Some of the overlaps are kinda silly. For some of them I would agree on a binary "yes/no" basis. But then their answer would be like deport immigrants and mine would be like allow them to do such and such instead.
For instance:
Should illegal immigrants be given access to government-subsidized healthcare? Constitution Party: No, deport illegal immigrants seeking healthcare Your partially similar answer: No, but they should be allowed to purchase private healthcare
The one that baffles me is 33% Constitution party. It's like, sure, you realize the Patriot act is bullshit, but you also want to blanket-eliminate all federal wage standards.
Should illegal immigrants be given access to government-subsidized healthcare? Constitution Party: No, deport illegal immigrants seeking healthcare Your partially similar answer: No, but they should be allowed to purchase private healthcare
Illegal immigrants should have access to universal healthcare. Humans on American soil should have access to universal healthcare independent of all other factors or actions related to their possibly illegal immigration status.
I'm surprised the Constitution party was that high. It looks like mostly because I'm anti-surveillance. And apparently they approve of assisted suicide strangely enough?
94% Green, 90% Democrat, 64% Socialist, 54% Libertarian, 7% Republican. No real surprises there. Some surprise because I got 13% for the Constitution Party - apparently they're strongly pro-election-reform? Although they're nuts on most political axes.
Should illegal immigrants be given access to government-subsidized healthcare? Constitution Party: No, deport illegal immigrants seeking healthcare Your partially similar answer: No, but they should be allowed to purchase private healthcare
Illegal immigrants should have access to universal healthcare. Humans on American soil should have access to universal healthcare independent of all other factors or actions related to their possibly illegal immigration status.
Honestly, I don't really care one way or another. That was one of the things that I marked as the lowest interest on. But if I had to give my personal opinion then that was pretty much it.
Should illegal immigrants be given access to government-subsidized healthcare? Constitution Party: No, deport illegal immigrants seeking healthcare Your partially similar answer: No, but they should be allowed to purchase private healthcare
Illegal immigrants should have access to universal healthcare. Humans on American soil should have access to universal healthcare independent of all other factors or actions related to their possibly illegal immigration status.
You aren't going far enough.
Human beings have a universal right to health care. No matter where a human being is on earth, they have an inalienable right to have access to health care at no charge. Anyone who offers health care services has a duty to provide them to any and all human beings in need regardless of any other factor other than being human and genuinely in need.
And don't start pestering me with semantics and details that don't matter. Obviously this doesn't mean we have to cover the sahara desert with hospitals just in case someone gets into trouble out there. That doesn't change the fundamental point which is that if you are a human being in need of health care, it shouldn't matter where you are from, where you are now, or how much money you have. You should be able to go to a doctor and have your needs taken care of. Anyone with the power to provide this care who chooses not to do so is heinous.
Your sentiment is noble, but still silly. So long as there are sovereign nations, they'll all do things differently. You can only offer services as your own nation.
Your sentiment is noble, but still silly. So long as there are sovereign nations, they'll all do things differently. You can only offer services as your own nation.
Sure, they CAN do things differently. But IF they do so, they are evil.
I'm somewhat surprised constitutional party says you need to pass a background and safety check for purchasing a gun considering how almost all their stances are just the most extreme position to take.
Your sentiment is noble, but still silly. So long as there are sovereign nations, they'll all do things differently. You can only offer services as your own nation.
Sure, they CAN do things differently. But IF they do so, they are evil.
But the practical reality is that by your (basically Culture) measures, almost everyone is evil.
So yes, you're right. What you said is correct.
What you said is also not even worth saying, because it has no bearing on any reality of at least a century to come.
Y'know, I think back to all the times that people told me "as you grow up and get a job and become a real adult you'll become conservative like me," and then I look at the way my political views have skewed more and more liberal over time.
I think, by and large, nobody knows what the fuck they're talking about.
What's kind of funny is that I remember back in 2012 during the Republican primary debate, I was shocked and somewhat appalled that out of all the candidates, I tended to agree with Ron Paul the most, and even then only about half the time. I guess that makes sense considering I scored 60% Libertarian.
Your sentiment is noble, but still silly. So long as there are sovereign nations, they'll all do things differently. You can only offer services as your own nation.
Sure, they CAN do things differently. But IF they do so, they are evil.
