Slashdot Mirror

"Liberal" Bias? No. They're just more centrist.

It's like calling Hillary Clinton "Liberal", where she is clearly Authoritarian: https://www.politicalcompass.o...

Dude, you're backwards. Look at facts. Who do we know that was passing his own executive orders that were clearly illegal and stuck down by courts and they kept right on doing them? Obama. Who had scandal after scandal after major scandal and continues to have scandals even after he's departed - obama. Latest one is all of his missing records. Same thing happened with Clinton with his people being caught red handed trying to remove materials from the national archives. Who accuses the other side of doing exactly what they're doing - the democrats. Sex stuff, turns out they were the sex machines and covered it up for decades and we all know it now.

No, no. Democrats are the left. So are communist, fascist, socialist. In order from left to right. Then you're balanced. Then you go towards the conservative side. Take a political test to see where you are - https://www.politicalcompass.o...

Do yourself a favour and take a political test. Here is an easy, relatively short one - https://www.politicalcompass.o...

I have a feeling you're still well into the left territory. I really get a kick out of how may people think they're independent, centrist and they're clearly not. Not even close usually.

What about me? I consistently score almost exactly in the middle.

There is no real "left" in the US. your choices are right and far right. with varying degrees of authoritarian.

https://politicalcompass.org/u...

Actually no. That is one of those things that can be used by either far left or right to spread FUD. It also paints CLinton as far right while right wingers painted her as socialist.

Even that article surmised that Old Bernie - Is he right wing? - would have done better than Clinton against Dear Leader. And Trump's actions since taking office include some left wing tactics of protectionism and tariffs .

So its a nasty hodgepodge of randomicity.

There is no real "left" in the US. your choices are right and far right. with varying degrees of authoritarian.

https://politicalcompass.org/u...

Left/Right is an orthogonal axis from Authoritarian/Libertarian (with the latter meant in its true sense, not the US right-wing political faction of that name).

There are plenty of authoritarians in the Left and the Right. Here in the UK it includes both May and Blair. Fortunately there are also libertarians in both Left and Right including most of the LibDems and the Greens.

https://www.politicalcompass.o... has a good description of this.

Kind of.

As a self-identified right-winger, my first concern with prostitution is the inherent risk of...

And this is the main problem I see with right wing or conservative attitudes. You speak as if it has never been done before, and it's all unknown and scary.
I live in a place where sex work has been legal for decades. The risks are no greater than a security guard or construction worker and for most part it's just a regular job.
As this example shows a lot of right wing and conservative opinion* seems to be based on fear, uncertainty and doubt. That is no way to live...


* For the record, Political Compass tells me that my political bias is centre-right, so please don't pass this off as some lefty-pinko conservative bashing. I just find the FUD generated by the extreme right to be purely that.

The "political spectrum" is a consequence of U.S. politics. Because they use voting systems that favour a two-party state, there's little use for the political compass in the U.S. Everything is ultimately for or against one of the two parties.

Ha! You say that from a country where the state imprisons people for expressing certain opinions. Most governments in the world run from the left to the right and stay almost completely confined to the top half.

You just happen to like your local flavor of authoritarianism, just like the people in the top right like their flavor of authoritarianism.

Ha! You say that from a country where the state imprisons people for expressing certain opinions. Most governments in the world run from the left to the right and stay almost completely confined to the top half.

You just happen to like your local flavor of authoritarianism, just like the people in the top right like their flavor of authoritarianism.

Ha! You say that from a country where the state imprisons people for expressing certain opinions. Most governments in the world run from the left to the right and stay almost completely confined to the top half.

You just happen to like your local flavor of authoritarianism, just like the people in the top right like their flavor of authoritarianism.

You speak as if the political spectrum is 1-dimensional, but it is not: https://www.politicalcompass.o...

The interesting thing is that authoritarianism and nativism typically go hand-in-hand. The alt-right are a confusing mix of "nativists", protectionists and liberterians - A perversely slanted anarchism, some may say.

Here are some good references:

https://www.politicalcompass.o...

https://www.politicalcompass.o...

Here are some good references:

https://www.politicalcompass.o...

https://www.politicalcompass.o...

First off, I'm a liberal. Voted for Hillary, although my heart belonged to Bernie. I'm not afraid of Trump, though, so I'm apparently not a very good liberal.

Haha you sure aren't! You sound exactly like a centipede (member of the alt-right). Why would someone who is socially about 16 lightyears to the right of anyone with a D beside their name have any interest in Hillary or Bernie? Maybe you're fiscally liberal, but there's some conflict between being fiscally liberal and socially conservative, which is why it's a vanishingly rare combination.

You know what, returning this one.

Considering that Hillary Clinton is extremely hard right, more right wing (but less authoritarian) than Trump, yeah, I guess I'm just a bad liberal for being upset that the Dems put forth a Neo-Conservative candidate in defiance of their base.

If I was following my political views, I'd have voted Jill Stein. Every Liberal would have. Since it's quite clear the DNC has lost the benefit of the doubt -- the "Russian Hackers" conspiracy theory has proven this without a doubt -- I think I will next time.

