Answer to Why is Kamala Harris leading Trump in the US presidential race polls? by Ty Doyle https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Kamala-Harris-leading-Trump-in-the-US-presidential-race-polls/answer/Ty-Doyle?ch=15&oid=1477743794116264&share=f39bee38&srid=u0qYH8&target_type=answer

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Jb9-zhKLpE8/Wtjh_XJGBvI/AAAAAAAABSY/ocvQUaNwyuUWIzNesDljbqFEvF0t_1_WACLcBGAs/s1600/download.png

So obviously anarchism is conservtive and mob rule, right wing libertarianism is centrist, green party is liberal, monarchy is socialism and nazism/fascism is communism. (Also democrats are conservatives and republicans are libertarians)

Hey everyone!

Founder and creator of a site called Politarian.com. A free website for people who like to make political predictions; letting people post who they think will win in a future election.

Complete Anonymity: Make predictions with full anonymity – your account details stay private. Predict the Future: Dive into predicting federal and state elections for 2023-2024. Decode the paths to victory. Public or Private: Share your predictions publicly or keep them all to yourself – it's your call. Candidate Insights: Access comprehensive candidate info – news, endorsements, bios – everything to make sharp predictions.

Politarian is nonpartisan regarding any political party; rather focusing on transparency, holistic information, accountability, and a simple-to-use interface as to navigate the complex political landscape.

I would appreciate any feedback and look forward to seeing your predictions on Politarian.com!

Update: 1.1: Hey y’all! We just made an update to Politarian.com!! We added Social Media to the candidate profiles. Hope you guys can join us in making a primary prediction for the 2024 election :)

Update: 1.2: We have become more enlightened! I've made changes to the Map and added a counter along with a progression bar so you know the total votes. Let me know what you think!

https://pod.link/1699146708/episode/309ec22c76695a64d2ddcf64887a8b64

This podcast shows how all sorts of culture wars figures (Jordan Peterson, Eric Weinstein, Candace Owens) are spreading the narrative that the Ukraine war is, in essence, NATO's fault. It's kinda fascinating - this idea started as a relatively fringe theory in political science (the John Mearsheimer view), but has spilled out of academia and is now spreading like wildfire among anti-government folks. The podcast also interrogates the view to see whether it holds any water (conclusion: not really).

https://americandreaming.substack.com/p/dont-lower-the-ceiling-raise-the

I saw this after it was posted to the /r/PoliticalScience subreddit, seemingly by the author.

I'll copy my response to them here to serve as an R2:

In the cultural sphere, ideologies such as critical race theory (CRT) or so-called “anti-racism” racially essentialize entire swaths of society into a crude binary of oppressor/oppressed.

I was just skimming this for a second to get an idea of what "lowering the ceiling" means and this stuck out to me as broadly anti-intellectual. CRT isn't an "ideology," and this binary is your own construct - not an accurate construction of the subject or how academics in the field describe it. Even the most cursory understanding of the subject should have let you run into the term "intersectionality" as an example and there is no shortage of discussion about the ways people harmed by systemic prejudice also often perpetuate it.

If this is how you address these topics, I can't assume anything good about your overall analysis. And yet I read more, to my regret.

You go on to gripe about "culture wars being the death of discourse" and how we need to instead focus on real governance - even though you're the only one getting into the weeds of the thing you consider petty, as though you cannot think of a way of addressing these questions yourself without attacking a caricature of progressive values. I don't say this lightly, but everything you bring up on race, culture, and the discourse surrounding it is reactionary drivel - and it occupies half of this short article. This part is absolutely disgusting as well:

Similarly, factions within queer theory and radical branches of trans activism aspire to deconstruct the idea of biological sex to lower the “ceiling” of cisgender privilege. Though obviously not as deadly in practice, ideologically, this effort is reminiscent of the Stalinist or Maoist denouncements of the theory of evolution and genetics as capitalist lies — all because those models emphasize competition between individuals rather than a Marxist focus on cooperation and community.

This comparison is an excellent example of why this kind of enforced social equity can lead to disastrous consequences. Both regimes caused tens of millions of deaths by pushing agricultural policies rooted in the teachings of Trofim Lysenko, seeking to eliminate existing cultural practices and replace them with new ones that conformed with the approved dogmas — leading to widespread starvation.

