• Xenforo Cloud is upgrading us to version 2.3.8 on Monday February 16th, 2026 at 12:00 AM PST. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Opinion What are 'Radical Left' Beliefs

Which of these political beliefs is a 'radical left' belief

  • Abortion should be largely legal (Up to 15 weeks lets say)

    Votes: 14 15.1%
  • Social Security and Medicare are valuable and necessary safety nets that must be maintained.

    Votes: 4 4.3%
  • The highest tax brackets are too low. Households over $5m and the largest companies should pay more

    Votes: 9 9.7%
  • Gay people should be allowed to marry

    Votes: 7 7.5%
  • There should be term limits for Senators and HOR Reps

    Votes: 2 2.2%
  • We should have a National Health Service (NHS)

    Votes: 7 7.5%
  • Social Media content must be reigned in a lot. It's a big problem & a big part of our polarization.

    Votes: 14 15.1%
  • Instead of deporting, we should make legal immigration fast, easy and cheap. Immigrants add value.

    Votes: 20 21.5%
  • The tax code is far to large and complicated at the expense of the poor and benefit of the rich

    Votes: 5 5.4%
  • The worst food and drink choices should be heavily taxed to defray the medical costs they drive.

    Votes: 19 20.4%
  • None of these are radical left beliefs

    Votes: 56 60.2%
  • All of these are radical left belirfs

    Votes: 1 1.1%

  • Total voters
    93
  • Poll closed .
Of course they are that's why we shouldn't make it easier for companies to do that.
it's the lack of regulation on business practices that you're upset with, not the existence of immigrants. immigrants built, and continue to build, this country. your anger is directed at the wrong people, imo.
Forgive me if I phrase this wrong. But if you can't get people to work for what you are offering than that isnt the free markert price of that labor. But in our rigged game the capital class can sham there way around that.

You know a left wing position that I do have that might be considered radical ? I think we need another labor revolution.
i completely agree. in the west, that idea would be radical, but in asia or south america, they'd find that idea pretty milquetoast. a bit of a no-brainer.
 
That immigrant shit is radical left. So no countries have borders and anyone can come and go as they please. Or does this just apply to the white countries?
That's not what the OP said, and, agree with it or not, how can making it easier to immigrate legally be radical when welcoming immigrants is one of the country's founding principles? Widely restrictive immigration laws didn't start until the early 1900's.
 
Last edited:
Like I said, feelings and vibes.

You can talk policy just fine but you base your decision mostly on feelings, image, etc. This is common everywhere but much more on the right and it's a shame.
Tbf, literally no president ever has seemed to hate this country more than Trump, and that is one of the reasons I did not and would never vote for him. Which makes me a dirty leftist!
 
Like I said, feelings and vibes.

You can talk policy just fine but you base your decision mostly on feelings, image, etc. This is common everywhere but much more on the right and it's a shame.

This is Dubya winning because he was a guy you could have a beer with unlike that square and stiff Kerry.

No you aren't reading me right dude and are over simplifying my position.

I even said exactly what policy I vote on. That's not a vibe. That's a very real policy.


You are trying to have a conversation about voting. I thought we were talking about what makes someone seem radical. I even asked you a question about that.
 
If Trump runs again in 2028 against AOC would you vote for him?

No I would not he served his 2 terms and for him to even be running again would mean he pulled some shit.

But I probably wouldn't want to vote for aoc either. As a person I like her way better but I meant it about not voting for anyone talking about an assault weapon ban or mag restrictions. I'm not kidding about that being a line in the sand.

Tell ya what though . ..if for some reason aoc added repeal the nfa or at least no further gun control efforts I would vote for her , donate and campaign for her. Especially in the scenario you presented.
 
No I would not he served his 2 terms and for him to even be running again would mean he pulled some shit.

But I probably wouldn't want to vote for aoc either. As a person I like her way better but I meant it about not voting for anyone talking about an assault weapon ban or mag restrictions. I'm not kidding about that being a line in the sand.

Tell ya what though . ..if for some reason aoc added repeal the nfa or at least no further gun control efforts I would vote for her , donate and campaign for her. Especially in the scenario you presented.
Tbh I find it hard to believe you but you answered my question head on and that's all I can ask for. Cheers.
 
