Where do *YOU* think *OTHER* War Room regulars sit on the U.S political spectrum?

Bat Dad said:
guess i would call myself a left leaning republican (im registered republican)
trump is a shithead (voted clinton but shes terrible too) both of em sucks bernie would have been better (minus all the blm nonsense)
im all for 2a rights (but agree with stricter rules and background)
im against abortion (except rape incest severe handicap)
i dont think we need to waste money on a wall
im fine with gay rights (doesnt affect me)
im against making rich 1% richer (but most of us should be)
drug testing for welfare is a proven waste of taxpayer funds
im pro police (obviously)
im ok with marijuana decriminalization (yes i think sessions is going after it to fill for profit prisons)

um not sure what else
ask me?
Click to expand...


I thought you are a Liberal Democrat center Left.
 
Arkain2K said:
In this little experiment, we will find out how you perceive other posters, and how other posters perceive you.

There's no need for self-identification in this thread. It doesn't matter what you think of yourself. What this project will ultimately achieve is a consensus on how the WR regulars look at each others in here.

Here is the seating chart, divided into 7 section:


Left:

Center-Left:

Centrist/Moderate:

Center-Right:

Right:

Libertarian:

???:

------

Here is the initial list of "favorite War Room posters", brought to you by JDragon. Go ahead and assign the seating that you think is suitable for them:

@7437
@2DUM2TAP
@Adamant
@AnGrYcRoW
@Anung Un Rama
@Arkain2K
@Atheist
@Awesomesauce
@bad seed
@Bald1
@Banchan
@Bukowski82
@CableandThanos
@CEROVFC
@Charles Manson
@Cmart
@colby25
@Cubo de Sangre
@Darkballs
@Denter
@DiogenesOfSinope
@dontsnitch
@ehtheist
@Falsedawn
@FinalFight
@Gandhi
@GearSolidMetal
@glennrod
@Greoric
@Gutter Chris
@HendoRuaGOAT
@Higus
@Hogey
@IDL
@In The Name Of
@InvertedCross
@InvestigatorIL
@irish_thug
@ironwolf
@Jack V Savage
@JDragon
@Jesus Freak
@JosephDredd
@JudoThrowFiasco
@Juventud
@Kafir-kun
@KBE6EKCTAH_CCP
@KILL KILL
@KONG-D'SNT-TAP
@Lead Salad
@lecter
@lfd0311
@LionExMachina
@LucasWithLidOff
@luckyshot
@M3t4tr0n
@Madmick
@MicroBrew
@MusterX
@ncordless
@ObsoleteSoul
@Octavian
@oldshadow
@Overpressure
@Palis
@panamaican
@PrinceOfPain
@Quipling
@RespectableDenizen
@Rex Kwon Do
@RhinoRush
@ripskater
@Rod1
@Ruprecht
@sabretruth
@shadow_priest_x
@ShinkanPo
@Skip Reming
@SMEAC
@sodapopinski
@SouthoftheAndes
@Space
@spin_
@Teen Wolf
@TeTe
@Thames
@The ScorpioN
@theBLADE1
@TheComebackKid
@Thurisaz
@Tropodan
@ucunc156
@Undying Poster
@UpaLoompa
@voxom
@Work Play
@WrestlinganJudo
@Zankou


Don't see your name on the list? You will be added as soon as you submit your votes for other people!

Once a WR regular has been voted for 10 times, I will put them into the official seating chart above, in accordance to other people's assessment of him.

-----

Note 1: We're using the standard U.S spectrum, which probably leans further towards the right than what Germans and Swedish are used to.

Note 2: Please use this thread to nomination other people, not for off-topic discussions.

I would appreciate it if the Mods would keep an eye on this thread and delete all the mindless drivels that clogs up the voting process.

------

Votes Received:
Click to expand...

I don't even recognize most of these names. More of a visual person. I remember avatars.
 
fonzob1 said:
I don't even recognize most of these names. More of a visual person. I remember avatars.
Click to expand...

To be fair, this is my fourth year here in the WR and the number of regular posters truly worth remembering can be counted with my fingers, may be some toes on a good day.

Incidentally, those are the valuable contributors widely recognized by other posters as Centrist, Center-Left, or Center-Right. People whose knowledge and insights instantly make any discussion better with their objectivity. You'll probably recognize a few of them in the recorded votes in the OP.

The rest are shit posters who are either 1) angry & bitter individuals who drives by threads after threads just to spam their pointless one-liners, with no intention of ever reading the OP, much less participating in the discussion in a meaningful way, or 2) indigenous partisan hacks who participate in the discussion for the sole purpose of reinforcing and expanding their echo chamber.