What an absolute crock of shit. "Everyone I don't like is Hitler" level of critique. <- as a note, this is what made me think of this sub (as inactive as it is).

Meanwhile, your more relevant to the title comments seem to argue wealth caps are "lowering the ceiling" and that we shouldn't do that but instead implement things like universal basic income to "raise the floor," with zero commentary on how that's meant to be afforded especially when we you specifically advocate against wealth taxes.

This is a deeply hypocritical piece that I'd think was sarcasm, but I think it's just from someone who clearly fails to have anything meaningful to add aside from seeking ways to validate the individualist values they grew up with and fails to have the humility or intelligence to ask themselves "do I actually understand the subjects I criticize?"

From here:

Question for the Leftists who support sex-reassignment surgery: If they are “born that way” (which is the basis for their “protected class” status), then why should that be changed? Further, why should someone else be forced to pay for that?

If the “mind” and “body” don’t match, why is it okay to change the body, rather than the mind? After all, if these individuals are “born” thinking they are a different gender than their body, doesn’t mean that they are “born” with their body just like a person is “born” with their race? Isn’t failing to come to terms with the fact that they are “born that way” their problem and not the problem of another?

Turns out that people are overly sensative towards what they think is gender nonconformity

Also how are you defining what makes them "born that way"? Because gender is an emergent phenomenon, based on both the belief of what certain traits mean. The thing is one trait alone, say gametes produced, may be an indicator of biological sex, but what about all the other traits, and what do they all together say about how an individual should act?

Aren’t we told that physical form trumps what one thinks? After all, “race,” or “sexual orientation” are considered protected classed because they are declared “immutable” while you can be discriminated in the private sector for what you believe or say, or even forced to violate your own beliefs and be compelled to speech you don’t believe in. Yet in the case of sex-reassignment surgery, we see what one thinks trumping what one biologically is.

So you think beliefs overrule objective reality...yet you want to deny that to others? Perhaps you are the one who wants it both ways.

If what one thinks they are and what they really are differs, why is changing what one looks like acceptable but changing what one thinks isn’t? Isn’t what one believes or says supposedly a “choice”? Isn’t “gender” supposed to be a “social construct” and in effect a choice? If so, then why does someone who has a “gender identity” divergent from their biological sex, nonetheless get treated as if it is an immutable characteristic like race of biological sex?

A social construct isn't the same as a choice. First off gender identity is in the brain.

As per this:

"“When we look at the transgender brain, we see that the brain resembles the gender that the person identifies as,” Dr. Altinay says. For example, a person who is born with a penis but ends up identifying as a female often actually has some of the structural characteristics of a “female” brain.

And the brain similarities aren’t only structural.

“We’re also finding some functional similarities between the transgender brain and its identified gender,” Dr. Altinay says.

In studies that use MRIs to take images of the brain as people perform tasks, the brain activity of transgender people tends to look like that of the gender they identify with."

How is that possible? Well for one thing brains aren't not either Male or Female but more of a mosaic of different charataristics that happen to be bimodal.

Apart from being pseudoscientific, and thus inherently damaging to scientific research, the assumption of only two genders also actively contributes to creating gender differences by making teachers and parents treat children differently which can have some (and ONLY SOME) effect on their development.

But then, engaging in non-coital sexual acts is protected because that it is declared by homosexual activists to be “who they are,” despite the fact that sexual relations and how one dresses is a choice. After all, if it wasn’t, then rape wouldn’t be a crime, since the perpetuator isn’t culpable for their own sexuality!

Don’t question it… Just accept the party line. It’s doubleplusgood!h

OK first off he thinks sexual orientation is the same as sexual activity. This is false. Second, sexual orientation is biological. Third what about free association between consenting adults? How is one contradictory towards the other?

And this:

It isn’t actually about sexuality or perversion at all; it’s about remolding society to extinguish any distinction between male and female.

By disassociating the male “gender” from the male sex (and the female “gender” from the female sex), then any traits that tend to dominate or be explicitly present in any particular sex will no longer be distinctive because both “men” and “women” can have traits of either biological sex.

By emphasizing this new concept of “gender” and relegating biological sex to some mere superficiality, people cease to recognize differences in the actual biological sexes and rather see both male gendered and female gendered as co-equal spectrums, thus achieving the Left’s vaunted goal of “equality”.

Thus, by eliminating the concept of differences between men and women as biological creatures, the perception of different sexes meaning anything allegedly goes away, and according to Leftist thought, perception will shape reality.

