Conservative. Liberal. Democrat. Republican. Left Wing. Right Wing.

[evenflow1969]

There is no Far Right in this county.....only Far Left.

Applicably speaking, yes. I agree.

In today's political/social arena, however, people tend to tailor their own ism. Hence, my previous thought here. And therein lies the chore at hand.

If ya belive that shit, I have some land in Florida for sale it's perfect for ya! The squaters are only there for the week end!

 

[Natural Citizen]

I actually get along with the left for the most part. I agree with them in many instances with regard to particular problems.

It's the solution to the problems that I disagree with them about.

 

[BlackSand]

It's a novel idea. And I agree.

But people want to be led. That's what we're up against.

Au Contraire ... Those that want to be led are easy to lead.
Those that want to be followed and where they are leading us are our problems.

.

 

[Natural Citizen]

There is no Far Right in this county.....only Far Left.

Applicably speaking, yes. I agree.

In today's political/social arena, however, people tend to tailor their own ism. Hence, my previous thought here. And therein lies the chore at hand.

If ya belive that shit, I have some land in Florida for sale it's perfect for ya! The squaters are only there for the week end!

There is freedom and there is slavery. There is no in between.

 

[evenflow1969]

I actually get along with the left for the most part. I agree with them in many instances with regard to particular problems.

It's the solution to the problems that I disagree with them about.

I personaly belive todays politics is just to different pitches. Neither side delivers, it just ends up being the same old bull shit once they get into office!

 

[busybee01]

If you dare to question Trump on even his conduct you are considered left wing or liberal. It's like living in Russia. Senate Republicans like Corker and Flake have voted for everything Trump wanted but that is not enough. I was proud to support Ronald Reagan twice. Under Reagan, the Republican Party became the party of ideas. Some parts of Obamacare came from Heritage.

The so-called conservative movement has been corrupted by Trump. I thought Sarah Palin had the potential to be the next Ronald Reagan. However she is a incoherent Trump supporter. She is as obnoxious as he is. The Freedom Caucus should be named Freedom "if you have the money" Caucus. I look at the regulations that are being overturned and I agree with some of it and disagree with others. I can look at each regulation and determine whether they are necessary instead of getting rid of it because Obama did it. That is no basis for doing it.

I consider myself a independent now and O find myself hoping the House falls to the Democrats and Senate to Republicans. That will force compromise.

Progressives are progressives whether they are in the republican party or the democrat party....and it's not Trump who's not voting for Corker and Flake....

Not true. A progressive to Trump sycophants is someone who questions anything Trump does. Corker and Flake have gone along with every iteration of every awful Republican health care bill that has been put forward. Corker has questioned Trump's maturity and for good reason. Because they do not get down on bended knee on everything Trump says they are progressives. Being compassionate is not being a progressive.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Recently I have been called a left winger, right winger, Liberal, etc, etc, etc. For any reason. So I did a little research, and to come to find out, there is not one I fully agree with. I may agree with ones philosophy, the other ideologies, another ones ideas, and another economic coordination, and disagree with others.
So what if you don't fully agree with any of them?
What would you be considered?
Is there a neutral?
Something in between, that agrees and disagrees with a little of each one?

Assuming that the question applies to Americans, then 'neutral' would be the values, attitudes and beliefs of the Founders.

Based on that, the Right is 'neutral,' or centrist.....and, while there is a Far Left that has seized control of the major political party.....

....there is no Far Right in this country.

If you doubt that......try to come up with any values, attitudes and beliefs propounded by the Right that run counter to those of the Founders.


There are numerous views, desires and attitudes of the Left, that are far, far from those of this nation.

