

My problem with Libertarians has always been their lack of both examples and their own lifestyles. A couple "libertarians" I know are into Taxpayers for over a million dollar (health care, etc.). A real libertarian would have the courage to pay for what they could, borrow some and then deal with it even if it involved a lower life span.

The other test is the simple one I have given which I didn't make up. When questioned Libertarians would always use that "bad food" example as the perfect ideal. No need to restaurant inspections and food inspections because "the market" would tell us everything.

Unfortunately, Rand Paul has taken that to an extreme because Russia pays better than Ukraine. So in a sense he is being Libertarian consistent. Whoever has the bucks gets the backing.

.

We libertarians, just like liberals and conservatives, are stuck with the social contract. We do our best to benefit ourselves and our families within that social contract. I will take every benefit I can get because I must pay every tax enacted on me.

I don’t see the left voluntarily paying in more taxes or adopting a homeless person.

Quick test for the left give that homeless bum your spare bedroom.

[Dave_n_Tenn]

No one does that, except in hollyweird... if they did, then they would make a movie.

There was a time when the more liberal leaning individual would help the helpless, that has changed. Now it seems religious organization do the hand outs and community outreach, in my area.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by whogo

.

We libertarians, just like liberals and conservatives, are stuck with the social contract. We do our best to benefit ourselves and our families within that social contract. I will take every benefit I can get because I must pay every tax enacted on me.

I don’t see the left voluntarily paying in more taxes or adopting a homeless person.

Quick test for the left give that homeless bum your spare bedroom.

Why is that a test for the left and not the right as well when it comes to homelessness ?????

Also, the left never argued everyone should pay more in taxes. Most people regardless of ideology, usually think we should all be paying equal percentages as individuals. While rich people pay a bulk of the taxes in this county, it is not equal to their income like it is the person making 40,000 dollars. the millionaire simply have more money overall, so his contribution comparatively is higher.

[snebarekim]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Im not struggling, you are.

The previous law stated that if a pregnancy wasnt viable, or if the life of the mother was threatened, The family must have 3 doctors sign off on termination. The new law simply says it needs to be one.

No one can simply end s pregnancy just because they want to(which is what you are claiming), there has to be a medical reason.

Your definition of "viable" comes form right wing groups, who make the argument that as long as God exists, life is possible. a 1% chance is not viable to most doctors, but it is to Right wing groups. National Review is partial to that same belief system.

Do you understand the flaw in the sources you are using now ?

EDIT

To add to this post, this is actually what Northam said and the context is clear as day to anyone who doesnt have blinders on since he even includes the phrase, not viable

The article also includes Tran's statement on the issue, where she was clearly tripped up on the way the question was asked. She assumed people wouldnt take her comment out of context, they did anyways.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...c17_story.html

He and Tran are both talking about births where the child will not survive. Why pretend they are not ? Why not have an honest conversation and not twist their words ?

You are wrong on too many fronts to address here.

I simply suggest you watch the recorded dialogue regarding the presentation of the Repeal Act bill in the Virginia state legislature by Kathy Tran that National Review presented for a reader to make up their own minds.

Take note of the repeated times she states, when asked about specific points she is trying to weasel around, "Yes the bill would include that"

The governor endosed this bill at the time as presented.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...ture=emb_title

[Pilot1]

No Conservatarian?

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by snebarekim

You are wrong on too many fronts to address here.

I simply suggest you watch the recorded dialogue regarding the presentation of the Repeal Act bill in the Virginia state legislature by Kathy Tran that National Review presented for a reader to make up their own minds.

Take note of the repeated times she states, when asked about specific points she is trying to weasel around, "Yes the bill would include that"

The governor endosed this bill at the time as presented.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...ture=emb_title

What exactly are you disagreeing with that she says ? State it in your own words so it can be discussed. Again the requirements of the law as it was written are about physical harm to the mother or non viability of the child.

The person in the video keeps questioning her by saying "birth" but thats a technical term, as even a still born child is birthed. A child born with half a brain living still isnt viable, but they can be birthed.

You have yet to actually state anything in the bill you disagree with, all your problems are with loaded language which either isnt true, or you simply didnt understand.

[aileesic]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Why is that a test for the left and not the right as well when it comes to homelessness ?????

Also, the left never argued everyone should pay more in taxes. Most people regardless of ideology, usually think we should all be paying equal percentages as individuals. While rich people pay a bulk of the taxes in this county, it is not equal to their income like it is the person making 40,000 dollars. the millionaire simply have more money overall, so his contribution comparatively is higher.

I say no one knows how many liberals or conservatives are already giving a room to a homeless person. Lots of people out there are living in a spare room with family and many "bums" are paying for single-room occupancy. It's just that the numbers of severely ill, addicts and so on have risen so fast that nothing can be done anymore to assist so many of the homeless since many just are not capable of living on their own without supervision for long stretches of time. The institutions are closed and the numbers of social workers and programs greatly decreased. I hate to say what things are going to have to come to since this world has decided that it can no longer accommodate the weak, and so I won't say it, but it will have to happen, eventually.

[Dave_n_Tenn]

Originally Posted by Freak80

That scale has become meaningless.

For example, I am

1) economic nationalist
2) pro labor union
3) pro universal healthcare
4) ok with guns
5) ok with legal abortion
6) opposed to the Religious Right
7) ok with a carbon fee and dividend system to address climate change
8) opposed to the Cultural Left using the Supreme Court to push their narrow agenda on everyone else
9) opposed to trade with China because of its authoritarian regime and military ambitions

So, OP, what does that make me? Liberal or conservative? Where would I be on your simplistic scale?

I answered on #38. Care to respond? and how would you evaluate (politically) those you voted for?