It's rather easy to identify who belongs to which group after a while, actually, as birds of a feather certainly flock together in the WR:

A) Quality posters usually only press Like sparingly on the handful of quality posts that they can find. Shit posters on the other hand, spam Like on any shitty posts made by their fellow partisan shit posters.

B) Find a discussion thread with a neutral thread title and you're more likely to find unbiased posters having a civilized discussion. Find any thread with a horribly-biased title and you'll find half of the WR's shit posters convening in the circle-jerk inside, like a cloud of flies buzzing and copulating on a steaming pile of manure.
 
Last edited:
Arkain2K said:
To be fair, this is my fourth year here in the WR and the number of regular posters truly worth remembering can be counted with my fingers, may be some toes on a good day.

Incidentally, those are the valuable contributors widely recognized by other posters as Centrist, Center-Left, or Center-Right. People whose knowledge and insights instantly make any discussion better with their objectivity. You'll probably recognize a few of them in the recorded votes in the OP.

The rest are shit posters who are either 1) angry & bitter individuals who drives by threads after threads just to spam their pointless one-liners, with no intention of ever reading the OP, much less participating in the discussion in a meaningful way, or 2) indigenous partisan hacks who participate in the discussion for the sole purpose of reinforcing and expanding their echo chamber.

It's rather easy to identify who belongs to which group after a while, actually, as birds of a feather certainly flock together in the WR:

A) Quality posters usually only press Like sparingly on the handful of quality posts that they can find. Shit posters on the other hand, spam Like on any shitty posts made by their fellow partisan shit posters.

B) Find a discussion thread with a neutral thread title and you're more likely to find unbiased posters having a civilized discussion. Find any thread with a horribly-biased title and you'll find half of the WR's shit posters convening in the circle-jerk inside, like a cloud of flies buzzing and copulating on a steaming pile of manure.
Click to expand...

3:1 post:like ratio. Doesn't think likes matter. Speaking of easily recognizable patterns...
 
Greoric said:
It reads to me as if you're in heart of Seattle. To econ (albeit echo chamber) oriented to be in SJW San Fran area...
Click to expand...
DiogenesOfSinope said:
We have an archaic voting system in this republic that encourages branded teams, which are more predictable and easier to control. The results cater to the lowest common denominator. Imo we should be voting very often on policies using information technologies.

And though you seem like center-right to me, the common left/right language is too vague. I would prefer the D&D Alignment system in which you would be lawful neutral.
Click to expand...

The problem with voting on specific policies is that the public is incredibly poorly informed. The public would probably support huge increases in spending, huge tax cuts, and a balanced-budget amendment if none of those things were connected to a specific party (that speculation is based on polling).

Most people know they have a kind of rough alignment, and then they trust people based on that. That has worked fairly well for a lot of our history, but I think identity politics (defined very broadly) kind of short-circuits it. Like, Trump can talk about white working-class voters and express anger at the things they are angry about and win an additional 10% or so of them but then promote a set of policies that is really bad for them. I think the root of the imbalance is the Dixiecrat walkout of the Democratic convention in 1948. It took a long time to develop, but that was the moment that we started getting steered into a situation where the crazies (Bircher types, fascists or anti-anti-fascists, religious nuts, and Southern racists) all ended up on the same side, where partisan alignment stopped counteracting ideological alignment and ended up reinforcing it.

It would be great if we had four viable parties (far right, moderate right, far left, moderate left) that could shift alliances when necessary for the good of the country. But our system is designed in a way that makes two dominant parties inevitable, not because of any conspiracy but because of Duverger's law.
 
Jack V Savage said:
The problem with voting on specific policies is that the public is incredibly poorly informed. The public would probably support huge increases in spending, huge tax cuts, and a balanced-budget amendment if none of those things were connected to a specific party (that speculation is based on polling).

Most people know they have a kind of rough alignment, and then they trust people based on that. That has worked fairly well for a lot of our history, but I think identity politics (defined very broadly) kind of short-circuits it. Like, Trump can talk about white working-class voters and express anger at the things they are angry about and win an additional 10% or so of them but then promote a set of policies that is really bad for them. I think the root of the imbalance is the Dixiecrat walkout of the Democratic convention in 1948. It took a long time to develop, but that was the moment that we started getting steered into a situation where the crazies (Bircher types, fascists or anti-anti-fascists, religious nuts, and Southern racists) all ended up on the same side, where partisan alignment stopped counteracting ideological alignment and ended up reinforcing it.

It would be great if we had four viable parties (far right, moderate right, far left, moderate left) that could shift alliances when necessary for the good of the country. But our system is designed in a way that makes two dominant parties inevitable, not because of any conspiracy but because of Duverger's law.
Click to expand...