Why assume that the question applies only to Americans? American politics have never existed in a vacuum. American people have always been exposed to and incorporated ideas that arose in different places, and in different times. More than that, the founders had some diametrically opposing “values, attitudes and beliefs”. Some founders believed in white supremacy, others did not. In a later post you would say that:
>>>”To be 'far,' it must be at a distance to the center: American traditions, values, and history represent that center.”
Really.. American history represents the “center” also? Does that mean the conquest of other people’s lands represent the “center”? Does that mean chattel slavery represents the “center”? Or a collectivist could point out to the fact that public education, public assistance to the poor, and publicly funded infrastructure have always existed in America and are thus American traditions; with subjective interpretation, the “center” could represent whatever you want it to be. So then when you say “Right is 'neutral,' or centrist”, you’re both revealing how those terms are completely subjective, and how you’re completely certain of your subjective interpretation: the “right” IS the center. I suppose that’s a bit like an apple IS a banana.

How would your view account for a libertarian who believes that drugs and prostitution should be completely legal, but also believes in free market capitalism; and a communist that believes that prostitution and recreational drugs should be outlawed? Or we could compare that libertarian to a religious conservative who believes in capitalism, but also believes that prostitution and recreational drugs should be outlawed. The libertarian could lay claim to the American tradition of liberty, while the religious conservative could lay claim to the American tradition of placing government enforced restrictions on drugs and prostitution. Since you’re using a subjective (and apparently one-dimensional) scale, they could both just label the other as “left” or “right”. I think you’ve just invented a scale that puts you at the center, so that you can label everyone else as wrong.

Your fight against “homosexual marriage” I think is a good example of why believers in the supremacy of “tradition” so often lose. There are 1138 statutory provisions that confer special rights and privileges upon “married” people. Marriage is a philosophical construct in the same way as religion is. As long as no one is being harmed the state should butt out. The state can’t be granting special rights and privileges to people who practice “traditional marriage” any more than it can be granting special rights and privileges to people who practice christianity; “equal protection of the laws” as the 14th amendment says. I won’t bother looking to past religious leaders because I know that religious people often hold irrational beliefs. I place priority on logic. People also tried to say the practice of slavery should remain because it was traditional, and that women shouldn’t vote because that was the tradition.

'Why assume that the question applies only to Americans? '

Because, in all of history, America is exceptional.

I suggest you read America's memorializing documents.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I can't reply to your quotes. This is the klunkiest forum I've ever been on. I like vBulletin.

Anyway. Get people elected at the local level, train delegates (or learn to how to become a delegate), educate people on the political process and educate your peers along the way. That's a good start.

I'm taking a break from it. I just got out of a ten year stint in the election trenches and back into the general population.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is no Far Right in this county.....only Far Left.

Applicably speaking, yes. I agree.

In today's political/social arena, however, people tend to tailor their own ism. Hence, my previous thought here. And therein lies the chore at hand.

"In today's political/social arena, however, people tend to tailor their own ism."


Really....?

I say my exposition is not simply my opinion....As I have asked earlier, can you find any Rightwing values or attitudes not consistent with those of America's Founders?



The Left, on the other hand, eschews said values, traditions and attitudes,and substitutes those of Hegel, Marx and Rousseau.

Let's go right for the head of the Far Left....Obama

The Obama administration is easily proven to be Far Left: he advanced, to a seat on the Supreme Court, a radical who does not believe in free speech, the first amendment.

"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."



In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."



Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."

If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?



Any want to deny that free speech is at the center of American tradition???
Anyone?



So....as far as the concept of free speech in America, where do we find the radical position?
On the Left.
Hence, far left.



....see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Lady, you're barking up the wrong tree. Respectfully.

There is no Far Right in this county.....only Far Left.

Applicably speaking, yes. I agree.

In today's political/social arena, however, people tend to tailor their own ism. Hence, my previous thought here. And therein lies the chore at hand.

"In today's political/social arena, however, people tend to tailor their own ism."


Really....?

I say my exposition is not simply my opinion....As I have asked earlier, can you find any Rightwing values or attitudes not consistent with those of America's Founders?



The Left, on the other hand, eschews said values, traditions and attitudes,and substitutes those of Hegel, Marx and Rousseau.

