Political Leaning (Poll)

[Nilum]

Short Version: What is your political leaning in general?

Long Version: To better explain, what way do you generally tend to align when it comes to election season or on particular issues? I'm not going to ask if you vote for a particular political party, but if you'd like, you can answer on specific issues below.

Keep in mind that if you live in a country outside of the United States of America (like I do), some of the following specific issues may seem absurd to you. Keep in mind that if we flipped the tables and made a list out of the issues of your country, they may seem absurd to you too.

GENERAL POLITICAL QUESTIONS

• Centralized vs Decentralized: How much power should be vested into Government, and at what level should power be held strongest? (Federal vs State vs Municipal.)
• Right to Choose vs Right to Life: Should a woman be allowed to get an abortion, and under what circumstances should they be allowed to get an abortion?
• Socialized Medicine vs Private Health Care: Should the government be involved in health care, or should it remain the domain of private entities, or should it be partially subsidized/controlled by government?
• Foreign Policy: Hawk or Dove?: Should modern first world nations (especially those within NATO) engage in military operations in war stricken countries elsewhere in the world? If so, to what extent? If not, why?
• Globalization vs Protectionism: Should we engage in absolute free trade wherein anyone can conduct business anywhere, or should we engage in forms of protectionism (eg: Tariffs, Regulations, Import Tax, Local Business subsidies, so on).
• Immigrants vs Natives: How far should we choose to engage in immigration, and should we limit it or stop it entirely? Why?
• Separation of Church and State: Should any laws, whatsoever, be conducted against any religion (Islam, Christian come to mind) or in the support of any religion, to any degree? How do you feel about "In God We Trust" on the American currency instead of "E Pluribus Unum" as an example?
• Free Expression vs Hate Speech: To what degree should we limit freedom of speech and expression in the name of combating hatred and systemic racism? Is there a place for Hate Speech codes? (Eg: If someone is shouting "death to the Jews!" in the streets, should anything be done about them?)
• Collective vs Individual: Which is more important? The needs of the many, or the one?
• Weapons Legislation: To what degree should weapons (knives, firearms, explosives, et cetera) be regulated or banned from use by the general public? How would you enforce such things, is it worth it to enforce such things, is it right to enforce such things?

This thread; Why even?: A variety of reasons, namely curiosity. I tend to be curious how fellow users on a website I'm on tend to think, as it tends to crossover into the type of writing they'll do in role plays.

Please discuss without killing each other, thank you. Here, have a few ferrets.

 

[Tiko]

Due to the highly sensitive nature of this topic, and peoples habit for taking strong emotional leanings one way or the other. I just want to take a quick moment before this thread gets underway to urge anyone participating in this thread to review the Discussion & Debates Rules. Thank you, and enjoy!

 

[Enki]

Right wing - Left wing -Centrist :

• Centralized vs Decentralized: Both and Neither. Regional power should exist, which means decentralization, but there also has to be a power above these to keep a track of the decentralized POVs to ensure they will not send the nation into hardship. Centralized decentralization? Decentralized centralization? Maybe?
• Right to Choose vs Right to Life: Every woman a queen. They are all allowed to choose from one point onward. First baby? No abortion, please. Second and forward? Sure, go ahead.
• Socialized Medicine vs Private Health Care: Both have their benefits. Private healthcare means that the people who are healthy but are poor don't need to pay up money from their already small wealth for others who are ill but wealthier. Large Hospitals should be public, while smaller ones private.
• Foreign Policy: Hawk or Dove?: Direct warfare. We all have seen what indirect warfare, AKA Proxy warfare causes. It is better to be at war directly than make others fight for you, because those people tend to switch sides if someone else pays more.
• Globalization vs Protectionism: Both. Protectionism among non-neighbours and globalization among neighbours. Reason behind this is that if a canadian moves suddenly to China then they could suffer being isolated from rest of the society for being too different. Same could go vice versa. Thus it's good if distant countries use protectionism among them, while neighbours are at closer relations.
• Immigrants vs Natives: As related to the one above: Immigrants from neighbouring countries is better than immigrants from non-neighbouring countries, because immigrants from non-neighbouring countries are bound to experience racism, even from a liberal if the newcomer ends up offending them due to drasticly different customs.
• Separation of Church and State: Church and State need to be separated, and no private churches allowed. Churches should be nationalized to prevent any chance of a church turning into a cult or terrorist meeting ground.
• Free Expression vs Hate Speech: Freedom of speech as long as people know how to argument their cases without them ending up being filled up with so many holes that even Dark Souls lore appears to lack any holes compared to them. AKA removal of freedom of speech from people that are too dumb to say with strong argumentation why they believe their case to be the superior one.
• Collective vs Individual: Every man a king. Collective Individualism. Every one is an individual and given a chance to shine while suggested to be law-abiding citizens.
• Weapons Legislation: Banned from people younger than 28, for wisdom comes with age for majority of populace. When someone old goes batshit crazy it tends to be due to bad mental health. Older the people, less likely they are to suddenly pull out a shotgun and shoot the person who did not agree. A young person is more likely to go batshit crazy, because they want to look cool to their friends and to the ladies.

