www.isidewith.com which presidential candidate do you agree with?

jobbridge4life

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That is isn't entirely fair. His argument is significantly more nuanced than that and to attempt to essentially boil it down to one quotation is not accurate. He has indeed said that open borders are a big business idea, but this is true. Big business in America typically favours lax immigration rules precisely because it does reduce pressure on wages. Whole industries including agriculture are virtually dependent on it.


At the same time he does raise the issues that mass migration is not exactly flawlessly beneficial from net contributor nations. Something that is also true.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dollar_king

Bernie sanders 85%

Hillary Clinton 71%

chris Christie 64%


I vote FG in Ireland

wonder how accurate these tests are

Amerika

zielarz wrote: »

Why? You must be pro life and pro family then.

I know Rick (from back when he was my Senator) and I like some of his views, but I wouldn't vote for him as President.

I chose no abortion after first trimester. And yes, I'm pro family (whatever that means) because I feel single parent households are a major factor contributing to the downfall of the country... But I don't remember that being one of the questions.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

I know Rick (from back when he was my Senator) and I like some of his views, but I wouldn't vote for him as President.

I chose no abortion after first trimester. And yes, I'm pro family (whatever that means) because I feel single parent households are a major factor contributing to the downfall of the country... But I don't remember that being one of the questions.

I'd be interested to know what you think the solution is? I'm pro family as well by the way, I'm not sure how one can be anti-family.

Brian?

dollar_king wrote: »

Bernie sanders 85%

Hillary Clinton 71%

chris Christie 64%


I vote FG in Ireland

wonder how accurate these tests are

They're pretty accurate. Bernie wouldn't been classed as left wing by Irish standards.

Subcomandante Marcos

97% with Bernie Saunders
90% with Hilary Clinton

Seems about right.

Celly Smunt

78% Bobby Jindal.

Guess I'm Republican, gimme my guns.

Subcomandante Marcos

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This entire argument came about because some young lad with history of previous idiocy who runs a blog and tweets a lot took a paragraph of a VOX interview completely out of context.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/how-latest-smear-campaign-against-bernie-sanders-collapsed-it-started

Valmont

Brian? wrote: »

I'd be interested to know what you think the solution is? I'm pro family as well by the way, I'm not sure how one can be anti-family.

I think there is a fringe of the hard-hard-left who would view the family unit itself as a great source of inequality. The idea is that children from functioning and supportive families have an 'unfair' advantage over children whose families may not instil certain advantageous values and habits. That said, I'm not sure there are many of these anti-family types around any more.

dollar_king

Brian? wrote: »

They're pretty accurate. Bernie wouldn't been classed as left wing by Irish standards.

I know next to nothing about him , I think I ended up with him due to the fact that I answered in a nuanced way to most of the question , I wasn't absolutist about many of them

dollar_king

Valmont wrote: »

I think there is a fringe of the hard-hard-left who would view the family unit itself as a great source of inequality. The idea is that children from functioning and supportive families have an 'unfair' advantage over children whose families may not instil certain advantageous values and habits. That said, I'm not sure there are many of these anti-family types around any more.

its only really a sub section of the hard left who are in favour of dismantling the family unit as a key part of society , mostly the hardcore feminist subset but they are still quite small

Agent Smith

I side with Hillary Clinton on 94% of issues in the 2016 Presidential election

jobbridge4life

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Great. I'd suggest the keyword there is is overall. Other studies have findings at variance from the one you have cited in particular I'd like to highlight this 2007 stuy http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927537106000674
which found significant affects on blue collar incomes and lower skilled 'native' workers.

alan partridge aha

Jeb Bush 85% most other Reps in the 70s so all good.

dwayneshintzy

Bernie Sanders - 98%
Hillary Clinton - 84%
Martin O'Malley - 79%

Brian?

Valmont wrote: »

I think there is a fringe of the hard-hard-left who would view the family unit itself as a great source of inequality. The idea is that children from functioning and supportive families have an 'unfair' advantage over children whose families may not instil certain advantageous values and habits. That said, I'm not sure there are many of these anti-family types around any more.

That's a fringe I have never heard of. By the sound if things we can agree that all of the candidates listed here are "pro family".

