I Side With

[DirtyDan17]

I know it's super early in the election cycle and some people may not have declared their candidacy, but I went ahead and did mine.

One thing I found interesting, and I wish there was a way for me to just share a picture without having to link it, but ALL the left wing candidates leaned closer to "Authritarianism" and leaned towards "Legislated Equality" than the majority of conservatives candidates on the political compass.

There was much more diversity in regard to ideology on the right than on the left.

https://www.isidewith.com/profile/3647670708/ballot/2020-presidential

 

[DirtyDan17]

Thought I was linking to the questionnaire, but that linked to my results. I would say it's a fairly accurate representation of who I would support.

Tulsi Gabbard was my frontrunner for the Dems, and if they nominate her, I would have a legitimate reason to consider voting Democrat.

 

[have an idea]

I guess I need to read

 

[3Rfan]

Thought I was linking to the questionnaire, but that linked to my results. I would say it's a fairly accurate representation of who I would support.

Tulsi Gabbard was my frontrunner for the Dems, and if they nominate her, I would have a legitimate reason to consider voting Democrat.

She is easily the most reasonable candidate I've seen that has declared or is thinking about it so she'll likely never get through the primaries.

 

[have an idea]

Lol

 

[DirtyDan17]

I guess I need to read

As a generally rule, yes you do.

 

[DirtyDan17]

She is easily the most reasonable candidate I've seen that has declared or is thinking about it so she'll likely never get through the primaries.

Super moderate.

If she sticks to her guns and doesnt bow down to the extremists in her party I think she would appeal to a lot of voters.

But you're probably right, she'll never make it.

 

[3Rfan]

Super moderate.

If she sticks to her guns and doesnt bow down to the extremists in her party I think she would appeal to a lot of voters.

But you're probably right, she'll never make it.

I'm sure her stance on gay rights back in her younger days when her father, who was pretty radical in his beliefs, formed her early opinion on such things will haunt her throughout the primaries and automatically disqualify her for many on the left.

 

[TJ_DUB]

I'm sure her stance on gay rights back in her younger days when her father, who was pretty radical in his beliefs, formed her early opinion on such things will haunt her throughout the primaries and automatically disqualify her for many on the left.

You’re probably right even though she has said those beliefs and statements were wrong and has apologized for them.

 

[DirtyDan17]

I'm sure her stance on gay rights back in her younger days when her father, who was pretty radical in his beliefs, formed her early opinion on such things will haunt her throughout the primaries and automatically disqualify her for many on the left.

It's a shame the left is so rigid in what is acceptable. There is no intellectual diversity allowed in the Democratic party.

 

[3Rfan]

It's a shame the left is so rigid in what is acceptable. There is no intellectual diversity allowed in the Democratic party.

Yeah, like all Trump backers are so very ready to look at all sides of any issue and willing to change their own opinion on something even if Trump is against, or for it.

 

[DirtyDan17]

Yeah, like all Trump backers are so very ready to look at all sides of any issue and willing to change their own opinion on something even if Trump is against, or for it.

I'm not talking about Trump backers, I'm talking about conservatives in general. I strongly suggest you take that I Side With questionnaire and then look at the political compass of all the potential candidates.

The libs are all in a very tight cluster (meaning there's VERY little diversity of thought among the left) on the right you have all types of candidates.

My entire point is, the left has a very narrow scope of what they consider acceptable in order to be a "Democrat", and frankly, none of them fit what I look for in a candidate...mostly because they're all the same candidate in different bodies.

 

[TJ_DUB]

It's a shame the left is so rigid in what is acceptable. There is no intellectual diversity allowed in the Democratic party.

Lol. Pot ... Kettle.

 

[3Rfan]

I'm not talking about Trump backers, I'm talking about conservatives in general. I strongly suggest you take that I Side With questionnaire and then look at the political compass of all the potential candidates.

The libs are all in a very tight cluster (meaning there's VERY little diversity of thought among the left) on the right you have all types of candidates.