Ps. Please don't hurt me. ;-;

 

[Drakel]

Centralized vs Decentralized: How much power should be vested into Government, and at what level should power be held strongest? (Federal vs State vs Municipal.)

This is a rather difficult question to answer. Honestly a mix of both should be formed. My main issue is that there are so many sub-issues within it. Breaking it up is probably the best idea.
Civil rights laws, Economic stability (A force to keep to make sure the states hold their economies stable), Federal crime laws, Science, Military, Healthcare and education should all be Centralized in my opinion. Pretty much the most important aspects that hold a country together. Everything else should be handled under a state level or voted by the states'.

Right to Choose vs Right to Life: Should a woman be allowed to get an abortion, and under what circumstances should they be allowed to get an abortion?

Right to choose. It's not my place to force other people on what to do and choose. However with this I do believe it should be advised against, mainly because it's still a possible life that could be granted into this world, a blessing. I also think that if the father is around, counseling should be mandatory since having a child aborted can affect the father who does want the child by quite a lot. Finally I think that the right to "abort" should be both ways, where the father can legally "abort" the child, forever to be out of the child's life, pay nothing for the child, is practically nonexistent and has zero rights or say for the child's upbringing. Also, I think paternity leave and maternity leave should be a thing, where paternity is optional.

Socialized Medicine vs Private Health Care: Should the government be involved in health care, or should it remain the domain of private entities, or should it be partially subsidized/controlled by government?

Socialized. End of story.

Foreign Policy: Hawk or Dove?: Should modern first world nations (especially those within NATO) engage in military operations in war stricken countries elsewhere in the world? If so, to what extent? If not, why?

I'm not too knowledgeable on Nato so here I go talking about things I normally have 0 opinion on.
To an extent. NATO should be the force to handle military operations in other war stricken countries. The Nations within Nato should have a Nato Military recruiting centers for those who volunteer. At that, there should be very strict stipulations and laws that prevent NATO from being near dictatorial with it. Finally all governments should still have their own military and should engage in other nations if they so wish but it's on them as it is their choice.

Globalization vs Protectionism: Should we engage in absolute free trade wherein anyone can conduct business anywhere, or should we engage in forms of protectionism (eg: Tariffs, Regulations, Import Tax, Local Business subsidies, so on).

I'd say a mix of the two? I'm leaning more on Protectionism to be honest. I will say that a self-sufficiency should still be held in high regard since a nation that can't support itself will fall if those that it leans upon fail them.

Immigrants vs Natives: How far should we choose to engage in immigration, and should we limit it or stop it entirely? Why?

I'd personally say a mix between limiting it and engaging in immigration. Personally it depends on the country.

Separation of Church and State: Should any laws, whatsoever, be conducted against any religion (Islam, Christian come to mind) or in the support of any religion, to any degree? How do you feel about "In God We Trust" on the American currency instead of "E Pluribus Unum" as an example?

Laws should conduct against actions and only actions. Not religious choice or beliefs. The Church has no part in any education other than religiously focused educative courses (Theology, history, any study of religions of all sorts). No religion should be supported, no religious belief should be attacked by the government. The "In god we trust" thing I can't give two shits about. Sorry but it's not really important. As for cults or religious facilities that are high risk for indoctrinating someone into thinking it's okay to kill, harm to do any other action that is violent and harms the lives of others... The government should keep a close eye on them but do nothing against their rights until proof is found that they're acting like a terrorist organization rather than a church.

Free Expression vs Hate Speech: To what degree should we limit freedom of speech and expression in the name of combating hatred and systemic racism? Is there a place for Hate Speech codes? (Eg: If someone is shouting "death to the Jews!" in the streets, should anything be done about them?)

I am a heavy believer of free expression. No one should be silenced for anything, words aren't harming anyone, just pissing them off, annoying them or making them sad. Platforming people is in the law should said platform want to drop those people but honestly that goes against the spirit of free speech and I think it's damaging overall... and stupid. Also when a platform IS given to someone, it's of their right to use it and people that try to silence others who were given a platform should be handled by security or the law depending the severity of their action.

Collective vs Individual: Which is more important? The needs of the many, or the one?

Both. You are the individual, you can be yourself and focus on things that is important to you as you should. At the same time helping the collective, contributing to those around you and helping them raise with you makes everyone win.

