By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Do you consider yourself more left or right wing?

 

I am...

More left leaning 52 61.90%
 
More right leaning 32 38.10%
 
Total:84
SanAndreasX on 08 September 2025
Soundwave said:

US has natural momentum from the 20th century that wasn't going to end overnight, but I think they are definitely losing their leadership position, other countries do not look to the US to lead anymore. At some point in this century I think we will shift towards China becoming more of a global leader for better or worse. 

They have a lot of great brands too, the US is so afraid of them they have to ban a lot of them like Huawei and BYD would do great business in the US and are massive brands in many countries and China's domestic market frankly is just going to grow to be bigger than the US in time. They just have way more population. 

Letting India cozy up to China because Trump's ego got hurt is going to be a massive, massive geopolitical blunder. They better fix that shit.

That’s exactly it. They think they can keep coasting on WWII until the end of time. The 1950s have been over for almost 70 years and are never coming back. China and India aren’t going back. Japan and Europe aren’t going back. 



Around the Network
Jaicee on 09 September 2025

I count myself a left wing populist. More specifically, I consider myself a democratic market socialist who likes ideas like ballot referendums, community-owned grocery stores, and a guaranteed minimum income, and I'm an assimilationist when it comes to immigration policy, and not a fucking fascist. I also have come to firmly dislike both of our major political parties here in the U.S. of A. Not equally, but I dislike them both.

In social politics, I am a secularist, a pluralist (within reason), anti-pornography, biotech-skeptical in general, pro-choice on abortion, and of my current opinion of gun policy leans toward leniency because for some odd reason I'm worried about the prospect of facing a repressive, tyrannical government that systematically persecutes dissenters and everyone else it doesn't like.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 10 September 2025

BFR on 09 September 2025
Vinther1991 said:
Chrkeller said:

Yeah, it is my money.  it is my account with my name.  I am the one who went to work, performed my duties that warranted my paycheck.  My duties are assigned based on my education, my knowledge and my experience. This push for people's things to be community owned is nonsense.    

The US's debt to GDP ratio isn't much different than places like Canada, France, Italy, etc.  So, no.  

Again, people in this thread want to paint a picture that simply isn't accurate. 

Because it is the community who decided that your money has any value, and the community build up the system that allowed you to have them, hence the community can take that away again if they so desire. You are merely borrowing them. I am not saying they should take it away from you, but they would have every right to if they decide to. Private property is not a natural law, but an idea.

I didn't say the US is the only place that is screwed, I said the whole West is screwed. Increasing debt (for many western countries), stagnating if not declining living standard for the poor and middle class, exploding inequality, plummeting birth-rate, and now in the US, immigration will also nose-dive, meaning the population will start to decline. How is your favorite 8 tech companies planning to keep it all together, and why should they care?

And yet, you live in SWEDEN.  At least, that is what your profile says !!!

Isn't Sweden part of the West ???

Why don't you move to China, since you are so enamored with that country?



Vinther1991 on 09 September 2025
BFR said:

And yet, you live in SWEDEN.  At least, that is what your profile says !!!

Isn't Sweden part of the West ???

Why don't you move to China, since you are so enamored with that country?

That's pretty low, even for you...

Did I ever say I want the West to be screwed? No. Did I say there is nothing great, that I admire about the West? No. Did I say I'd prefer living in China? No.

I am just making pretty straight forward observations. While China is an a-liberal totalitarian state, with a lot of shitty restrictions on freedoms, there is no denying, they have an economic model that is much more sustainable and tailored to the 21st-22nd century. By far the majority of their population can afford housing, they get health care and education covered. They have reliable trade policies, they honor their agreements and they are even starting to take green technology more serious, so they are prepared.

So my message to the West is simply, stop with the autistic clinging to political and economic models that clearly no longer work.



zorg1000 on 09 September 2025
Vinther1991 said:
BFR said:

And yet, you live in SWEDEN.  At least, that is what your profile says !!!

Isn't Sweden part of the West ???

Why don't you move to China, since you are so enamored with that country?

That's pretty low, even for you...

Did I ever say I want the West to be screwed? No. Did I say there is nothing great, that I admire about the West? No. Did I say I'd prefer living in China? No.

I am just making pretty straight forward observations. While China is an a-liberal totalitarian state, with a lot of shitty restrictions on freedoms, there is no denying, they have an economic model that is much more sustainable and tailored to the 21st-22nd century. By far the majority of their population can afford housing, they get health care and education covered. They have reliable trade policies, they honor their agreements and they are even starting to take green technology more serious, so they are prepared.

So my message to the West is simply, stop with the autistic clinging to political and economic models that clearly no longer work.

Yeah, the “if you don’t like it here then move!” argument has always been dumb.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

Around the Network
the-pi-guy on 09 September 2025

"If you don't like this country, leave! Also, if your roof is leaking, move out. If your phone battery is dead, throw it out. Never try to fix anything. Just give up."

It's also one of those arguments that they don't actually believe.