Let's go right for the head of the Far Left....Obama

The Obama administration is easily proven to be Far Left: he advanced, to a seat on the Supreme Court, a radical who does not believe in free speech, the first amendment.

"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."



In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."



Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."

If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?



Any want to deny that free speech is at the center of American tradition???
Anyone?



So....as far as the concept of free speech in America, where do we find the radical position?
On the Left.
Hence, far left.



....see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Lady, you're barking up the wrong tree. Respectfully.

There is no Far Right in this county.....only Far Left.

Applicably speaking, yes. I agree.

In today's political/social arena, however, people tend to tailor their own ism. Hence, my previous thought here. And therein lies the chore at hand.

"In today's political/social arena, however, people tend to tailor their own ism."


Really....?

I say my exposition is not simply my opinion....As I have asked earlier, can you find any Rightwing values or attitudes not consistent with those of America's Founders?



The Left, on the other hand, eschews said values, traditions and attitudes,and substitutes those of Hegel, Marx and Rousseau.

Let's go right for the head of the Far Left....Obama

The Obama administration is easily proven to be Far Left: he advanced, to a seat on the Supreme Court, a radical who does not believe in free speech, the first amendment.

"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."



In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."



Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."

If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?



Any want to deny that free speech is at the center of American tradition???
Anyone?



So....as far as the concept of free speech in America, where do we find the radical position?
On the Left.
Hence, far left.



....see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.

I assume, then, that you agree that the term 'Far Right' is a slur by the side that wishes to pretend that the other side is their equivalent.



Be well.

 

[Moonglow]

Before the two party system legally became the only two parties that could win, you had party bosses that controlled who ran and what party....Now we have the system of only two parties in power which put the final lock on the box in the 1970's...Behind the scenes power politics are still at play just like before, it's just fewer choices to make now...

 

[Moonglow]

Lady, you're barking up the wrong tree. Respectfully.

There is no Far Right in this county.....only Far Left.

Applicably speaking, yes. I agree.

In today's political/social arena, however, people tend to tailor their own ism. Hence, my previous thought here. And therein lies the chore at hand.

"In today's political/social arena, however, people tend to tailor their own ism."


Really....?

I say my exposition is not simply my opinion....As I have asked earlier, can you find any Rightwing values or attitudes not consistent with those of America's Founders?



The Left, on the other hand, eschews said values, traditions and attitudes,and substitutes those of Hegel, Marx and Rousseau.

Let's go right for the head of the Far Left....Obama

The Obama administration is easily proven to be Far Left: he advanced, to a seat on the Supreme Court, a radical who does not believe in free speech, the first amendment.

"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."



In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."



Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."

If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?



Any want to deny that free speech is at the center of American tradition???
Anyone?



So....as far as the concept of free speech in America, where do we find the radical position?
On the Left.
Hence, far left.



....see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.

I assume, then, that you agree that the term 'Far Right' is a slur by the side that wishes to pretend that the other side is their equivalent.



Be well.

No hunny bunny, it means that the right has slid so far right they still want to carry on the refusal of rights and privileges of being a pleb citizens.. and of course the freaks want their religion to be the state religion and reinstituted via the bureaucracies...

 

[Moonglow]

Lady, you're barking up the wrong tree. Respectfully.

There is no Far Right in this county.....only Far Left.

Applicably speaking, yes. I agree.

In today's political/social arena, however, people tend to tailor their own ism. Hence, my previous thought here. And therein lies the chore at hand.

"In today's political/social arena, however, people tend to tailor their own ism."


Really....?

I say my exposition is not simply my opinion....As I have asked earlier, can you find any Rightwing values or attitudes not consistent with those of America's Founders?



The Left, on the other hand, eschews said values, traditions and attitudes,and substitutes those of Hegel, Marx and Rousseau.

Let's go right for the head of the Far Left....Obama

The Obama administration is easily proven to be Far Left: he advanced, to a seat on the Supreme Court, a radical who does not believe in free speech, the first amendment.

"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."



In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."



Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."