My entire point is, the left has a very narrow scope of what they consider acceptable in order to be a "Democrat", and frankly, none of them fit what I look for in a candidate...mostly because they're all the same candidate in different bodies.

I'm not much on polls, questionnaires or those 'how did we do' thangs everybody we do business with anymore will ask us to do by phone or email.

 

[3Rfan]

I'm sure her stance on gay rights back in her younger days when her father, who was pretty radical in his beliefs, formed her early opinion on such things will haunt her throughout the primaries and automatically disqualify her for many on the left.

I may have the candidates mixed up, maybe it is Gillibrand whose dad had the gay rights issues in her background. There is already too many for me keep with. By the time the primaries actually start they'll have to have about 3 sets of debates each week to get answers from all of em.

 

[DirtyDan17]

Lol. Pot ... Kettle.

Go look at the compass. The left is all in a small cluster, the right is all over the place. There's no pot/kettle comparison.

In order to fit in on the left you have to follow a narrow, heavily structured path. To fit in on the right you just have to hold some conservative viewpoints.

 

[DirtyDan17]

I'm not much on polls, questionnaires or those 'how did we do' thangs everybody we do business with anymore will ask us to do by phone or email.

The "I side with" quiz is worth doing. It will actually point you in the direction of the candidate you most agree with based on how your views line up with theirs. You might be surprised who you actually agree with.

 

[TJ_DUB]

Go look at the compass. The left is all in a small cluster, the right is all over the place. There's no pot/kettle comparison.

In order to fit in on the left you have to follow a narrow, heavily structured path. To fit in on the right you just have to hold some conservative viewpoints.

Does the Republican Party not also require the following of a narrow, heavily structured path? (in no particular order):
1.) Want a lowering of taxes, but spend billions on a wall at southern border while ignoring infrastructure.
2.) Have to believe that climate change is an imaginary situation.
3.) Trump is a political god/genius and has kept every campaign promise he made.
4.) Every Democrat is a far left liberal.
5.) Mueller’s investigation is a “witch hunt.” POTUS has done nothing wrong. The Special Counsel, to this point, has not shown any evidence to the contrary. Therefore, they have no evidence at all.
6.) It’s almost 11:30pm. I’m tired. I’m stopping, lol. Good night. Remember, this is imho.

 

[DirtyDan17]

Does the Republican Party not also require the following of a narrow, heavily structured path? (in no particular order):
1.) Want a lowering of taxes, but spend billions on a wall at southern border while ignoring infrastructure.
2.) Have to believe that climate change is an imaginary situation.
3.) Trump is a political god/genius and has kept every campaign promise he made.
4.) Every Democrat is a far left liberal.
5.) Mueller’s investigation is a “witch hunt.” POTUS has done nothing wrong. The Special Counsel, to this point, has not shown any evidence to the contrary. Therefore, they have no evidence at all.
6.) It’s almost 11:30pm. I’m tired. I’m stopping, lol. Good night. Remember, this is imho.

Literally no to all of these.

 

[TJ_DUB]

Literally no to all of these.

That’s not the way I see it. I tend to think we both see the “other side” through ... whatever the opposite of rose-colored glasses is.

 

[DirtyDan17]

That’s not the way I see it. I tend to think we both see the “other side” through ... whatever the opposite of rose-colored glasses is.

Is Rand Paul a conservative? Is Donald Trump a conservative? Is Darrell Castle a conservative? Do you think they're all in lockstep ideologically?

That's the difference. Liberals scramble over each other to agree on doctrine and will force more moderate candidates to apologize for having dissenting opinions to stay in the club.

Liberals LOVE diversity, unless it's diversity of thought.

 

[TJ_DUB]

Is Rand Paul a conservative? Is Donald Trump a conservative? Is Darrell Castle a conservative? Do you think they're all in lockstep ideologically?