Oh, not in that sense? fuck this!

Both are still important and it depends on the situation.

Weapons Legislation: To what degree should weapons (knives, firearms, explosives, et cetera) be regulated or banned from use by the general public? How would you enforce such things, is it worth it to enforce such things, is it right to enforce such things?

I'm an american soooo...

AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!!!!

Jokes aside... "Is it a Nuke/a major bomb?" "No" "Is it better than our Military's?" "No" It's legal" is my stance on all weapon restrictions. That said, I think there should be restrictions on what type of individuals should get these weapons. Background checks, psych checks, Licencing and finally Monthly safety classes, weapon usage and legal weapon use classes. Besides that, the rest is a state issue imo.

 

[Sodaguzzler]

• Centralized vs Decentralized: Seconding Drakel with some being decentralized and some centralized. The degree would depend on which country we're talking about, I guess.

• Right to Choose vs Right to Life: Right to Choose, but they better have a good reason for it.

• Socialized Medicine vs Private Health Care: Socialized. We know it'll be corrupt as all shit either way, so it's better to just have one face to throw eggs at.

• Foreign Policy: Hawk or Dove?: In my opinion it should be something that the UN should do especially if it involve terrorism and genocide, but the UN is the UN.

• Globalization vs Protectionism: I'm leaning on protectionism. Much for the same reasoning Drakel said. I don't mind globalization on "luxury" products though.

• Immigrants vs Natives: Limited immigration, but I can't decide what's the limit. How much is too much?

• Separation of Church and State: The only support that the State should show to a religion is "you're free to have and follow it" but otherwise it should be a Neutral entity. Extremism should be stamped out regardless. No real opinion on the currency thing since I'm not American.

• Free Expression vs Hate Speech: Nyeh, racism is still strong where I am, so I side with a degree of censorship.

• Collective vs Individual: How big of a scale are we talking about? Otherwise, what Drakel said.

• Weapons Legislation: I'll just talk about firearms and explosives. None of the big guns (I mean, machine guns and 0.50 rifle is reallly too excessive) nor fancy bullets on sale. Dunno how possible/effective restricting the sale of bullets would be. Seconding Drakel on the rest of the restriction thing however. Explosives should be banned from the general public.

 

[Goldmarble]

GENERAL POLITICAL QUESTIONS

• Centralized vs Decentralized: This is not something I have educated myself in any way to make any suggestions, nor have any opinion of, one way or another.
• Right to Choose vs Right to Life: Choice. Offer counseling, education, etc. I personally feel that abortion is a last choice that should be avoided. However, it is not my body. I have no right to lay demands upon anyone, and I know there are a great number of circumstances surrounding every individual case.
• Socialized Medicine vs Private Health Care: Social. Yes, it is a pain in the ass to have to pay taxes. It is a pain in the ass to think that my tax dollars are helping to keep people alive, who should really be earning themselves Darwin awards. That said, the benefits outweigh the negatives to me. By such a margin, that I do not have the vocabulary to express. I do not feel that anyone should be forced into crippling debt, because they were just unlucky enough to have their appendix attempt to kill them. On the whole, I approve of my country's Healthcare system, (Canada), however I feel that mental healthcare, and basic dental should be covered as well.
• Foreign Policy: Hawk or Dove?: If requested? Maybe. Looking back to Syria, where the Government was violently oppressing its people, and they formed a rebellion. If the Syrian Government asked for aid? No. Looking back to the Gulf War of 1991, where Iraq was aggressively invading its neighbours? Yes.
• Globalization vs Protectionism: I am inclined to Globalization, with mild protectionism, to encourage small business. Overall though, not well enough versed in the economics to provide anything other than personal biases against certain things that piss me off. Like the Chicken Tax, and vehicle importation restrictions.
• Immigrants vs Natives: Not an area I personally care much about, other than this: I have utterly no issue with Legal Immigrants. Illegal Immigrants however, are problematic.
• Separation of Church and State: Entirely separate. No connection. I do not agree with "In God We Trust" on American currency, even though it is not my own country. I do not agree with allowing Sharia courts. Or any other religion forming their own "courts". You came to this country. You follow this country's laws. You do not assert your own.
• Free Expression vs Hate Speech: Freedom. Period. If someone is yelling out to kill the jews? Feel free to yell right back in their face to kill all bigots. I feel this is more of a societal/cultural issue of the greater majority, lacking the conviction to shut down a vocal minority.
• Collective vs Individual: Individual Rights and Freedoms are of great importance to me.
• Weapons Legislation: I am utterly opposed to the banning of Anything and Everything. I am strongly in favour of education and licensing. I do not give a single fuck if someone wants to own a fully function, modern tank, with whatever ammunition they wish. As long as they have the education, and demonstrated the competence to use it in a safe manner. However, just because it is legal to own and use, does not mean it is street legal, or that person may fire a round at a country club range. Want to store it at home? Sure. If you have a large enough property, sure pay some fees, and get it registered as an approved range. Or possibly bring it to a military base where they have ranges for live fire. Used an enjoyed in a responsible manner? No. Fucking. Issue.
  Want to own an RPG? Same shit. Machinegun, SMG? Same shit. Need to get your license for it. Use it at a range that is registered as safe for their use. I have no issue with someone taking an RPG or a Machinegun out to a range, and blasting off a couple thousand dollars if that is what they consider fun. Besides, these sorts of weapons are kind of self-regulating due to their cost.
  
