What international parties do you support on the other side of the spectrum?

[Hash]

The Labor Party in Israel.

They're basically a right-wing warmongering party, so....

[Torie]

The Labor Party in Israel.

They're basically a right-wing warmongering party, so....

The Peretz party is now a bunch of right wing warmongers?  If so, I need to keep up more I guess.

[tpfkaw]

I suppose Israel is kinda an example, I'd support the hard-core socialists over the "market liberals" although I'd argue that the former are still the less statist.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The Labor Party in Israel.

They're basically a right-wing warmongering party, so....

The Peretz party is now a bunch of right wing warmongers?  If so, I need to keep up more I guess.

How about Hungary? The right consists of some extreme nationalists and their allies are essentially out and out fascists, and they are also extreme protectionists. The Socialist Party on the other hand is quite moderate and are free traders.

[Gustaf]

Hm, I do right in Sweden.

So, where do I back the left?

US
Italy, probably
France I'd go something not mainstream right at least (and not Le Pen either of course)
Russia I think the opposition counts as left.
Turkey
India
Greece
Austria
Switzerland
Thailand

In general I'd often support the left in poorer countries where social justice is more of a priorioty.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Hm, I do right in Sweden.

So, where do I back the left?

US

LOL no. You just say you do and then go ahead and endorse Republicans for just about every office (like McCain, and just about every Republican for statewide office in my state, including one who lost by 20 points and only won die-hard GOP areas.)

[TheGlobalizer]

You guys really need to know Lega Nord better. If reading wikipedia's article doesn't make you vomit, it means that article isn't accurate.

I don't think people that aren't Italian or follow Italian politics can really understand it. I mean, I'm obviously for federalism but Lega Nord's version of federalism is different. I can understand people on the Right thinking that they like Lega Nord's economic stances but you dig deeper than just a Wikipedia page and find out that their policy is basically, "We hate the south. They're animals. They're North Africans. Cut them off entirely."

I'm not overly versed in Italian politics but I've seen enough to get the gist.  Lega's position on immigration/southern Italy is repugnant, but I think there's some merit to their view that northern Italy is an entirely different place culturally and economically.  They are definitely nutty, just like the rest of Italian political movements, which are either quasi-fascist or fantasy-land leftists.

Interestingly, the rule of law in Italy is such that there's more of a de facto libertarian feel than here in the US.  As much as I prefer American economic views, I loathe the overwhelming fixation on law enforcement here and found the laissez faire legal system in Italy to be refreshing.  Must suck if you're in business, tho.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Oh yeah, sure : mafia, corruption, tax evasion are so great things...

[Gustaf]

Hm, I do right in Sweden.

So, where do I back the left?

US

LOL no. You just say you do and then go ahead and endorse Republicans for just about every office (like McCain, and just about every Republican for statewide office in my state, including one who lost by 20 points and only won die-hard GOP areas.)

Eh...no. Please provide some proof backing up the assertion that I support Republicans for just about every office? You offered 2 examples so far. I will give you two counters:

Kerry in 2004
Casey in 2006

So now it's tied 2-2.

[Gustaf]

Hm, I do right in Sweden.

So, where do I back the left?

US

LOL no. You just say you do and then go ahead and endorse Republicans for just about every office (like McCain, and just about every Republican for statewide office in my state, including one who lost by 20 points and only won die-hard GOP areas.)

Eh...no. Please provide some proof backing up the assertion that I support Republicans for just about every office? You offered 2 examples so far. I will give you two counters:

Kerry in 2004
Casey in 2006

So now it's tied 2-2.

Ah, what the hell, I'll be nice and not let you dig your hole deeper:



There you go. Majority of Democrats endorsed.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You endorsed Lieberman ? ROFL

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

OK Gustaf I have voted in probably around 25 partisan elections (rough estimate, but I've voted in 5 major elections since 2002, and an average of 5 partisan offices each election sounds in the ballpark.) I've voted for a Democrat in every single one of them. So by your logic if I had instead voted for 13 Democrats and 12 Republicans, I'd still be a Democratic voter?

My big thing is that you voted for someone who got absolutely destroyed here. That's like a "strong Republican" voting for Mondale. Hell it even applies to McCain, who only won traditionally Democratic areas in the rural south and Appalachia for fairly obvious reasons.

And Lieberman...lol

[Gustaf]

OK Gustaf I have voted in probably around 25 partisan elections (rough estimate, but I've voted in 5 major elections since 2002, and an average of 5 partisan offices each election sounds in the ballpark.) I've voted for a Democrat in every single one of them. So by your logic if I had instead voted for 13 Democrats and 12 Republicans, I'd still be a Democratic voter?