Some of those "leftist views" are being purposely misrepresented no matter how many times theyve been explained. Leftists dont want all police abolished, or even kept from policing. Leftists dont want criminals NOT subject to enforcement of law.

These are strawman positions meant to sound extreme and I'd say anyone who espouses them are just ill-informed regardless of what they claim to be.
You are preaching to the choir. I know that the "defund the police" or "open borders" rhetoric is dishonestly framed, but the left has poor messaging and the right run them over with the dishonest framing.

Im merely speaking to the topic of "radical left", those are in fact radical left beliefs, and there are certainly a microscopic amount of people who believe that stuff, and the right loves them because they paint those crazy people as mainstream, and some of the left wing politicians cater to them because they are always loud and given an undeserved soapbox and influence.

The Charlie Kirk thread is a perfect example of it. A bunch of scumbags are celebrating on social media and the right is allowed to frame it as if the entire left is like that, despite the fact that the entirety of the mainstream left have denounced the violence. There is plenty of criticism to have about him/his beliefs that is perfec, but some of the people take it way too far.
 
Out of all of those, abortion is the only one I see a reasonable person calling radical. I don’t agree with their take but I understand it
Reasonable people should agree that even a 15 week law is not radical compared to other countries. The majority allow it "on request" generally up to around 12 weeks, and it is usually longer if there are health reasons. States that make it crazy low like 6 weeks, when women might not even realize they're pregnant yet, and then also outlaw solutions that would work within that timeline, like morning after pills, for who knows what reason, are radical.

The closest thing to radical on the list, to me, is the social media thing. I happen to agree with that one anyway, but I am guessing that would be challenged on constitutional grounds.
 
Why is high immigration left wing? If left is basically about aiming for more equality, isn't immigration not always left-wing? When there's a housing crisis or companies are importing trained workers rather than training the local poor or it's being used to weaken union power, it's not left wing. The idea of immigrants being ok and tolerance and understanding of those different from oneself might be on the left wing side, but not "immigration is good".

I voted for a national health service being radical and hiking taxes on certain foods to lower their consumption. They both seem out there to me. The health one especially, it depends on what you mean by a national health service. Publicly-funded and publicly-run? How many countries have that to achieve something akin to universal healthcare? The UK, Brazil, Spain, Finland - free at the point of use for many things. Norway, Sweden? Patients pay co-payments. Same in China but with the state covering less of the cost. Some places use private insurance, maybe with the government covering a small % of people (eg Belgium, Netherlands, Japan. Japan has significant co-payments). Others use public funding but private/non-profit delivery (ie non-government clinics/hospitals) for most or much of it like in Germany, France, Austria and Canada. So fully public seems quite RADICAL and free at the point of use even more radical (and you said an NHS, which suggests the British model). Especially for a country like America, where almost everyone currently uses private insurance and private hospitals and people like to have choice.
 
I was a Democrat, but never considered myself a lefty. I voted for only one of those options.
 
Some of those "leftist views" are being purposely misrepresented no matter how many times theyve been explained. Leftists dont want all police abolished, or even kept from policing. Leftists dont want criminals NOT subject to enforcement of law.

These are strawman positions meant to sound extreme and I'd say anyone who espouses them are just ill-informed regardless of what they claim to be.
Many are not ill-informed, but are attempting to push a narrative for the ill-informed to lap up, imo.
 
That's not what the OP said, and, agree with it or not, how can making it easier to immigrate legally be radical when welcoming immigrants is one of the country's founding principles? Widely restrictive immigration laws didn't start until the early 1900's.

The 1st naturalization law of 1790 specified White immigrants of sound mind and good standing. The US was never founded as some kind of refuge for anyone who wanted to come here.

It's completely radical when you have citizens homeless and broken by the system and your 1st concern is bringing in foreigners ASAP with little vetting, and then giving them aid and other benefits that they don't deserve over the native citizens sleeping in the streets of their home country. It's suicide for a nation.
 