If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?



Any want to deny that free speech is at the center of American tradition???
Anyone?



So....as far as the concept of free speech in America, where do we find the radical position?
On the Left.
Hence, far left.



....see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.

Like a hound dog with sinusitis...

 

[Natural Citizen]

I assume, then, that you agree that the term 'Far Right' is a slur by the side that wishes to pretend that the other side is their equivalent.



Be well.

Yes, ma'am.

I'm sorry for beng short with you in the previous communication.

Thanks, and enjoy your Sunday.

 

[TNHarley]

Recently I have been called a left winger, right winger, Liberal, etc, etc, etc. For any reason. So I did a little research, and to come to find out, there is not one I fully agree with. I may agree with ones philosophy, the other ideologies, another ones ideas, and another economic coordination, and disagree with others.
So what if you don't fully agree with any of them?
What would you be considered?
Is there a neutral?
Something in between, that agrees and disagrees with a little of each one?

You might be called "center", it depends, or you can split things up. When you find people who are hard core one thing, you kind of know they aren't actually using their brain, just accepting and defining themselves within someone else's parameters.

That's a hasty generalization.

Is it?

Have you ever found anyone with pre-set ideas that uses their brain? I certainly haven't and there are plenty of examples on this forum to prove it.

You can't say how they all came to their ideas. I'm confident in mine currently but that doesn't mean I haven't come to them through careful consideration and learning.

No, I can't. So I generalize. Is there anything wrong with that?

However those I have spoken to are generally partisan hacks who will argue their case no matter the evidence in front of them. They want their "side" to be right and will push for that and ignore everything else.

Ironically, you put me on ignore for calling you out doing the same damn thing.
Sad

 

[busybee01]

Recently I have been called a left winger, right winger, Liberal, etc, etc, etc. For any reason. So I did a little research, and to come to find out, there is not one I fully agree with. I may agree with ones philosophy, the other ideologies, another ones ideas, and another economic coordination, and disagree with others.
So what if you don't fully agree with any of them?
What would you be considered?
Is there a neutral?
Something in between, that agrees and disagrees with a little of each one?

Assuming that the question applies to Americans, then 'neutral' would be the values, attitudes and beliefs of the Founders.

Based on that, the Right is 'neutral,' or centrist.....and, while there is a Far Left that has seized control of the major political party.....

....there is no Far Right in this country.

If you doubt that......try to come up with any values, attitudes and beliefs propounded by the Right that run counter to those of the Founders.


There are numerous views, desires and attitudes of the Left, that are far, far from those of this nation.

There is a far right. It starts with white supremacists and neo-nazis. The so-called Freedom Caucus is far right. Instead of finding conservative ways of helping people they tell people who are struggling to drop dead.

1. .....try to come up with any values, attitudes and beliefs propounded by the Right that run counter to those of the Founders.

You didn't because there are none.
But I can provide lots of Far Left examples that you support.


2. Nazis are Leftists...not on the Right.
"Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

".... Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And ... socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.

... the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party ... what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?"

Socialists.....just like Liberals.
Both are Leftists.




3. How about you try again:
There is no "far right" in this country.
To be 'far,' it must be at a distance to the center: American traditions, values, and history represent that center.

There are so very many ways to prove same.....
Let's take as an example, traditional marriage, that involves one man and one woman, and compare that with homosexual marriage..
....which is the radical position?
Hence, Far Left

Need convincing? Well, a common social reference is 'the nuclear family.' It has always meant:
" a family group that consists only of father, mother, and children" Definition of NUCLEAR FAMILY


How about 'traditional family'?
"A traditional family is a family structure that consists of a man, woman and one or more of their biological or adopted children. In most traditional families, the man and woman are husband and wife." Traditional Family: Definition & Concept | Study.com




So....as far as the concept of marriage and family, where do we find the radical position?
The Left.
Hence, 'Far Left.'
So far, far from the center, that they cannot point to a single philosopher, sage, or religious leader throughout history who has endorsed homosexual marriage.