  I keep talking about licenses, let me outline my views on this:
  Licenses would have three levels. The first would be a hunting license, essentially. Bolt actions, lever actions, pump actions, large caliber handguns. Need to take a course, to teach you the fundamentals of firearms safety, handling, etc. You can take them out to the range, you can hunt with them. If you are outside of city limits, and have a large enough property? Shit, shoot them off your back porch into the woods.
  Second license would be sporting arms and handguns. Military-derived semi automatics. Semi-automatic pistols, big and small. Short barreled rifles, semi auto shotguns. Etc. IE: Damn near anything not automatic. Requirements would be additional education, making sure you understand the basics of different actions, how to render them safe, etc (Especially for open bolt operating, semi-automatic firearms). As a provision, you could get a concealed carry endorsement to your license if you so choose. However, you must take defensive firearm training courses, and meet a general competency test, akin to what Police Officers are required to pass to carry their duty firearms. Firearms of this category can be used however, just like any firearm from the hunting class.
  Third class of license would be fully automatics with possible explosive endorsement. SMGS, Select Fire firearms, Assault rifles, Light Machineguns, Heavy Machineguns, etc. Further education, and competency required. Explosive Ordnance Endorsement would probably end up being taking a fairly expensive course, provided by military instructors in the use safety precautions of explosive ordnance. Firearms falling under this class could only be used at ranges that have been approved to be safe for their use. You cannot hunt with them. You cannot use them in self defense.

Also, I would like to point out to out one thing to Enki:

Weapons Legislation: Banned from people younger than 28, for wisdom comes with age for majority of populace. When someone old goes batshit crazy it tends to be due to bad mental health. Older the people, less likely they are to suddenly pull out a shotgun and shoot the person who did not agree. A young person is more likely to go batshit crazy, because they want to look cool to their friends and to the ladies.

People do not gain Wisdom with Age. We gain Wisdom with Experience. Prohibiting someone from something does nothing but either encourage fear of that thing, or intrigue. Prohibition has been proven, decade after decade, to never work. The USA once prohibited the consumption of alcohol, and it gave rise to the glamourization of the criminal element that supplied the millions of people who continued to drink.
We prohibit youth from alcohol and cigarettes. Yet they continue to access these substances with reckless abandon, and thousands die from alcohol poisoning alone, every year.
We prohibit people from narcotics, and where has that lead us? Not only do ignorant teens overdose, but so do people of all ages, who have never used before....Because they don't have experience, or education ABOUT the substances.

Finally, when anyone goes batshit crazy, it is due to poor mental health. Regardless of age.
Both young and old people have done stupid shit with firearms to impress their friends, because they lacked experience with them.
Both young and old have killed their lovers in a fit of rage.

What is needed is education. Not fear.

 

[Enki]

People do not gain Wisdom with Age. We gain Wisdom with Experience. Prohibiting someone from something does nothing but either encourage fear of that thing, or intrigue. Prohibition has been proven, decade after decade, to never work. The USA once prohibited the consumption of alcohol, and it gave rise to the glamourization of the criminal element that supplied the millions of people who continued to drink.
We prohibit youth from alcohol and cigarettes. Yet they continue to access these substances with reckless abandon, and thousands die from alcohol poisoning alone, every year.
We prohibit people from narcotics, and where has that lead us? Not only do ignorant teens overdose, but so do people of all ages, who have never used before....Because they don't have experience, or education ABOUT the substances.

Finally, when anyone goes batshit crazy, it is due to poor mental health. Regardless of age.
Both young and old people have done stupid shit with firearms to impress their friends, because they lacked experience with them.
Both young and old have killed their lovers in a fit of rage.

What is needed is education. Not fear.