I believe the term is mostly used disengenuously to have a swipe at people who support rights like marriage equality. The optics are always better when you're "pro" something and not part of an "anti" group. The prime example being "pro-life", there's no actual "anti-life" group there's a "pro-choice" group.

dollar_king

Brian? wrote: »

That's a fringe I have never heard of. By the sound if things we can agree that all of the candidates listed here are "pro family".

I believe the term is mostly used disengenuously to have a swipe at people who support rights like marriage equality. The optics are always better when you're "pro" something and not part of an "anti" group. The prime example being "pro-life", there's no actual "anti-life" group there's a "pro-choice" group.

the term " pro choice " is no less political and loaded than " pro life "

Akrasia

Valmont wrote: »

I think there is a fringe of the hard-hard-left who would view the family unit itself as a great source of inequality. The idea is that children from functioning and supportive families have an 'unfair' advantage over children whose families may not instil certain advantageous values and habits. That said, I'm not sure there are many of these anti-family types around any more.

Yeah, there are nutters in every aspect of human endeavour.

What I don't like about the 'pro family' description is that it is basically a euphemism for Anti gay, anti divorce, patriarchy.

They're pro nuclear family, and anti everything else. There are some 'good' single parent families (ie: widows or widowers where the family was broken up by tragic circumstances) but every other kind of alternative family arrangement is unethical.

Akrasia

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I read through that study and I have a few issues with it

1. It looks at wages, not employment rates
If someone on low wages gets replaced by an immigrant, this study completely ignores this

2. The study itself shows that while American born workers saw wages increase by .4% (about 3 dollars per week) the wages of immigrants declined by 4% or about 33 dollars a week.

3. The period of this study was in an economic recovery, where the economy was ramping up to the big economic crash of 2008.

The actual picture I get from this study was that low skilled Americans were being pushed out of employment in favour of immigrant workers who were hired on lower wages

The professional classes benefit from open borders knowing that there are legal restrictions on immigrants threatening their job. Many professional bodies require recognised qualifications for example. I know nurses, psychologists and teachers from other countries who work in petrol stations because they could not get work in their own profession because their qualifications are not recognised.

There is a lot of hysteria about immigrants coming in to take everyone's jobs, but to operate an open borders policy is lunacy. Every functioning economy works on a visa basis. Where there are labour shortages, more visas are issued. Free market policies do not work on labour markets. People are not as mobile as capital. Economies are meant to function for the benefits of the citizens, citizens are not just raw materials for the economy.

The E.U. has open borders within the free travel areas, but these are balanced by entitlements to welfare services for E.U. citizens and entrants to the E.U. are entitled to structural funds to develop their own economies and provide opportunities for their own citizens to remain at home where they want to.

Brian?

dollar_king wrote: »

the term " pro choice " is no less political and loaded than " pro life "

That's exactly my point. Pro life, pro choice, pro family etc. are all nonsense political terms. Generally groups who class themselves as anything pro-xxxx aren't really pro xxxx, they're anti wyz.

Eric Cartman

84% Rand Paul
82% Ted Cruz

67% Donald Trump

23% Hillary Clinton

overall kind of what I expected.

Im pretty sure pro choice and decriminalising drugs are the only things that bump my hillary stats.

Akrasia

Eric Cartman wrote: »

84% Rand Paul
82% Ted Cruz

67% Donald Trump

23% Hillary Clinton

overall kind of what I expected.

Im pretty sure pro choice and decriminalising drugs are the only things that bump my hillary stats.

Did you do the test in character Eric?

Eric Cartman

Akrasia wrote: »

Did you do the test in character Eric?

I think this point really has to be addressed , people on the left look at the republicans/conservatives/right and think 'jaysus how could they think like this , they must be trolling/ mental / uninformed' and always like to assume any other possible reason except an informed rational choice for the answers they give.

People on the right basically feel the same way about the left. You look at the likes of ted cruz or rand paul and ask yourself how could anyone possibly vote for them, thats the way I look at hillary clinton.

neither of us are right or wrong , its a difference of opinion. Some of the sharpest minds in the world vote right and some others vote left. The 'college educated intellectuals always vote left' paradigm is incorrect.