That's the difference. Liberals scramble over each other to agree on doctrine and will force more moderate candidates to apologize for having dissenting opinions to stay in the club.

Liberals LOVE diversity, unless it's diversity of thought.

I don’t even consider Trump a Republican, do you? But yet ...

 

[DirtyDan17]

I don’t even consider Trump a Republican, do you? But yet ...

That's not what I asked. Care to comment on the content of my post or no?

Theres no diversity of thought on the left. Discuss.

 

[millerbleach]

That's not what I asked. Care to comment on the content of my post or no?

Theres no diversity of thought on the left. Discuss.

TJD has mastered one thing.....not answering questions then claiming he answered them.

 

[3Rfan]

The "I side with" quiz is worth doing. It will actually point you in the direction of the candidate you most agree with based on how your views line up with theirs. You might be surprised who you actually agree with.

I agree with several things Trump wants to do, I almost never agree with how he goes about it. I have no problem with more fencing on the border, I also supported Obama when he had a few hundred miles of it built. Trump never mentions that nor does he mention that the Obama had more illegals deported than most other presidents and more than GW Bush. I wish the dems in charge would stop fighting ANY amount of border fencing money and combine some of that with the tech stuff they really need. Do you realize the last offer from the dems includes money for over 2000 new Border Patrol Agents? That's enough to place one to cover every mile of our southern border. If they can't effectively keep illegals from crossing with that much help, plus more tech help, I don't know what would do the job.

 

[TJ_DUB]

That's not what I asked. Care to comment on the content of my post or no?

Theres no diversity of thought on the left. Discuss.

I did. Scroll ^^^^^ I commented back to you concerning my opinion being that the same could be said for Republicans. You denied and didn’t discuss. I guess we’re both feeling same way about the other party.

I can understand why you think Dems have a lack of diversity on issues. But not on the silly stuff you mentioned concerning race/minorities, etc.

 

[DirtyDan17]

I did. Scroll ^^^^^ I commented back to you concerning my opinion being that the same could be said for Republicans. You denied and didn’t discuss. I guess we’re both feeling same way about the other party.

I can understand why you think Dems have a lack of diversity on issues. But not on the silly stuff you mentioned concerning race/minorities, etc.

You didn't, you tried turning it back on Republicans instead of addressing the lack of ideological diversity on the left.

In order to run as a Democrat in 2020 they must:

1. Want to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

2. Want free healthcare.

3. Want "economic fairness" ie socialism.

4. Demonize white men as the cause of the majority of the world's problems, even if they are in fact white and/or men. Which is one of the biggest reasons they lost in 2016.

5. Promote diversity above all else.

6. Promote globalism and actively call to have open borders.

And if you think I'm making all this up, go ahead and read the democratic party platform from 2016, because I'm literally just paraphrasing from that.

https://democrats.org/about/party-platform/

So please, tell me where any of this is "wrong" and where there is any diversity of thought on the left?

 

[DirtyDan17]

I have no problem with more fencing on the border, I also supported Obama when he had a few hundred miles of it built. Trump never mentions that nor does he mention that the Obama had more illegals deported than most other presidents and more than GW Bush.

Funny how no Dems mention that. Why is it racist when Trump does it, but no one batted an eye at Obama?

Fencing isn't going to get the job done. If you're ok with a fence, why not a wall?

 

[millerbleach]

Funny how no Dems mention that. Why is it racist when Trump does it, but no one batted an eye at Obama?

Fencing isn't going to get the job done. If you're ok with a fence, why not a wall?

The thing is, I (and Republicans) supported it when Obama did it and what Obama built was the same type wall/fence Trump is pushing for. The part that was built then has greatly helped but more is needed. The only reasons to object now are, Trump campaigned on it, and the libs fear any more will greatly curtail illegals. They favor making it appear they want to stop illegals while allowing open borders. If I put up a partial fence around my yard, it has some but little affect. I can say i'm fencing the yard but really i'm not.