Again this is a form of biological essentialism. This assumes that gender isn't greater than the sum of it's parts.

From here:

Laws banning discrimination against people because of their race are considered legitimate in large part because race was an innate factor that didn’t matter. It protected against discrimination against what you innately were, not your chosen behavior.

Having sex with someone of the same sex that your were was a chosen behavior because sex is a choice — which is why rape is a crime where mens rea can be established. The repeal of anti-Sodomy laws was based on the claim that homosexual activity was a choice, and not some mental deviancy or disease.

Later, it was claimed that someone who is homosexual was “born that way” and thus deserving of the same protections as race.

It's both though. Sexual orientation is an inbult attraction, and off course there is still the fact you are limiting free association between consenting adults through it. Where is the conflict?

Now, however, with Gay “rights” having been established, the very basis for establishing those rights is being denied by… gays and lesbians. Much like Kohn wishing that her child grows up gay, the entire “born that way” argument is being tossed aside and replaced with a desire that a child “becomes” gay. Another example.

“At ages 10 and 8, my son and daughter don’t have the concept of romantic relationships in their mind yet, but in a few years, I know that I’m going to have to start paying closer attention to their friends, and possibly their dating life. While ultimately it is their choice, I sincerely hope that they see how great of a relationship that my partner and I have and follow in our footsteps.

“My ex-husband does not like the idea at all. Thankfully, my partner Rachel is a lawyer and has helped me win primary custody of our children. Because of this, my children do not have to be constantly barraged by his negative rhetoric dealing with LGBTQ issues, or his negative opinion of my partner and myself.

“I have done what I can to get my children more involved with the pride movement. I feel like the key is to get them brainwashed into seeing same-sex relationships on the same level of heterosexual relationships before they start getting into a relationship themselves. It doesn’t matter if a child cannot naturally be conceived in a same-sex relationship, the concept of biological conception is bigoted in general, and society as a whole needs to move away from such things.”

The “concept of biological conception” is not “bigoted,” it is Established Scientific Fact.

What she means is that the process of reproduction has been used as an argument to deny rights to homosexuals.

Notice also the admission of “brainwashing” children to achieve desired social ends. If someone who believed in traditional marriage had said they are “brainwashing” their children to see gay relationships as aberrations of the norm, the outcry would be legion. In fact, in California it is illegal!

The extension of “equal rights” laws to gays and lesbians was based upon the insistence that they were “born that way” and changing that is oppressive and discriminatory. If being gay is a choice, than the justification for protection ceases to exist. Logic, in this case, will likely not stop the doublethink that has infested the courts and the laws.

Thankfully as conversion therapy has shown us, it doesn't work. Still this parent should know better.

Off course he ignore this part of her rant in her link:

My childrens’ happiness is all that matters to me, if they really do not want to be gay, there is not a lot I can do. All I can do up until that point is show them the benefits of being gay, gently nudging them in that direction.

Now the thing is that you can't nudge them into being gay anymore than being straight. However she admits that she must accept their choice. Instead she should teach them that there is nothing wrong with being gay to begin with.

Both sides here are being pretty stupid. Off coruse the whole thing is anyomous and no link is given so there is no way to tell if this is real or an obnoxious troll.

I know some Canadian who thinks that if the 17th amendment wasn't a thing in the US, the US Senate would have grown irrelevant like some other upper houses of legislatures.

I think this is mistaken because some actors would want to use whatever tools they have at their disposal to block progress, an unelected Senate included.

So who's right here? What are the differences between the Canadian Senate, The US Senate and the UK House of Lords?

"What is the difference between UK conservative party and US conservative view?"

"Let’s take care here to recognize that most republicans are not conservative. There are only a handful of conservatives in the senate. Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz are the only real conservatives in the senate that I can think of. Marco Rubio put on a good show in 2010, but he is more of a neocon than a true conservative."

Yep. The only conservatives in the Senate (at the time of this writing in December 2019) are these three people.

"In the house, you have the freedom caucus as conservatives. There may be more who are not freedom caucus, but there isn’t many. The rest are either social conservatives, progressives or neocons (hawks)."

Yep you have to be part of the Freedom caucus in the US House to be a "conservative"

"Neocons make up a large segment. They are the ones who support policing the world. Lindsey Graham is an example. Progressive republicans like Susan Snowe, Lisa Murkowski, Chuck Grassley, and Lamar Alexander are examples of progressive republicans. Grassley and Alexander are socially conservatives as well."