But the practical reality is that by your (basically Culture) measures, almost everyone is evil.
So yes, you're right. What you said is correct.
What you said is also not even worth saying, because it has no bearing on any reality of at least a century to come.
The point is there are people who are disagree with the correct part. Those people can go fuck themselves.
The thing is, nuances influence every stance we have and every decision we make. Some of my "other" answers barely fit with my top parties, but they still counted it for something.
It's also how I managed to not have any goose eggs in my party alignments.
The weirdest question I believe was this one: "Should internet service providers be allowed to give preferential treatment to higher paying customers?"
It seems to me that the question kind of misses the point of the recent and ongoing kerfuffle about net neutrality. I don't think anybody begrudges ISPs abilities to set different prices for different levels of service (e.g. you pay x amount for DSL, y amount for DSL with more bandwith, and z amount for Fiber, etc.), but rather that they are attempting to extort content creators/hosters and services to also make payments and throttle data on the user end because of it. This would of course be very bad news particularly considering the monopolies ISPs have in large swaths of the U.S.
For that reason I chose the answer "Yes, but only if it's strictly based on a pay-per-quality model" but I believe this gets lumped into the slate of other, idiotic "yes" answers.
I have grown steadily more leftist over the past decade, but I might slip right a bit in the future. To what Scott said, I would add access to food, clothing, and shelter to the list of things that people should get solely on the basis of being human. The sad thing is that doing that appears to be an infeasible problem at the moment. I hope that someday it will be feasible.
But seriously, we should have free health care, free education, and a basic living stipend for all the humans in the US. It's the right thing to do.
Comments
For instance:
Should illegal immigrants be given access to government-subsidized healthcare?
Constitution Party: No, deport illegal immigrants seeking healthcare
Your partially similar answer: No, but they should be allowed to purchase private healthcare
The one that baffles me is 33% Constitution party. It's like, sure, you realize the Patriot act is bullshit, but you also want to blanket-eliminate all federal wage standards.
I'm surprised the Constitution party was that high. It looks like mostly because I'm anti-surveillance. And apparently they approve of assisted suicide strangely enough?
Some surprise because I got 13% for the Constitution Party - apparently they're strongly pro-election-reform? Although they're nuts on most political axes.
Somehow I managed to get 21% Socialist though, despite not agreeing on any major issues.
Human beings have a universal right to health care. No matter where a human being is on earth, they have an inalienable right to have access to health care at no charge. Anyone who offers health care services has a duty to provide them to any and all human beings in need regardless of any other factor other than being human and genuinely in need.
And don't start pestering me with semantics and details that don't matter. Obviously this doesn't mean we have to cover the sahara desert with hospitals just in case someone gets into trouble out there. That doesn't change the fundamental point which is that if you are a human being in need of health care, it shouldn't matter where you are from, where you are now, or how much money you have. You should be able to go to a doctor and have your needs taken care of. Anyone with the power to provide this care who chooses not to do so is heinous.
HAH! I AM THE LEAST REPUBLICAN!
So yes, you're right. What you said is correct.
What you said is also not even worth saying, because it has no bearing on any reality of at least a century to come.
I picked a lot of the "other" answers to make my positions nuanced.
I think, by and large, nobody knows what the fuck they're talking about.
It's also how I managed to not have any goose eggs in my party alignments.
"Should internet service providers be allowed to give preferential treatment to higher paying customers?"
It seems to me that the question kind of misses the point of the recent and ongoing kerfuffle about net neutrality. I don't think anybody begrudges ISPs abilities to set different prices for different levels of service (e.g. you pay x amount for DSL, y amount for DSL with more bandwith, and z amount for Fiber, etc.), but rather that they are attempting to extort content creators/hosters and services to also make payments and throttle data on the user end because of it. This would of course be very bad news particularly considering the monopolies ISPs have in large swaths of the U.S.
For that reason I chose the answer "Yes, but only if it's strictly based on a pay-per-quality model" but I believe this gets lumped into the slate of other, idiotic "yes" answers.
The sad thing is that doing that appears to be an infeasible problem at the moment. I hope that someday it will be feasible.
But seriously, we should have free health care, free education, and a basic living stipend for all the humans in the US. It's the right thing to do.