Social Security and Medicare are valuable and necessary safety nets that must be maintained.
- Thats isnt being a leftist. Is being a rational human being. Also americans shondt lose their only housa, if they're owing money because of medical bills.
 
The 1st naturalization law of 1790 specified White immigrants of sound mind and good standing. The US was never founded as some kind of refuge for anyone who wanted to come here.

It's completely radical when you have citizens homeless and broken by the system and your 1st concern is bringing in foreigners ASAP with little vetting, and then giving them aid and other benefits that they don't deserve over the native citizens sleeping in the streets of their home country. It's suicide for a nation.
The idea of making it easier for people to legally immigrate rather than deporting them (which is what the OP said) stems from the idea that they are already productive and law abiding tax payers and consumers. Also, all citizens by definition "deserve" benefits. That argument makes no sense. I'd argue it's way more radical to send in troops to round up the citizens sleeping in the streets that you're worried about, than to streamline immigration for people that we want to have living here. The topic is what is "radical", not what you agree or disagree with.

Finally, yes, in a time when only white people were considered worthy (as we had a massive slave population at the time) the laws made it super easy for them to become citizens. Have good character, live here for 2 years, and take a pledge, that's it. Are you saying it is "radical" to think non-white people might also be able to meet those criteria?
 
Defund/Abolish the police
No limit abortion
Criminal Justice Reform(AKA stop putting criminals in prison)
Legalize all drugs
Sterilizing children
Putting men in women's sports/prisons
Open borders
- That's. Also if man and woman geneticaly are equal. Why do woman have special protection laws?
 
I get it. While I'm not exactly a fan of trans I think that's some bullshit and if they do that they open the door for democrats to decide if other groups shouldn't have them .

I don't agree with you about private gun ownership.

I think it says in case you assholes need to militia up you should keep guns in your home.

I will be happy to see the end of trumps presidency , he's not my boy I just wanted kamala slightly less.

What I really would like is for one of these 2 parties to stop sucking and make me actually want to vote for them but I'm not holding my breath.

Repeal the nfa
National Healthcare.

Those are my 2 big ones and I feel like I'm pretty flexible on most other things. But those are the 2 I actually want.

From my understanding the 2A initially was meant specifically FOR registered Militiamen, that's why that part is first. Plenty of early townships and settlements had laws against gun carrying, and gun use. I can show you 2 former conservative SCOTUS justices who both said the same thing before they died, on video. Gun carrying had a specific utility, if it wasn't occupational, it wasnt necessarily lawful. The idea that there would be a general widespread armed citizenry would have horrified the Framers as they had to quash rebellions already. This notion of arming the population to fight against it's own Government was absurd. Shay's Rebellion and the other ones that sprung up at the time had to raid armories.

The problem with your 2 big things is not the politicians, it's the culture. You have bootstraps ideology mixed with "solve all your problems with a gun" ideology. There are heavily armed Nations with universal healthcare, they dont think like we do. And what's worse is that if you bring up those Countries here, people will say they can have both because they have less immigration, less minorities.
 
The 1st naturalization law of 1790 specified White immigrants of sound mind and good standing. The US was never founded as some kind of refuge for anyone who wanted to come here.

It's completely radical when you have citizens homeless and broken by the system and your 1st concern is bringing in foreigners ASAP with little vetting, and then giving them aid and other benefits that they don't deserve over the native citizens sleeping in the streets of their home country. It's suicide for a nation.

How you think Nations survive is now how they survive. Most Countries with an "us only" mentality are right now experiencing birthrate crises. The naturalization law you speak of was more about maintaining a heirarchy, not racial purity. The whites were importing Africans and Asians in droves. There was also labor immigration from South of the Border even then. The idea that the US was meant to be this utopian ethno-State is misguided. The capitalist aristocracy always knew there would be racial diversity, they just wanted to protect their wealth and status by creating a legal framework where only they would have Civil rights.
 
As an actual "radical leftist", I'll go ahead and tell you what I believe in. Liberté, egalité, fraternité. That is my political north star. Everything else is just a matter of details.

Granted, liberals purport to share the same goal, but I believe that liberalism has proved itself incapable of achieving those ends.
 
Back
Top