Like individual responsibility and state's rights. You don't like something, you carve out a space where you're excluded from it, and you chip away until it's the popular enough opinion.

Abortion won't be banned nationally right now, so I'm going to argue that it should be a state's rights issue.
Oh, we have enough support now? Federalize it.



sc94597 on 09 September 2025

https://www.americanyawp.com/reader/21-world-war-i/emma-goldman-on-patriotism-july-9-1917/

Who is the real patriot, or rather what is the kind of patriotism that we represent? The kind of patriotism we represent is the kind of patriotism which loves America with open eyes. Our relation towards America is the same as the relation of a man who loves a woman, who is enchanted by her beauty and yet who cannot be blind to her defects. And so I wish to state here, in my own behalf and in behalf of hundreds of thousands whom you decry and state to be antipatriotic, that we love America, we love her beauty, we love her riches, we love her mountains and her forests, and above all we love the people who have produced her wealth and riches, who have created all her beauty, we love the dreamers and the philosophers and the thinkers who are giving America liberty. 

But that must not make us blind to the social faults of America. That cannot make us deaf to the discords of America. That cannot compel us to be inarticulate to the terrible wrongs committed in the name of patriotism and in the name of the country. We simply insist, regardless of all protests to the contrary, that this war is not a war for democracy. If it were a war for the purpose of making democracy safe for the world, we would say that democracy must first be safe for America before it can be safe for the world.

 


bdbdbd on 10 September 2025
RolStoppable said:
bdbdbd said:

The high management raises their salaries. Also the owners would want more money out from the company because they want the same income as they did before. The whole idea of "taxing the rich" is based on them getting more money out of the companies so nobody would not lose anything. If the overpaid board members are incredibly bad PR, shouldn't the taxes be lower so that they'd not need to pay the board members as much? 

A wealth tax of 1% may lead to more capital leaving the country than it would bring in as tax revenue. Taxes for the rich always lead to taxes for everyone else. The reason why these taxes work so bad in todays world is because of globalism and global free trade. Capital goes from one country to another without being taxed in between, so does goods. 

Obviously, the implementation of a wealth tax must include measures to prevent tax evasion. Pretty much like every other tax.

Other than that, it's awfully convenient for the rich that raising the taxes on them is a bad thing because supposedly it will hurt everyone else much more.

But what do the facts say? We have an actual example in Norway:

So despite the existence of some tax refugees, the result is positive overall. Norway's wealth tax was increased from 0.85% to 1.1%. So a little change like that increased tax revenue by ~50%. The wealth tax revenue in 2023 converts to €2.4 billion which is quite a hefty sum for a country like Norway where only ~5.5 million people live in total. People who possess less than €150,000 do not pay this tax while rich people remain rich, and the country of Norway has one additional billion Euro to spend every year.

Well, I think I said already, that taxing the rich results to a taxing everyone else. Taxing fortunes above 150k is taxing the middle class while the rich leave, just as I pointed out. Keep in mind that Norway is expensive and it has high taxes already, so there isn't many people who actually could leave in the first place. You tax the property of the middle class who can't leave as tax refugees. The country has billion more to spend but the people have a billion less. 

Did Norway win or lose with the total taxes collected?



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

RolStoppable on 10 September 2025
bdbdbd said:

Well, I think I said already, that taxing the rich results to a taxing everyone else. Taxing fortunes above 150k is taxing the middle class while the rich leave, just as I pointed out. Keep in mind that Norway is expensive and it has high taxes already, so there isn't many people who actually could leave in the first place. You tax the property of the middle class who can't leave as tax refugees. The country has billion more to spend but the people have a billion less. 

Did Norway win or lose with the total taxes collected?

The rich didn't leave, except for a few.

Norway won. You seem to be under the belief that people get nothing in return for paying taxes. But things like infrastructure, police, firefighters and hospitals are beneficial for everyone, just like a multitude of other things. The standard of living increases for everyone.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV will outsell Super Smash Bros. Brawl. I was wrong.

the-pi-guy on 10 September 2025
bdbdbd said:

Well, I think I said already, that taxing the rich results to a taxing everyone else. Taxing fortunes above 150k is taxing the middle class while the rich leave, just as I pointed out. Keep in mind that Norway is expensive and it has high taxes already, so there isn't many people who actually could leave in the first place. You tax the property of the middle class who can't leave as tax refugees. The country has billion more to spend but the people have a billion less. 

Did Norway win or lose with the total taxes collected?

I think I said somewhere else, if increasing taxes just trivially results in a tax on everyone else, then why is there so much fighting for tax increases? If the costs are just offset elsewhere, why bother spending any money fighting them, then?

The end result that matters is whether they are getting a good return on it. If those billion dollars are replacing 5 billion dollars of expenses, that is a massive net win.  And that other part of it doesn't get talked about other than some generic statements like "someone using someone else's money is very inefficient with it" and "government is obviously more inefficient" - even when there's data that says otherwise.