"Policing the world" isn't conservative. Sorry Winston Churchill. Your support for the Empire makes you a lib.

"American conservatives believe in less intrusive smaller constitutional government with the roles of the federal government limited to those defined in the constitution, as well as federalism (states retain powers not delegated to the federal government). They believe in natural rights and natural law, which includes equal protection of individual rights under the law as well as equal application of the law."

For whites

"They believe in religious liberty, and hold mostly Judeo Christian values, including family values based on the Judeo Christian ethic. They believe in freedom of speech, freedom of the press (even fake news), freedom to assemble"

uh-huh.

"UK conservatives are more aligned with moderate democrats. They are establishment types who believe in global government, a big welfare state, universal healthcare. They pay only the slightest attention to free markets preferring to dictate to others what they can or cannot do. They are more closely aligned with the Susan Snowe’s and Lisa Murkowski’s of the world, and they support abortion. They pay no mind to the Judeo Christian ethic, and hold no real religious values."

​

Yep you can't be conservative and have universal healthcare in your country. The only real conservatives are narrowly defined people in the Republican Party in the USA. Thank you, quora.

​

Look at the page here it is pretty much the same thing. What are your thoughts?

electowiki.org/wiki/Three_Telos_Model

(NOTE: I tried to post this before but it was too short so I am adding more text)

https://www.reddit.com/r/teenagers/comments/kvd9k3/terome_only_speaks_facts/gixt8rb/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3

All glory to u/Yurenai who spotted it first and posted it in badphil. I echo his sentiment, this is by teenagers so self assured hot takes are understandable, but it's still pretty hilarious.

R2: Teenagers are discussing the way politics affect science and agree science should not interfere in science. Ergo, political science is not a science and political scientists are beings lesser then monkies.

PS: I still think "reject modernity, return to monke" is one of the better memes of last year and a funny take on traditionalism.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/730033433816072242/786306698460659752/600px-PoliticalCompass.png

Somebody in a Discord server I'm in shared this.

Use this thread to discuss whatever you want, as long as it does not break the sidebar rules.

Meta discussion is also welcome, this is a good chance to talk about ideas for the sub and things that could be changed.

Use this thread to discuss whatever you want, as long as it does not break the sidebar rules.

Meta discussion is also welcome, this is a good chance to talk about ideas for the sub and things that could be changed.

Use this thread to discuss whatever you want, as long as it does not break the sidebar rules.

Meta discussion is also welcome, this is a good chance to talk about ideas for the sub and things that could be changed.

Use this thread to discuss whatever you want, as long as it does not break the sidebar rules.

Meta discussion is also welcome, this is a good chance to talk about ideas for the sub and things that could be changed.

https://i.imgur.com/AYYmD6h.jpg

Governments and their intrusive laws are obviously the only thing that can ever exploit or harm people. Corporations acting in a totally deregulated market will make the world a utopia for everyone ❤️

Is this Randianism, or what the hell? Where does this idea come from that nobody will be exploited or have their rights trampled in the creation of capital for others?

Behold. https://ibb.co/kcK4ykC

This may be low-hanging fruit because The Objective Standard is, in their own words, "the preeminent source for commentary from an Objectivist perspective, Objectivism being Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason, egoism, and capitalism." Anyone who has even a passing familiarity with philosophy, political theory, and Rand's writings already knows we're off to a bad start. But I saw this circulating on Facebook and I'm bored so I'll give it a take-down.

This chart is using a single axis from left to right, with two correlated descriptors at play: the "respect" ideologies and systems have for rights ("which rights?" is not something they deem necessary to specify) and the "force" used. And already we see some pretty loaded biases at play, since one side "violates rights" and uses "extreme force" while the other side "respects rights" and supposedly uses "no force." Suffice to say, I don't think they're looking at each side as neutrally as they can to engage with the ideologies presented here respectfully and in good faith. No one wants to be on the side of "violation" and "force" if they can be on the side of "respect" and "no force" (which also adds a weirdly aggressive sexual tinge to the discussion, which is honestly par for the course if you've ever read Rand's books).

Let's unpack this. The left end of the spectrum consists of "pure" communism (ok...), socialism, fascism, anarchy, and theocracy, all of which are grouped together for having two things in common: they violate certain unspecified rights and they use "extreme" force.

