I generally agree with the sentiment that one should form your own opinions, not rely on party politics.

However, my conclusions vary strongly (not saying that they are more valid than yours, by the way. I'm sure you have you reasoning as I have mine.)

-Strongly pro-EU, other international cooperation.

-I like the German electoral system, as it is. Canada should adopt something similar. Maybe a bit more of the Swiss referendums, sure.

-Strongly in favor of international projects/cooperation.

-Favour an INTERNATIONAL OPEN LABOUR MARKET. As long as you can pay the rent, and are not a criminal, go find a job where you want to.

-In regards to all of the "x rights" (women's, etc...) I support perfectly egalitarian legislation, WITHOUT further incensitive to reach a perfectly equal society. I trust that the free market will do a better job in that regard, in the long term, and avoid tensions from arising.

-No arbitrary moral principles. People not liking something to exist is not argument enough. (If eating pigs is fine, so is eating minkey whales. Gay rights/incest/fictional child pornography, etc...)

-I'm hesitant on abortion (despite being agnostic/atheist. A philosophical position.)

-For legalisation of prostitution. For banning smoking (but no drug use should be a criminal offense. Purely civil.)

-A criminal sentencing soley focused on assuring longterm society happiness/stability, if it does not increase danger, hapiness of criminals also to be regarded. No punitive justice for its own sake. So, mostly shorter sentencing, since long sentences are inefficent at preventing crime.

-Regulation of religious ideals. What cannot be tolerated is ideals that seek to scare people into submission, that sell superiority over others or give you rights not defined by law.

-I believe that properly distributed and timed foreign aid can avoid most conflict. One of the international projects I would support - educate people to cooperate, create oppertunities to avoid desperation, and consequent conflict and extrimism.

That's it for now...

Also, you'll find this strange - but I'm actually hesitant on freedom of speech. I'm in full support of freedom of information - in the format of a completly neutral, weekly or montly fact sheet (with lots of double-checking from different qualified individuals), however, humans are extremly easy to influence. Nowadays, it's frightingly easy to spread fallacies while only citing facts, as long as you choose carefully and fabricate a calculated image of the situation from dispersed fragments. 

I think that it's important for people to form their own opinions on issues, rationaly. In respect to human psychology, I only think that that becomes a possibility if all information is restricted to the numbers. People can't ignore their emotions, so we must bbe kept away from individual stories/images.

I support LGBT rights, abortion, marijuana, the EU ( not fully though, the EU is not perfect) and separation of church and state, but I can't stand mass immigration and Russia ( thankfully no one in Romania really likes Russia). Oh, and I'm neutral on the US.

As a very pro Russian person, I am alright with people disliking the country so long as they give a shit about the US either... Ideally though, I often prefer liking both (like Japan, who decided to sanction Russia and then funnel investment through other companies)... 

I would challenge the so-called "apolitical" and "moderate" people to define what exactly it is they affirmatively believe in, not just what they don't. When people use vague, comfortable expressions like "We should do what's best for the country", they should also define what exactly that means in their eyes -- WHAT they actually think is best for the country -- if they really want me to take them seriously rather than as just some silly posers who stand for nothing and want to pretend that that's an actual and morally superior position.

The subject of communism has also been brought up and debated. While I described myself as an anarchist and a socialist in the OP, as to the communist subset of socialist thought, I'm actually neutral on that. I strongly favor social ownership and worker and/or consumer control of the means of production (socialism), but have no real preference if people want to retain the formality of some individual possessions so long as they don't use them for purposes of accumulation. I understand that some people are concerned about the whole privacy issue that comes with fully realized communism (100% social ownership). To me, the main thing is that civil society reign supreme, as in that it replace the state and commercial sectors.