From where I come from, which would be Finland, we've got some fancy requirements to gain the rights for carrying, using, and buying guns, which means we need to be adult, not have any form of mental issues, be employed. There are few others, but I don't remember them. It results in that the person who is allowed to have a gun by the police is essentially someone who is a law-abiding citizen. And before you end up mentioning that it gives no reason to buy a gun, it's simple. Thorough our independence our country has been afraid of our eastern neighbour. Fear is always a strong reasoning over here.
Our youth have been starting to use less and less cigarettes and alcohol these days, with the millennials being the ones to mainly drink alcohol here. Generation Z has been less degenerate than them.
And we gain wisdom with experience, yes. But experience comes with age. You think a 7 year old has enough experience to know how to build a 4D wireframed box? Nah. You think a 40 year old has enough experience to do that? Plausibly, since there is the chance that they are a professional in the field of physics and the sort.

 

[Ouverture]

Here's a bunch of half-baked answers.

• Centralized vs Decentralized: How much power should be vested into Government, and at what level should power be held strongest? (Federal vs State vs Municipal.)

Honestly neither absolute works. Which is why we have human rights treaties yet no global government. Basic needs should always have some form of centralised control, but beyond that the divide is kind of tricky to nail down for me.

• Right to Choose vs Right to Life: Should a woman be allowed to get an abortion, and under what circumstances should they be allowed to get an abortion?

Right to choose. Yes. Even the women who abuse that right to the point of utterly destroying their own bodies. I mean it shouldn't be funded at that point, but I really don't think we should force parenthood on people who don't want or can't handle parenthood because that is not great for the child.

• Socialized Medicine vs Private Health Care: Should the government be involved in health care, or should it remain the domain of private entities, or should it be partially subsidized/controlled by government?

Government should be involved with providing the people basic health care. I don't think it is financially doable to fully fund everything, but "I'm sorry Bobby, you're gonna die because you're not wealthy enough." is a dick move.

• Foreign Policy: Hawk or Dove?: Should modern first world nations (especially those within NATO) engage in military operations in war stricken countries elsewhere in the world? If so, to what extent? If not, why?

I believe providing aid for innocent victims is more important than involving oneself in the conflict. Outside influences just aren't that great at healthy change within a culture. It's like trying to remove the tumor that's already spread. The body has to die, because keeping it on life support just extends the suffering.

• Globalization vs Protectionism: Should we engage in absolute free trade wherein anyone can conduct business anywhere, or should we engage in forms of protectionism (eg: Tariffs, Regulations, Import Tax, Local Business subsidies, so on).

I think some sort of protectionism is warranted, simply for the sake of market variety being good for the consumer. I'm not well read enough in knowing what exactly should and shouldn't be protected and to what degree, because I do think an overall global market is good, but if I have to find out another great but small restaurant is closing while fast-food chains have like five establishments per square meter isweartogod. Likewise, there's employment that is a thing that benefits from some form of protectionism and I think we can all agree that moving to India just because you work IT is kind of a silly demand.

• Immigrants vs Natives: How far should we choose to engage in immigration, and should we limit it or stop it entirely? Why?

Let people live wherever they want, for as long as the country itself can support it. We can test this a little with war refugees, because you know, being humane. However if you're just putting immigrants vs. natives here, so that's as much as I'm willing to share.

• Separation of Church and State: Should any laws, whatsoever, be conducted against any religion (Islam, Christian come to mind) or in the support of any religion, to any degree? How do you feel about "In God We Trust" on the American currency instead of "E Pluribus Unum" as an example?

Church and state should be completely separated. A religion doesn't change to reflect the needs of a people. There need be no rule against any religion specifically, but if it practices a felony, any religious reasoning to commit that felony is irrelevant.

• Free Expression vs Hate Speech: To what degree should we limit freedom of speech and expression in the name of combating hatred and systemic racism? Is there a place for Hate Speech codes? (Eg: If someone is shouting "death to the Jews!" in the streets, should anything be done about them?)

I am in favour of the right to absolute freedom of speech, even if I will really, really want to punch the "death to jews" guy in the teeth - public disorder would be a better reason than hate speech. I don't think I can completely justify my ideology, but the averse affects of censorship got me on edge.

• Collective vs Individual: Which is more important? The needs of the many, or the one?

I'm gonna go with the individual. Because liberalism. Sort of. Please don't box me in.

• Weapons Legislation: To what degree should weapons (knives, firearms, explosives, et cetera) be regulated or banned from use by the general public? How would you enforce such things, is it worth it to enforce such things, is it right to enforce such things?

Civilians should not be permitted to possess firearms. I also think that being caught with a knife in public is a good reason for interrogation and a night at the station.

 

[Kaos]

Centralized vs Decentralized:
State focused. Recent drug laws in the western half of the US seem to be going well without federal intervention. The election process and most of the government was founded on this; it's the "United States" after all.
What does a banker in New York City know about the struggles of a crop farmer in a drought? What does the Alaskan fisherman know of the tech industry? The basics at best. Local problems, local solutions, with people that intimately know the problem and how to fix it.