By pure communism, I'm not sure what they mean. They could be referring to the traditional Marxist definition of utopian communism, which would be a post-scarcity stateless society with no money or social classes. Anarchy is somewhat similar, although there are many different schools of anarchist thought. In general, though, it is a localized, voluntary form of self-governing where the state and any unjust hierarchies are abolished. Both utopian communism and anarchism have not been allowed to develop for an extended period of time, so we have no way to properly gauge how violent they would be, but it seems like by definition they are not restricting rights or oppressing individuals since there is no state authority. Furthermore, they don't appear to be very forceful, so I don't understand why either would fall into this distinction of their bizarre political spectrum. Socialism also exists in many different strains, but in general its about democratizing the means of production. That could be done by force, but not necessarily. It doesn't seem like it's taking rights away, unless you count the transfer of private property into public ownership as limiting the rights of the private property owner. It seems like even if we take their own metric at face value, socialism should actually be on the center if we're going to find a way to place it anywhere on this ridiculous chart. Fascism seems about right since it's an inherently violent ideology about conflict, racial or national struggle, and rigid hierarchies, so this one seems ok, I suppose. Theocracies may or may not use force, again it depends on the indoctrination of the population within whatever theological framework the theocracy exists in, but it likely would require force because it's extremely unlikely for an entire population to ardently believe a particular faith. It also depends on how vocal or violent opposition is. I guess this one could fit as well, if we're going to generously take this axis seriously.

Moving on to the center, where rights are still violated but there are "degrees" of force (implying, I guess, they're not as forceful or aggressive). "Modern liberalism" I assume refers to social liberalism. That's basically capitalism but trying to reduce its inequalities through some state intervention. Or it could be referring to social democracy, capitalism but trying to reduce its inequalities as much as possible if not altogether through extensive state intervention. Social liberal countries (like France or the Netherlands) and social democracies (like the Nordic countries) are generally among the freest and most peaceful in the world, so I don't see why it's placed in a part of the spectrum that emphasizes the violation of rights or the use of force. Also, progressivism and conservatism are not ideologies per se but more like perspectives. Progressives view change and challenges to the social hierarchies as good; conservatives believe good things are hard to build and easy to destroy, and change should therefore be regarded with caution and skepticism. Neither is a dogmatic ideology and both are relative to the political context they occur in. So they shouldn't really be on this (or any) compass at all. Moving on.

Now we're on the end that this author clearly considers (and implicitly presents as) the "good" end. Rights and liberties are upheld and no coercive force is used. Hooray! This end contains capitalism, classical liberalism, and constitutional republicanism. Except this end is just as troubled and nonsensical as the other two sections of the axis. Oops.

Capitalism is way too broad of a term, and as mentioned before, the spooky "modern liberalism" of the middle section could very well be referring to two types of capitalist systems, meaning there's no way ALL capitalist systems are in this golden end of the spectrum. Also, like progressivism and conservatism in the previous section, "constitutional republicanism" should not really be on this at all because it does not refer to an ideology with consistent beliefs but rather, in this case, a type of government which could adopt any ideological foundation. A republic is a system of government where governance is public and the head of state is a civilian rather than a monarch. It could be authoritarian or democratic, left-wing or right-wing, market economy or command economy. The "constitutional" element just refers to a written constitution dictating how leaders are selected, how power is transferred, how the government is organized, etc. etc.

In short, I had a few drinks and chose to spend my Saturday night tearing apart a dumb graph made by a dumb organization.

Fin.

https://i.imgur.com/KVoq8TA.jpg The Nazis were fascists, which is is to the extreme right on the political spectrum. The nazis murdered anyone on the left, especially communists. Here is some info from Wikipedia:

The majority of scholars identify Nazism in both theory and practice as a form of far-right politics.[24] Far-right themes in Nazism include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements.[25] Adolf Hitler and other proponents denied that Nazism was either left-wing or right-wing: instead, they officially portrayed Nazism as a syncretic movement.[26][27] In Mein Kampf, Hitler directly attacked both left-wing and right-wing politics in Germany, saying:

Today our left-wing politicians in particular are constantly insisting that their craven-hearted and obsequious foreign policy necessarily results from the disarmament of Germany, whereas the truth is that this is the policy of traitors ... But the politicians of the Right deserve exactly the same reproach. It was through their miserable cowardice that those ruffians of Jews who came into power in 1918 were able to rob the nation of its arms.[28]