Brian?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think this point really has to be addressed , people on the left look at the republicans/conservatives/right and think 'jaysus how could they think like this , they must be trolling/ mental / uninformed' and always like to assume any other possible reason except an informed rational choice for the answers they give.

You realise you just objected to a generalisation by generalising about everyone on the left?

People on the right basically feel the same way about the left. You look at the likes of ted cruz or rand paul and ask yourself how could anyone possibly vote for them, thats the way I look at hillary clinton.

neither of us are right or wrong , its a difference of opinion. Some of the sharpest minds in the world vote right and some others vote left. The 'college educated intellectuals always vote left' paradigm is incorrect.

Au contraire. There is most definitely a right and wrong to the right/left debate. There also many shades of grey in
Between.

Eric Cartman

Brian? wrote: »

You realise you just objected to a generalisation by generalising about everyone on the left?



Au contraire. There is most definitely a right and wrong to the right/left debate. There also many shades of grey in
Between.

depending on where you stand , you can't say a side of such an opinion driven scale is wrong and be looking at it truly objectively.

generalisations are a reality , we can't break down everything individually. the right and left are in themselves massive generalisations , I would be economically conservative yet support abortion rights and legalising cannabis , which are traditionally left values, I however would still call myself right wing as its the generalisation that fits most of my views.

Akrasia

Eric Cartman wrote: »

depending on where you stand , you can't say a side of such an opinion driven scale is wrong and be looking at it truly objectively.

generalisations are a reality , we can't break down everything individually. the right and left are in themselves massive generalisations , I would be economically conservative yet support abortion rights and legalising cannabis , which are traditionally left values, I however would still call myself right wing as its the generalisation that fits most of my views.

Well, there are some parts of the debate where there clearly is a right and wrong position

1. Global warming and evolution (and science denialism in general) - the fringe politicians on the right are completely ignorant of scientific facts

2. Religion - A significant part of the republican platform is little more than pandering to the evangelical churches and so they take ridiculous stances on many issues so as not to offend their ridiculous base.

Rick Santorum has come out opposing contraception. If there was ever a subject where you can say this is simply wrong, then opposing contraception is it.

Brian?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

depending on where you stand , you can't say a side of such an opinion driven scale is wrong and be looking at it truly objectively.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.

generalisations are a reality , we can't break down everything individually. the right and left are in themselves massive generalisations , I would be economically conservative yet support abortion rights and legalising cannabis , which are traditionally left values, I however would still call myself right wing as its the generalisation that fits most of my views.

I've no problems with some generalisations. I just found it funny you were objecting to a generalisation of the right by generalising the left.

Not to be too pedantic or a "grammar Nazi" but it really hurts my brain to read your posts, beginning sentences with capital letters is actually quite important.

Eric Cartman

Akrasia wrote: »

Well, there are some parts of the debate where there clearly is a right and wrong position

1. Global warming and evolution (and science denialism in general) - the fringe politicians on the right are completely ignorant of scientific facts

2. Religion - A significant part of the republican platform is little more than pandering to the evangelical churches and so they take ridiculous stances on many issues so as not to offend their ridiculous base.

Rick Santorum has come out opposing contraception. If there was ever a subject where you can say this is simply wrong, then opposing contraception is it.

The left has its share of nuts too. American politics has always been laced with religion , there was an article in the economist before about how an athiest president is still americas last big presidential taboo. When you have the loud voices of the likes of Mitt Romney the morman and other bible beaters it skews the agenda. Id choose an athiest candidate in a heartbeat if they stacked up well but the reality is both sides of the aisle have to pander to whatever flavour of christianity theyre part of to get anywhere. Sure kennedy was a catholic and we all know the damage that religion did, its just left out of the fond memory of him because the idea that being god fearing is exclusive to the right

jobbridge4life

Eric Cartman wrote: »

depending on where you stand , you can't say a side of such an opinion driven scale is wrong and be looking at it truly objectively.

generalisations are a reality , we can't break down everything individually. the right and left are in themselves massive generalisations , I would be economically conservative yet support abortion rights and legalising cannabis , which are traditionally left values, I however would still call myself right wing as its the generalisation that fits most of my views.

You are not right wing. You are a libertarian contrarian.