Right to Choose vs Right to Life:
Eggs ain't a chicken; cells ain't a person.

Socialized Medicine vs Private Health Care:
I do not care if X country has implemented it successfully, their country is different than the USA.

• Socialist healthcare reforms in the USA failed miserably, hurting the middle class of trained, educated labor that keeps the country running.
  • Our premiums were $450 quarterly (1800/yr), rose to $250 monthly (3000/yr) and now we're paying higher taxes so people can enjoy government insurance we don't benefit from.
  • We have paid more into insurance and the government than we personally get back in healthcare. Rates seem to have finally stopped rising, but there was a point dropping insurance seemed more financially responsible, even considering the fee for not being insured.
    
  • When I've actually gone to the doctor I've even paid SIGNIFICANTLY more ($55->$139) for basic visits. Losing the pay is bad enough, doubling down on it by spending more than you'd earn is just impossible.
    
  • A new doctor (In a quest for cheaper healthcare) thought his office took our insurance. It didn't. The price barely changed!
    
  • A switch in insurance made this even more costly, and the premiums for both plans have climbed, despite us not having any major illnesses, extensive lab work and only two emergency room visit in eight years while insured.
  • The recent emergency room visit this year cost us $6,000; the previous cost ~$1,200 in 2010. Payment plans offered to us would have increased the fee to above $8,900. There goes our safety net and several years' savings!
  • We can no longer enjoy any luxuries like going out to eat or on vacations, cannot put anything into savings, and my quality of life has declined greatly. I can no longer even think of buying my own home, my life goal. Even just a trailer on a half acre is impossible.
• Socialized Canadian medicine, so I've been told, has massive waiting periods, and such huge flaws that some people pay for private care anyway. Mental health services are barely functioning with 2-6 week waits for therapists. While I can't cite this, it leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
  
  
• People who risk injury should expect to pay for their mistakes. If this is part of a job the company should pay; it should be considered an operating cost, not a government expense.
  
  
• Encouraging sexual activity by paying for births and birth control should not be part of a governmental agenda.

In short: I don't know what the fuck works here but single payer socialist systems don't work and neither does our country's insurance system. The industry needs to be treated like a right and strictly regulated as one of the few interests of the federal government, alongside water, sewage, electricity, internet, natural resource protection, fair trade and militaries, while still paid for on a individual basis like any other utility. Maybe we need a government mandated and regulated system to pay it off over time, I don't know.



Foreign Policy: Hawk or Dove?:
Keep to your own corners of the damn planet and only come out when another government has royally screwed up and there are famines, genocides, rampant inflation, and other life-destroying threats to hundreds of thousands of people. We have ion engines; should have colonies on other planets by now, not keeping cycles of pointless violence active. Many countries have grown lazy and corrupt by foreign interference, even when violence is not involved, failing to resolve the problems that led to foreign involvement.

Globalization vs Protectionism:
Standards of living cannot be static without maintenance. Tariffs are good. Additionally, shipping things across the planet being cheaper than making them in the country they'll be sold in is ass-backwards and uses up even more resources we can't replace.

Immigrants vs Natives:
Immigration is useful only for driving down cost of labor, driving up the cost of housing, and causing unrest. Incentivizing untrained, uneducated individuals to immigrate to a country and educate them when you will not offer the same for your own citizens is disgraceful and self-destructive.

Separation of Church and State:
The only protections they should have are those of free speech and protection from discrimination. Holding different values that don't necessarily lead to destruction of a society or mass deaths is OK. They should be treated the same as any old organization that values something less spiritual, like fishing, bowling, golf, or any old fraternity.

Free Expression vs Hate Speech:
Censorship is a weapon none should have; it is the nuclear weapon of communication. You are just as free to yell at the person and wish they were dead verbally or not. Everything should be tolerated. An opinion is not inherently more valid than another. Your feelings being hurt is not an acceptable reason to silence another person.

Collective vs Individual:
Equal focus.

Weapons Legislation:
Zero regulation. The founding fathers of the US government had privately owned cannons. "Shall not be infringed" is very clear language.

You can scramble up the statistics any way you like but most of the cities with the highest crime rates in the country coincidentally have the largest restrictions on firearms, as well as the greatest amount of poverty. Putting more money and effort into rebuilding infrastructure (Making jobs for labor of all levels of education) and attracting businesses (That rely on this present work-force and its infrastructure) is a better way to go about reducing violence. More people were killed with hammers than rifles in 2011. Banning the tool is simply going after the symptom instead of the cause; people can't get what they need to live.