In a speech given in Munich on 12 April 1922, Hitler stated:

There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction – to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power – that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago.[29]

When asked in a 27 January 1934 whether he supported the "bourgeois right-wing", Hitler claimed that Nazism was not exclusively for any class and he indicated that it favoured neither the left nor the right, but preserved "pure" elements from both "camps" by stating: "From the camp of bourgeois tradition, it takes national resolve, and from the materialism of the Marxist dogma, living, creative Socialism".[30]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Use this thread to discuss whatever you want, as long as it does not break the sidebar rules.

Meta discussion is also welcome, this is a good chance to talk about ideas for the sub and things that could be changed.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/631566381648707596/730555524801626132/atlus_2zbekistan15942316682348907943677721633_37725350763.png

Apparently Mike Bloomberg is a Marxist.

Use this thread to discuss whatever you want, as long as it does not break the sidebar rules.

Meta discussion is also welcome, this is a good chance to talk about ideas for the sub and things that could be changed.

Use this thread to discuss whatever you want, as long as it does not break the sidebar rules.

Meta discussion is also welcome, this is a good chance to talk about ideas for the sub and things that could be changed.

While browsing the Internet, I stumbled upon this:

https://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/politics/the-political-spectrum/us-political-spectrum.gif

And let's be honest, it's not the best political compass to exist. It's not even in the top 1000.

Row 1 - the owners vs workers dichotomy is very disingenous, especially since there are many people who work for others and vote Republican, as well as Democratic business owners. While there is a financial element to political positions, it is more nuanced than that.

Row 2 - fascism is not based on corporate rule. It's based upon the existence of a strong state.

Row 3 - the typical issue of a one-line political compass, coupled with claiming that Trump supporters support more extreme positions than the usual right-wingers and fascists, as opposed to them being a part of the right wing with shifted priorities (e.g. thinking that the state should have an impact on trade through tariffs).

Row 4 - instead of listing actual popular left-wing sources, the author mentioned the rather niche pirate radio, and claimed that ABC and CBS somehow support fascist positions, as opposed to their democratic positions.

Row 5 - the religious positions clash a bit with the wealth differences the author outlined earlier - for example, the non-religious tend to be more financially successful than the average.

Row 6 - the author presents a very biased view of the left, claiming that only them want to fix the issues, and the right-wing simply ignores them.

Row 7 - the bias shows once again, with the author calling far-left viewpoints scientific and evolutionary, while the far-right is apparently guilty of willful ignorance.

Row 8 - the author seems to forget that many low-income non-coastal areas lean left, as well that many right-wing strongholds, like Utah or Wyoming, are not located in the South.

Row 9 - instead of acknowledging various policies as able to coexist, the author claims that tax breaks for the rich, which he also mislabels as a far-right position, seem to be incompatible with the others.

Row 10 - ideas of emphasising private education over public are seen as means of "ignorance as a philosophy".

Row 11 - the author claims that attempts at making the elections more secure are actually deliberate voter suppression,

Row 12 - I am not that knowledgeable about the Supreme Court, so I just won't say anything.

Row 13 - money controlling everything is not the basis of the right-wing view (which is also based on ideas, but different ones than the left's, such as tradition or religion), and the author claims that racism is one of the core tenets of the right wing.

Row 14 - well, at least this income correlation is at least somewhat right.

So I suddenly remembered about this post from a now abandoned project, decided this was a good place to put it.

Effectively, a guy who unironically thinks everyone not on the left-wing of the political spectrum is a fascist: https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompass/comments/eh8pu3/rightvalues_project/fcgsui7?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

He additionally insulted me for using an actual word that exists ("etatism"): https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompass/comments/eh8pu3/rightvalues_project/fcgt35p?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

I just found this sub and it seems pretty interesting. I've noticed that most of the discussion is about pointing out the flaws in political philosophies (no surprise), but I haven't seen much talk about what a good political philosphy would be. I have my own political philosophy that I've been working on (because I'm too full of myself to accept someone else's ideas) but I wanted to see what would be a good basis for politics first. Also, as far as I can tell this doesn't break any rules, but sorry in advance if it does...

Edit: I seem to have misunderstood this sub from my first impressions. Thanks for the clarifications!