My big thing is that you voted for someone who got absolutely destroyed here. That's like a "strong Republican" voting for Mondale. Hell it even applies to McCain, who only won traditionally Democratic areas in the rural south and Appalachia for fairly obvious reasons.

And Lieberman...lol

I never said I was a strong Democrat, only that I was a Democrat. And of course, I did not support 13 Dems v 12 Reps. I supported only a narrow majority of Democrats, but several of the others were independents. And in the gubernatorial races I supported the Democrat in two thirds of the cases.

I'm also amused that supporting a former VP candidate for the Democrats apparently now made me a Republican. Who knew?

But please explain how supporting Democrats more often than Republicans makes me a Republican. I'm all ears.

[opebo]

Hm, I do right in Sweden.

So, where do I back the left?

US
Italy, probably
France I'd go something not mainstream right at least (and not Le Pen either of course)
Russia I think the opposition counts as left.
Turkey
India
Greece
Austria
Switzerland
Thailand

In general I'd often support the left in poorer countries where social justice is more of a priorioty.

Like the US.  Makes sense.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

OK Gustaf I have voted in probably around 25 partisan elections (rough estimate, but I've voted in 5 major elections since 2002, and an average of 5 partisan offices each election sounds in the ballpark.) I've voted for a Democrat in every single one of them. So by your logic if I had instead voted for 13 Democrats and 12 Republicans, I'd still be a Democratic voter?

My big thing is that you voted for someone who got absolutely destroyed here. That's like a "strong Republican" voting for Mondale. Hell it even applies to McCain, who only won traditionally Democratic areas in the rural south and Appalachia for fairly obvious reasons.

And Lieberman...lol

I never said I was a strong Democrat, only that I was a Democrat. And of course, I did not support 13 Dems v 12 Reps. I supported only a narrow majority of Democrats, but several of the others were independents. And in the gubernatorial races I supported the Democrat in two thirds of the cases.

I'm also amused that supporting a former VP candidate for the Democrats apparently now made me a Republican. Who knew?

But please explain how supporting Democrats more often than Republicans makes me a Republican. I'm all ears.

I never said you were a Republican. I am saying you are not a Democrat. A 13/12 split seems like the definition of a swing voter to me, not really in either party. Your intended voting is also well to the right of the median in Minnesota, so it's kind be kind of silly to claim to be a Democrat here, which is also a swing state.

[TheGlobalizer]

Oh yeah, sure : mafia, corruption, tax evasion are so great things...

They're not, but neither is police brutality, punitive taxation schedules (and enforcement), and...corruption.

That's why I'm a libertarian, it takes away the power from powerful people.  Government is always a tool for some power group, be it corporations, labor, or some other agglomeration.  With Obama, it's big labor and big business.  With Bush, it was big business and socially conservative organizations.  And so on.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Oh yeah, sure : mafia, corruption, tax evasion are so great things...

They're not, but neither is police brutality, punitive taxation schedules (and enforcement), and...corruption.

That's why I'm a libertarian, it takes away the power from powerful people.  Government is always a tool for some power group, be it corporations, labor, or some other agglomeration.  With Obama, it's big labor and big business.  With Bush, it was big business and socially conservative organizations.  And so on.

When the State is too weak, it always serves coalitions of interests, which more often than not are also involved in criminal activites. Just have a look at Southern Italy and you'll realize that.

[Gustaf]

OK Gustaf I have voted in probably around 25 partisan elections (rough estimate, but I've voted in 5 major elections since 2002, and an average of 5 partisan offices each election sounds in the ballpark.) I've voted for a Democrat in every single one of them. So by your logic if I had instead voted for 13 Democrats and 12 Republicans, I'd still be a Democratic voter?

My big thing is that you voted for someone who got absolutely destroyed here. That's like a "strong Republican" voting for Mondale. Hell it even applies to McCain, who only won traditionally Democratic areas in the rural south and Appalachia for fairly obvious reasons.

And Lieberman...lol

I never said I was a strong Democrat, only that I was a Democrat. And of course, I did not support 13 Dems v 12 Reps. I supported only a narrow majority of Democrats, but several of the others were independents. And in the gubernatorial races I supported the Democrat in two thirds of the cases.

I'm also amused that supporting a former VP candidate for the Democrats apparently now made me a Republican. Who knew?

But please explain how supporting Democrats more often than Republicans makes me a Republican. I'm all ears.