 

[Hana]

Spoiler

 

[Natalija]

Centralized vs. Decentralized: Somewhere in-betwen. Too much central power can lead to abuse of it and a police state, but too much regional autonomy can make a country vulnerable to internal schism. I think this one is a balancing akt, but leaning say 60/40 in favor of Centralized.

Right To Choose vs. Right To Live: Being a woman, and a feminist (not the 3rd wave fake pretender snowflake SJWs tho, REAL one), my answer to this is clyar. Woman's body is her own decision, nobody elses. But, there shuld be laws agenst abusing that right, and arbitrery abortions for no reason shuld be punished severely. Like all decisions, the decision to abort needs to be done RESPONSIBLY.

Socialized Medicine vs Private Health Care: Here in Croatia, we have a combination of both. The state covers all basic healthcare, nobody is ever left on there own, but for more specialized treatments, you need to reach in your pocket. And I think its a good system.

Foreign Policy: Hawk or Dove? This ties directly in-to the next point, Globalization, but I'l answer it separately. I am VERY much agenst anyone sticking anyone's nose vhere it dont belong, unless its in response to someone else trying to stack the deck, vhich culd threaten your own security. So, be pro-active, but passive (observe and be ready), and only active vhen reacting to someone else's interference. And if some idiot dictator wants to run his country to the ground - thats his business, and his country's problem to solve. Nobody elses. If they cant - too bad (and they proved they deserve it, since they wer in-capable of taking care of themselvs and let one asshole and his private army fuck them over, instead of organizing a revolution). They wil learn from mistakes, hopefuly. If not, they get the Darwin award for stupidity and apathy.

Globalization vs Protectionism: Protectionism, all the way. A country's main responsiblity shuld be enhancing it-self, and its own economy and standards of living for its people, not lets outsyde influence make it more dependent on it and less self-suficient. That is something sorely lacking here, I'm sory to say. Goverments are all too fond of taking the easy way, w/o regard for long term consekvences. Vithout production in-country, one can not have a economy. At least not one that isnt dependent on someone outsyde.

Immigrants vs Natives: Forbid imigration entirely (ideally build a fence, like Hungary did), except for tourism and temporary visits. Not only do immigrants take jobs of the native people, they also bring there own culture and traditions, vhich sometimes clash BADLY vith the native one. They dont assimilate, they undermine. All we have to do is take a look at vhat this un-controled Islamic migration has bringed for western Europe. Nothing but social strife and chaos, destruction of women's rights, along vith diluting the native culture and racial identitys. Thank god over here my goverment still has a brain about it, and keeps it at a minimum. And any immigrants actualy allowed in, shuld be considered second-class citizens, and NOT be afforded the same opportunitys as native people.

Free Expression vs Hate Speech: Free expresion can be a tricky thing. Its good, so long as it dont threaten the security of a society, or its ancestral cultural values. And also in my expirience, alot of what is considered "hate speech" is more a "common sense speech", vhich the leftists interpret as hate speech. So... on the fence about this one. Balance is needed.

Collective vs Individual: Balanced.

Weapons Legislation: Regulated, firmly but not extremely. Evryone shuld be alowed to carry a knife, for instanse, for self-defence, and be profisient in handling it. A firearm - low caliber only, and after extenzive checks. And AFTER learning to use it at a range under expert supervizion, not before. And that shuld also extend to police forces too. No heavy weapons for them, sidearms only, no armor, no military hardware. Focus more on training, mindset, learning not to give in to fear and stay calm in the face of danger, and actualy peace-keeping, and less on equipment that has no place on the streets and gives the cops the ability to power-trip out of fear or insecurity from lack of training, and be a threat to society. The only ppl who shuld have un-restricted akcess to heavy hardware are the military and military police.

All in all... I voted Mid-Right.

 

[Enki]

Immigrants vs Natives: Forbid imigration entirely (ideally build a fence, like Hungary did), except for tourism and temporary visits. Not only do immigrants take jobs of the native people, they also bring there own culture and traditions, vhich sometimes clash BADLY vith the native one. They dont assimilate, they undermine. All we have to do is take a look at vhat this un-controled Islamic migration has bringed for western Europe. Nothing but social strife and chaos, destruction of women's rights, along vith diluting the native culture and racial identitys. Thank god over here my goverment still has a brain about it, and keeps it at a minimum. And any immigrants actualy allowed in, shuld be considered second-class citizens, and NOT be afforded the same opportunitys as native people.