If you have used the fallacy "Far Right," or never considered its usage, see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.

The trouble is that the conservative movement has been corrupted by Trump. I proudly voted for Ronald Reagan yet Reagan would be called a liberal by Trump conservatives. Trump conservatives have talked about controlling the news media. That is a violation of the First Amendment. A bump stock was used to kill or injure hundreds in Las Vegas. Yet Republicans refuse to ban devices like these. Banning them is not a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Nazis were socialists but it was far more than that. They were also authoritarians. Trump never mentions the word freedom and the so-called Freedom Caucus should be re-named Freedom for those who are well off Caucus. Immigration agents have been becoming increasingly authoritarian by ignoring the need for search warrants. Trump pardoned Arpaio who violated the 4th Amendment rights of Americans. He has also suggested that it is okay for cops to rough up their prisoners. Hitler did have some success. He did succeed in pulling Germany out of a depression.

Roy Moore has said that Muslims should not be allowed to hold office and gays should be jailed. Whatever you think of gay marriage, that position is extreme. Yet he could be a US Senator. This guy should have gotten 5% of the vote not over 50%.

The fact is that there are mainstream conservatives who are not far right. However they are in a minority and have been eclipsed by the far right. It is represented by hate over policy.

 

[busybee01]

If you dare to question Trump on even his conduct you are considered left wing or liberal. It's like living in Russia. Senate Republicans like Corker and Flake have voted for everything Trump wanted but that is not enough. I was proud to support Ronald Reagan twice. Under Reagan, the Republican Party became the party of ideas. Some parts of Obamacare came from Heritage.

The so-called conservative movement has been corrupted by Trump. I thought Sarah Palin had the potential to be the next Ronald Reagan. However she is a incoherent Trump supporter. She is as obnoxious as he is. The Freedom Caucus should be named Freedom "if you have the money" Caucus. I look at the regulations that are being overturned and I agree with some of it and disagree with others. I can look at each regulation and determine whether they are necessary instead of getting rid of it because Obama did it. That is no basis for doing it.

I consider myself a independent now and O find myself hoping the House falls to the Democrats and Senate to Republicans. That will force compromise.

I call bullshit!
You supported Reagan for one reason and one reason only...he granted amnesty to 3.5 million illegal human cockroaches and you love your filthy wetbacks...PERIOD!

Why don't you shut your damned mouth. You are part of the far right. You are the white supremacist. Ronald Reagan cut taxes, got tax reform and defeated the Soviet Union. He was a great leader without insulting people. He never would have tolerated Trump.

Haha...you've blown your own cover here bud...you don't give two shits about REAL Americans, American economics and or prosperity and you know it...sell your bullshit somewhere else...your motivation lies in morphing this nation in to an extension of Mexico. You've made it crystal clear.

I do care about real Americans. I realize that we need to quit lying to them and get people ready for 21st century jobs instead of being stuck in the 20th century. You are the one who does not understand economics. If we followed your logic, we would raise the minimum wage to $15 a hour. You are the one putting out racist bullshit. Take your ignorance somewhere else.

 

[Indeependent]

Recently I have been called a left winger, right winger, Liberal, etc, etc, etc. For any reason. So I did a little research, and to come to find out, there is not one I fully agree with. I may agree with ones philosophy, the other ideologies, another ones ideas, and another economic coordination, and disagree with others.
So what if you don't fully agree with any of them?
What would you be considered?
Is there a neutral?
Something in between, that agrees and disagrees with a little of each one?

Concrete example...
Each Party's Platform has 10 Points.
If you disagree with even 1 point, you will be told you belong to the opposing party.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I assume, then, that you agree that the term 'Far Right' is a slur by the side that wishes to pretend that the other side is their equivalent.



Be well.

Yes, ma'am.

I'm sorry for beng short with you in the previous communication.

Thanks, and enjoy your Sunday.

What a gracious post.....we're kinda short of those around here.


And, the same to you.