I never said you were a Republican. I am saying you are not a Democrat. A 13/12 split seems like the definition of a swing voter to me, not really in either party. Your intended voting is also well to the right of the median in Minnesota, so it's kind be kind of silly to claim to be a Democrat here, which is also a swing state.

But I just said that it's not a 13-12 split!

I endorsed 17 Democrats for senate in 2006 and 12 Republicans. For governor it was 24-9. So, overall that's 41 Democrats versus 21 Republicans. Now, I'm beginning to realize that math and logic are not your strongest suits so I will give you the calculation: that's supporting Democrats about twice as often as Republicans.

Now, I never claimed to be a far-left Democrat or a partisan hack. I'm perfectly content with leaving the position as silly hack to you. But I don't see by what right you can define me as not a Democrat supporter when it's the party I support more often.

And claiming to be a Democrat in Minnesota is not really what I'm doing...nor does that even make any sense.

[RogueBeaver]

The INC, because I will never vote for Hindu chauvinists who incite intercommunal hatred.

[TheGlobalizer]

When the State is too weak, it always serves coalitions of interests, which more often than not are also involved in criminal activites. Just have a look at Southern Italy and you'll realize that.

That's why I like small, strong government.  Limited scope and does what it does well.

I enjoyed Italy's vibe, but it certainly made it clearer to me why the mafia can hold such power.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

OK Gustaf I have voted in probably around 25 partisan elections (rough estimate, but I've voted in 5 major elections since 2002, and an average of 5 partisan offices each election sounds in the ballpark.) I've voted for a Democrat in every single one of them. So by your logic if I had instead voted for 13 Democrats and 12 Republicans, I'd still be a Democratic voter?

My big thing is that you voted for someone who got absolutely destroyed here. That's like a "strong Republican" voting for Mondale. Hell it even applies to McCain, who only won traditionally Democratic areas in the rural south and Appalachia for fairly obvious reasons.

And Lieberman...lol

I never said I was a strong Democrat, only that I was a Democrat. And of course, I did not support 13 Dems v 12 Reps. I supported only a narrow majority of Democrats, but several of the others were independents. And in the gubernatorial races I supported the Democrat in two thirds of the cases.

I'm also amused that supporting a former VP candidate for the Democrats apparently now made me a Republican. Who knew?

But please explain how supporting Democrats more often than Republicans makes me a Republican. I'm all ears.

I never said you were a Republican. I am saying you are not a Democrat. A 13/12 split seems like the definition of a swing voter to me, not really in either party. Your intended voting is also well to the right of the median in Minnesota, so it's kind be kind of silly to claim to be a Democrat here, which is also a swing state.

But I just said that it's not a 13-12 split!

I endorsed 17 Democrats for senate in 2006 and 12 Republicans. For governor it was 24-9. So, overall that's 41 Democrats versus 21 Republicans. Now, I'm beginning to realize that math and logic are not your strongest suits so I will give you the calculation: that's supporting Democrats about twice as often as Republicans.

Now, I never claimed to be a far-left Democrat or a partisan hack. I'm perfectly content with leaving the position as silly hack to you. But I don't see by what right you can define me as not a Democrat supporter when it's the party I support more often.

And claiming to be a Democrat in Minnesota is not really what I'm doing...nor does that even make any sense.

And really even a 2:1 ratio doesn't mean much in the US. That'd be like me averaging voting for 1-2 Republicans every election. On the other hand around 75% of people simply in my precinct vote for no one but Democrats every year (kind of an estimation as calculating who the split ticketers are isn't easy, but it has to be around that figure.) That's not even caucus voters or Democratic primary voters, just every voter in my area.

Also the raw numbers aren't really as important as comparing you to the median voter. On that map I see you endorsed two Democrats who lost (Arizona and Tennessee). You however endorsed four Republicans who lost, three of who were destroyed in landslides and the one who wasn't still lost by almost double digits. What I still can not comprehend is why you endorsed someone in my state who was a complete party line voter who wouldn't agree with a Democratic-leaning voter on ANYTHING and lost all but hardcore GOP areas. Almost no swing voters voted for him, much less Democrats. So safe to say if you supported him, you aren't very loyal to the Democratic party, nor do you agree with it. So your endorsement record is still the right of voters in most states. You are to the right of the median Minnesota voter, and would be in just about any state besides ultra-conservative ones in the west and south. You didn't even support the Democratic Party's presidential candidate in an election he won by a very wide margin. How many Republicans supported Dukakis in 1988? None of those point to a Democratic voter, or even Democratic-leaning voter. Does it make you a Republican either? No, but that is not the question.