I would like to oppose that(and I think I wrote my opinions from before in a bit too rushed manner that I am not happy with the results.)
In some amounts immigration is good, because without it USA wouldn't have been so populated(Example: 16% of denizens in the state of New York are, after all, of Italian heritage). The way the old immigration was different from our current one is that back then only the diligent, the smart and the wealthy ones had the money and time to migrate to an another country. So it would be quite unwise in my mind to close off the entirety of immigration.

 

[Natalija]

USA is a special case, I mean, the vhole country vas built out of many European colonys, less then 400 yrs ago. So there is really no "culture" in a real sense, the culture over there is multi-culture. They only people there who have a culture of there own are Native Americans (whats left of them). So imigration doesnt affect them nearly as bad as it does us. I'd say they are actualy uniquely immune to its efects. Unlike us over here in Europe, where each country has a 1000+ years tradition and culture. For us, taking imigrants in is a HUGE threat. Look at Sweden... they are basicly dead alredy, overrun by Muslims who now run the streets in most citys there. If I ever traveled there, I'd be armed and ready for trouble at all times. Same vith Britain. Muslim "no-entry" ghettos. FFS, they even have a Muslim mayor of London! R.I.P Britain. Germany... its bad too, but not yet kuite as bad (tho if that sellout globalist bitch Merkel stays in power, I guarantee you it wil become worse). At least eastern Europe wil survive.

Bottom line, Europe is going down the drain because of uncontroled migration, and in my view, it may alredy be too late to arrest that tide. We need to learn from Hungary, Poland, and especialy Russia. They know how to handle migrants.

 

[Enki]

True, though the thing is that the people that come from the crisis areas are not real sane immigrants, but rather refugees that are partially forced here. They had no intention to assimilate, because they think that we can help them get back home during their lifetime. ...Though can we?

Also!

We need to learn from Hungary, Poland, and especialy Russia. They know how to handle migrants.

...Y-...

...You do know that a strong percentage of the refugees that come to Finland are the ones who are pushed out from Russia, right? So Russia does not appear to handle migrants the best for its neighboring country's safety.

 

[Natalija]

I dont care if they are sane, insane or vhatever. They need help. Fine. Help them, keep them SEGREGATED from general population in camps, then send them back vhere they came from. They dont want to assimilate, so dont take the chance. Keep them isolated. Also, how come they traveled all the way here, instead of seeking refuge in other Muslim countrys like... I dont know... Turkey? Saudi Arabia? Take a guess. Because it vas all planned, to flood Europe vith those people, and fuck knows how many sleeper agents among them.

...You do know that a strong percentage of the refugees that come to Finland are the ones who are pushed out from Russia, right?

So... you push them out too. Put them on ships, and send them back vhere they came from. Or, I dont know, organize forced assimilation programs for them, if they are to stay, they HAVE to assimilate and embrace your culture, instead of undermining it. Once you develop a reputation for being tough on migrants (like Russia has), they wont even try to flee your way animore. Its not a perfect solution, but its the only one that wil work, long term. Problem is, too many bleeding-hearted liberals are all mooshy vhen it comes to "poor migrants", and they wont take a firm stance on them. And those "poor migrants" are kuick to take advantage of that, and become parazites on society, or worse in some cases, terorists. And then you get people being stabbed to death or run over in the middle of the street, like hapens in London.

And... Russia isnt responsible for your safety, they are responsible for there own safety (and they are doing a damn good job, I have to say). Your safety is your responsibility, as is the case vith evryone. If you dont take care of your problems, nobody wil do it for you.

 

[Enki]

Mhm, though let's be honest: We lost, it is only a matter of time before the outcome becomes apparent to all. Better to start ensuring that you will be in a secure location when the storm comes than try to fight it among the plebs.

 

[Natalija]

Thats a defeatist atitude (one I hope most of the rest of your countrymen dont share, since honestly I respect Finnish people alot, especialy for there outstanding bravery during WW2, you guys kicked Russian asses to hell and back). Go ahead and subscribe to it if you want. I'l stand and fight (hell, fighting is probably the thing I'm best at), if it comes to that. Oh and "we" havent lost. "You" lost, vith that atitude.

 

[Enki]

Sure, I admit my defeat, and I respect your decision as well. I wish you luck in your journey. You will need it.

 

[Enki]

Ps. I wish you are the one on the winning side in the end. @Natalija

 

[Natalija]

No its ok. In fact, thanx! Evry time I hear someone say "we lost" like that (dont matter the cirkumstance), it just makes me more determined to improve my-self even more, physicaly and mentaly, and make sure I'm able to win more easyli, prove them wrong. Reverse psyhology works wonders on me, since I'm so stubborn. If you want to make sure I give 150% of my-self in a fight, you go and tell me "you dont have a chance, give it up". Had ppl tell me that before, in fact, deliberatly, to piss me off and spur me on more!

Also, luck is good, but I prefer ability.