 

[3Rfan]

Funny how no Dems mention that. Why is it racist when Trump does it, but no one batted an eye at Obama?

Fencing isn't going to get the job done. If you're ok with a fence, why not a wall?

A wall is NOT what border patrol agents want. They want to be able to see what's going on on the other side, and the "big beautiful wall" he campaigned on, and said Mexico would pay for, is more expensive. None of it will stop what Trump claims he wants it for. Drugs mostly come through ports of entry but you guys just can't get that through your head. It also wouldn't stop the 'caravans' showing up at the border, the one I saw went straight to port of entry and was stopped there. I didn't see any response form you guys about the money dems have offered for over 2000 new border patrol agents. If you add that many more they should easily be able to catch anybody crossing the border since they could have one every mile or two. If they can't patrol that much of the border effectively then what the heck are they doing there?

 

[DirtyDan17]

A wall is NOT what border patrol agents want. They want to be able to see what's going on on the other side, and the "big beautiful wall" he campaigned on, and said Mexico would pay for, is more expensive. None of it will stop what Trump claims he wants it for. Drugs mostly come through ports of entry but you guys just can't get that through your head. It also wouldn't stop the 'caravans' showing up at the border, the one I saw went straight to port of entry and was stopped there. I didn't see any response form you guys about the money dems have offered for over 2000 new border patrol agents. If you add that many more they should easily be able to catch anybody crossing the border since they could have one every mile or two. If they can't patrol that much of the border effectively then what the heck are they doing there?

So why do you claim to be in favor of any fence if it won't do any good?

I agree with several things Trump wants to do, I almost never agree with how he goes about it. I have no problem with more fencing on the border, I also supported Obama when he had a few hundred miles of it built. Trump never mentions that nor does he mention that the Obama had more illegals deported than most other presidents and more than GW Bush. I wish the dems in charge would stop fighting ANY amount of border fencing money and combine some of that with the tech stuff they really need. Do you realize the last offer from the dems includes money for over 2000 new Border Patrol Agents? That's enough to place one to cover every mile of our southern border. If they can't effectively keep illegals from crossing with that much help, plus more tech help, I don't know what would do the job.

Why cant you just admit it's 100% because it's Trump doing it, not that it's being done.

 

[3Rfan]

So why do you claim to be in favor of any fence if it won't do any good?



Why cant you just admit it's 100% because it's Trump doing it, not that it's being done.

I'm not against some fencing where it make sense but if we hire enough border patrol agents to cover every inch if the border a wall or fence wouldn't help much anywhere. What would the wall do to stop those going through all the tunnels they just found and have found over the years? More agents can still catch them coming out of the tunnels, the wall will do NOTHING about that. At any rate a LOT more drugs come through legal ports of entry than come across, or under, the border.

 

[DirtyDan17]

I'm not against some fencing where it make sense but if we hire enough border patrol agents to cover every inch if the border a wall or fence wouldn't help much anywhere. What would the wall do to stop those going through all the tunnels they just found and have found over the years? More agents can still catch them coming out of the tunnels, the wall will do NOTHING about that. At any rate a LOT more drugs come through legal ports of entry than come across, or under, the border.

Great, build the wall AND hire more agents.

 

[millerbleach]

Great, build the wall AND hire more agents.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner. The wall makes it where the agents have a chance to catch them. They can't just run across in the dark when agents can't see. I guess agents can't see tunnels but can see people.

 

[3Rfan]

Ding ding ding, we have a winner. The wall makes it where the agents have a chance to catch them. They can't just run across in the dark when agents can't see. I guess agents can't see tunnels but can see people.

I'm pretty sure the tunnels are dug under the fence or they wouldn't be tunnels. I did said they could see people coming out of tunnels and therefore be able to catch them. Add to that they would then know where the tunnel opening is to catch the next bunch coming through. I'd be willing to bet they have headlightsAND spotlights on their trucks too.