[Gustaf]

OK Gustaf I have voted in probably around 25 partisan elections (rough estimate, but I've voted in 5 major elections since 2002, and an average of 5 partisan offices each election sounds in the ballpark.) I've voted for a Democrat in every single one of them. So by your logic if I had instead voted for 13 Democrats and 12 Republicans, I'd still be a Democratic voter?

My big thing is that you voted for someone who got absolutely destroyed here. That's like a "strong Republican" voting for Mondale. Hell it even applies to McCain, who only won traditionally Democratic areas in the rural south and Appalachia for fairly obvious reasons.

And Lieberman...lol

I never said I was a strong Democrat, only that I was a Democrat. And of course, I did not support 13 Dems v 12 Reps. I supported only a narrow majority of Democrats, but several of the others were independents. And in the gubernatorial races I supported the Democrat in two thirds of the cases.

I'm also amused that supporting a former VP candidate for the Democrats apparently now made me a Republican. Who knew?

But please explain how supporting Democrats more often than Republicans makes me a Republican. I'm all ears.

I never said you were a Republican. I am saying you are not a Democrat. A 13/12 split seems like the definition of a swing voter to me, not really in either party. Your intended voting is also well to the right of the median in Minnesota, so it's kind be kind of silly to claim to be a Democrat here, which is also a swing state.

But I just said that it's not a 13-12 split!

I endorsed 17 Democrats for senate in 2006 and 12 Republicans. For governor it was 24-9. So, overall that's 41 Democrats versus 21 Republicans. Now, I'm beginning to realize that math and logic are not your strongest suits so I will give you the calculation: that's supporting Democrats about twice as often as Republicans.

Now, I never claimed to be a far-left Democrat or a partisan hack. I'm perfectly content with leaving the position as silly hack to you. But I don't see by what right you can define me as not a Democrat supporter when it's the party I support more often.

And claiming to be a Democrat in Minnesota is not really what I'm doing...nor does that even make any sense.

And really even a 2:1 ratio doesn't mean much in the US. That'd be like me averaging voting for 1-2 Republicans every election. On the other hand around 75% of people simply in my precinct vote for no one but Democrats every year (kind of an estimation as calculating who the split ticketers are isn't easy, but it has to be around that figure.) That's not even caucus voters or Democratic primary voters, just every voter in my area.

Also the raw numbers aren't really as important as comparing you to the median voter. On that map I see you endorsed two Democrats who lost (Arizona and Tennessee). You however endorsed four Republicans who lost, three of who were destroyed in landslides and the one who wasn't still lost by almost double digits. What I still can not comprehend is why you endorsed someone in my state who was a complete party line voter who wouldn't agree with a Democratic-leaning voter on ANYTHING and lost all but hardcore GOP areas. Almost no swing voters voted for him, much less Democrats. So safe to say if you supported him, you aren't very loyal to the Democratic party, nor do you agree with it. So your endorsement record is still the right of voters in most states. You are to the right of the median Minnesota voter, and would be in just about any state besides ultra-conservative ones in the west and south. You didn't even support the Democratic Party's presidential candidate in an election he won by a very wide margin. How many Republicans supported Dukakis in 1988? None of those point to a Democratic voter, or even Democratic-leaning voter. Does it make you a Republican either? No, but that is not the question.

But I also supported Kerry, a candidate who lost for the Democrats. Of course I will have supported relatively many losing Republicans in a year that was a landslide for the Democrats.

And why the hell does your precinct matter? A very substantial part of the US electorate are moderate voters, like me who don't vote constantly for one party. I bet you could find several elected Democratic officials to my right which makes your argument obviously extremely weak. Whether I'd be a median Democrat in Minnesota (or even in the country at large) is also irrelevant.

Fundamentally, your argument makes no sense. You're trying to impose a litmus test for what one needs to do in order to view oneself as a Democrat supporter and I'm not entirely sure what that test is. Is it always supporting every Democratic candidate?

[Keystone Phil]

And why the hell does your precinct matter?

BRTD obviously suffers from some type of condition. He obsesses over the strangest details and thinks details important in his personal life are relevant everywhere.

[Gustaf]

And why the hell does your precinct matter?

BRTD obviously suffers from some type of condition. He obsesses over the strangest details and thinks details important in his personal life are relevant everywhere.

Yes, I guess I should have learnt by now. But it never ceases to surprise me. He really comes off as seriously mentally ill quite often nowadays.

[Хahar 🤔]

The INC, because I will never vote for Hindu chauvinists who incite intercommunal hatred.

The Congress isn't great, but the alternatives to the right are all terrible.