Our federal system is corrupt, and the budget is ridiculously out of balance. We love ballot measures on the west coast. They get most of the positive change accomplished. Usually they are revenue neutral or positive. Take Oregon's bottle bill, or Colorado's cannibis Bonanza. Direct democracy scares elitest liberals. I know you will probably split hairs and post walls of text now... But I do read them and appreciate your point of view.
 
Captain Davis said:
I could be a fascist if I believed in the message. I am a strong nationalist, so there's that.

Murica, fuck yeah!
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Arkain2K said:
Yeah, literally nobody cares how you analyze yourself, bro.

Was the thread title and the OP too confusing? How can I break it down to simpler terms for you? :)
Click to expand...
Guess how many fcks I give about following your rules!

none
 
 
Fawlty said:
Pretty easy to understand why most libertarians like or tolerate Trump. He's going to destroy regulation, crush labor, and cut corporate taxes. They value those things so much that they will gladly take the least qualified, most mentally disturbed person to ever hold the office, even if said madman has to do it all by tyrannical decree. Any means to an end is perfectly at home within libertarian thinking.
Click to expand...

Also, Trump is a fascist, and right-libertarianism inevitably leads to fascism. The people who think the state can be shrunk and corporate powers unfettered without the latter gaining obscene power over the former for the purpose of, and in response to, subsequent economic inequality, are just short-sighted ideologues.

Libertarians are scum, deserving of less respect than fascists. At least fascists have bona fide goals towards which their policies take sensible steps: establishment of central power to promote ethnic homogeneity. Fascists are brutal and selfish, but at the very least somewhat logical. Right-libertarians have no logic, only lazy ideology.
 
Trotsky said:
Also, Trump is a fascist, and right-libertarianism inevitably leads to fascism. The people who think the state can be shrunk and corporate powers unfettered without the latter gaining obscene power over the former for the purpose of, and in response to, subsequent economic inequality, are just short-sighted ideologues.

Libertarians are scum, deserving of less respect than fascists. At least fascists have bona fide goals towards which their policies take sensible steps: establishment of central power to promote ethnic homogeneity. Fascists are brutal and selfish, but at the very least somewhat logical. Right-libertarians have no logic, only lazy ideology.
Click to expand...
Whoah whoa....what's this about libertarians being scum? You think Ron Paul is scum?
 
silus_2000 said:
Whoah whoa....what's this about libertarians being scum? You think Ron Paul is scum?
Click to expand...

Is there an intelligent adult who doesn't think Ron Paul is scum? Even half-competent capitalists realize he's a goof.
 
Trotsky said:
Is there an intelligent adult who doesn't think Ron Paul is scum? Even half-competent capitalists realize he's a goof.
Click to expand...
I've never seen anyone describe Ron Paul as being scum EXCEPT for you.

P.S. If you're an intelligent adult you wouldn't be calling people scum to get your point across.
<seedat>
 
silus_2000 said:
I've never seen anyone describe Ron Paul as being scum EXCEPT for you.

P.S. If you're an intelligent adult you wouldn't be calling people scum to get your point across.
<seedat>
Click to expand...

Maybe it's a somewhat dated word. I think moron, impostor, grandstander, and charlatan are probably all more commonly used.

The guy is an immoral boob who was one of the first politicians to specifically target the particular policy inadequacies of American voters (economics) and feign some sort of principle knowing that they'd never call him out on it.

Also, Ron Paul is hardly a libertarian, even by the bastardized American standards. He was just a Republican who espoused isolationist foreign policy and criticized the war on drugs.

Otherwise, his social policies cared very little for liberty, other than the liberty of the master to strike and starve the slave.
 
Trotsky said:
Maybe it's a somewhat dated word. I think moron, impostor, grandstander, and charlatan are probably all more commonly used.

The guy is an immoral boob who was one of the first politicians to specifically target the particular policy inadequacies of American voters (economics) and feign some sort of principle knowing that they'd never call him out on it.

Also, Ron Paul is hardly a libertarian, even by the bastardized American standards. He was just a Republican who espoused isolationist foreign policy and criticized the war on drugs.

Otherwise, his social policies cared very little for liberty, other than the liberty of the master to strike and starve the slave.
Click to expand...
Non-interventionism ≠ Isolationist. It doesn't sound like you know much about his positions. That's probably why you're being so vague.
 
silus_2000 said:
I've never seen anyone describe Ron Paul as being scum EXCEPT for you.

P.S. If you're an intelligent adult you wouldn't be calling people scum to get your point across.
Click to expand...

That's a strong bubble you've built around yourself. Paul's shortcomings as a man and public servant are pretty widely known.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,981
Messages
55,459,162
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top