Some have suggested that anarchism and socialism/communism are opposites. They're really not at all. I think that mistaken thinking comes from the view that says socialism and communism are authoritarian in nature and that anarchism represents extreme individualism; perhaps the result of incorrectly associating all socialisms with Marxism and its troubled history. Anarchism refers to opposing authority, as in hierarchical or non-egalitarian social structures. It should then surprise no one that most anarchists, including myself, embrace very egalitarian economic views in addition to the politics of participatory democracy and cultural equality.

In my observation, the Marxist is basically an anarchist who believes that the ends justify the means and that mentality is precisely what leads to compromising the integrity of their theoretically egalitarian goals. As much is borne out in the real-world societies built by anarchists and Marxists respectively. The ones built by Marxists tend to either collapse (like the old Soviet Union) or get compromised completely until they eventually just adopt neo-liberal capitalism (e.g. China) or some variation on feudalism (e.g. North Korea).  Whether you consider the Ukrainian Free Territory, the communes that were erected during the Spanish Civil War, or the present-day Zapatistas of Chiapas, Mexico, or the functionally autonomous Rojava region within Syria, or any number of other examples, one can see that, by contrast, anarchist societies rarely collapse. That's because they earn the trust of the population by being transparent and not oppressing them.

The biggest difficulty that anarchist communities have had historically hasn't been internal collapse, but rather fending off invasions. If one thinks about it, most of these societies have been established in the context of a civil war or some other situation wherein the central state may have had bigger threats to worry about (perhaps drug cartels taking over major cities for example) and distract them, to which end they generally only last as long as the war or extraneous situation does. I don't pretend to have all the answers to that problem. The point, however, is that anarchistic systems of government and economy work. They DON'T result in some breakdown of the social order, as detractors who posit that anarchism means chaos suggest. In fact, they're way more likely to RESULT FROM a breakdown of the social order than to cause one.

"When 99% of the field of scientists say one thing"

Where do you get that data from? The people who say that global warming is caused by manking could also be paid to say so. You don't have to pay everyone, just the right people, because the majority won't have the guts to disagree. There's a strong believe, not a consensus.

It's because you see the baby just as a "fetus". You don't perceive that little creature as a human being. But not everyone agree with your thinking.

Abortion really is a tough question. I believe that the right thing to do usually comes from whats it's better for the majority of the people involved.

A simplistic view:
There's a woman. There's a baby.
If the woman decide to abort, she will be "happy", but the baby don't.
If the woman have the baby and keep it, but didn't want it, baby is "happy", but the woman won't be.
If the woman have the baby and don't keep it, since she didn't want it, both end up "happy".

It's not just your body anymore when there's another body inside it. That's the body of the baby. You don't have the right to kill it. If you don't want a baby, you can use preservatives, take your birth-control pills and others. Although, in cases when the woman could die during birth, abortion is a considerable option (if you have to choose just one to be alive, I agree with choosing the woman's life). Also, in case of rape, I think that we should take that pain in consideration. If you give people the freedom to abort whenever they want, you are giving people the right to think "well, I don't want a baby with Down syndrome, so I will kill it" or "I don't want a baby girl, so I will abort".

I don't have a label for myself. I am not right nor left and I disagree on many things from both sides and I dislike extremism. I took one of those tests and I was pretty close to the centre. That's how I am close to the centre. I don't know the correct political term for that but I would assume that it is called moderate. Though moderate is a term for anyone not left or right if you pit it that way and is pretty broad. Anyways I believe we are still working things out and we haven't found the best system yet. Communism has never been implemented truly so can't comment on that but pure capitalism has failed as the cracks have become far too apparent in the western world. Democracy is also not all its cracked up to be considering if the majority are fools then anyone can take advantage of that. On top of that the minority are left out that way in a pure democracy. The point is I am a nowhere man and the system or group for me hasn't been discovered or there is none for me.

Yep, this.

I'm a Mnementhist. I accept dragons as our superior leaders and overlords. The issue that angers me the most is that these days seemingly everyone starts thinking again that war is OK. No, it's not. The reign of dragons can't come fast enough, the'll put an end to all wars.