That's the horrific thing that has to be scaring the DNC. They used to have a "Youth Wall" -- they could assume people under around 30 would support them no matter what. That may no longer be true -- and it may be why they were trying to hobble the growing New Right movement online by claiming outrageously stupid things like "Pepe's a white nationalist!"

Remember, Hillary was openly calling for war with Russia (via no-fly zones in Syria). Trump got the GOP -- the GOP -- to give a standing ovation to the idea of protecting LGBT rights. But somehow he's Literally Hitler (tm) and going to set LGBT rights 30 years. Why? Because that's easier than admitting the Democrats have a problem.

Either way, again, thank you for being my new go to text macro version of this image.

http://imgur.com/az4WByY

Yeah, not really much difference between Trump and Hillary, honestly.

https://www.politicalcompass.o...

http://politicalcompass.org/

Educate yourself. plus look at the historical rankings. There is also a trend towards the top right for both parties.

People know nothing about FDR it's almost as if they are trying to erase him from society's memory; they certainly are trying to undo all his accomplishments. Including restoring Fascism which arguably we've surpassed them (remember it is Italian, not german and democratic Fascism is possible. )

I think you're pretty much right in regards of the analysis what is happening, but you've subscribed to some propaganda on who is doing what. Because the forces at play in the US are first and foremost authoritarian and to the right (the latter of which doesn't really matter in the scheme of things).

I think this here shows this neatly:
https://www.politicalcompass.o...

"left" and "right" are solely economic points of view. You could also call them "socialist" and "capitalist". There's nothing in there about "liberty".

If you think there is some great conflict between "authoritarian" and "libertarian" at play there (or even "the Left" or "the Right" are on the side of "liberty"), you've just become the playball of propaganda. Because the only side here that's even playing is authoritarian, and it has won, it sets the policies, and orchestrates the propaganda. Of course it's nice to be able to constantly blame "the other side" for the shit you're doing. Which is what happens. Even if the other side happens to be firmly in your own camp.

Yes, there are people in the US fighting for liberty, but they're not "the Left" or "the Right", they're the ones that don't run your country. At all.

I am a right winger. We like Elon Musk.

Who is this we? I'm considered centre-right by Political Compass, but most right wingers I come across hate electric cars, solar power, anything not oil or coal based.

This fucking epidemic of stories about fake news this week is ridiculous.

Why? Democracy depends on a relative educated and informed voting public. The News is how most adults get their information, so deliberately deceptive news is a huge threat to a strong democracy.

The Liberal media lost big, predicting a Hillary landslide, and they NEED a scapegoat to blame for their own idiocy. Trust in the media is at an all time low, and people aren't fooled by the MSM putting on a different hat and calling themselves "impartial fact-checkers" anymore.

Wait, what? You went off on a rant there. Even Fox News picked Hillary so lets' not pretend this was some "liberal Media" conspiracy. The fact is that all the polls got it wrong.

So the new plan is to declare any website we don't like as "fake news" and tie them into the other demonized group we made up, the "alt right". They are the enemy and they must be stopped.

Um no, we (all of us) declare any website that makes up stories without sources, citations, or independent ways to validate the claims, and then tries to pass them as fact as fake news. This applies to all parties.

So what you're saying is, despite them being far-right anti-authoritarians, Johnson voters would be more likely to vote for the candidate whose stated positions are even more authoritarian and further to the left?

Just for shits and giggles, let's use the distance formula to provide the approximate ideological distance from Johnson (9.5, -1.5) to each other candidate on that political compass graph, sorted by proximity:
Clinton (7.5, 5.0): 6.80
Trump (6.5, 9.0): 10.92
Stein (-2.5, -2.5): 12.04

And now let's mirthfully equate the candidates to their nearest counterparts on a graph of a few famous historical figures (eyeballed, due to lack of graph lines):
Johnson ~= Milton Friedman, almost exactly
Clinton ~= Thatcher, more or less
Stein ~= Gandhi's less-cool, more-right-leaning cousin
Trump ~= Hitler and Thatcher's secret lovechild

So what you're saying is, despite them being far-right anti-authoritarians, Johnson voters would be more likely to vote for the candidate whose stated positions are even more authoritarian and further to the left?

Just for shits and giggles, let's use the distance formula to provide the approximate ideological distance from Johnson (9.5, -1.5) to each other candidate on that political compass graph, sorted by proximity:
Clinton (7.5, 5.0): 6.80
Trump (6.5, 9.0): 10.92
Stein (-2.5, -2.5): 12.04

And now let's mirthfully equate the candidates to their nearest counterparts on a graph of a few famous historical figures (eyeballed, due to lack of graph lines):
Johnson ~= Milton Friedman, almost exactly
Clinton ~= Thatcher, more or less
Stein ~= Gandhi's less-cool, more-right-leaning cousin
Trump ~= Hitler and Thatcher's secret lovechild

Two characteristics? Is that all it takes? Well, if that's your metric..

It's not my metric...
If you understood how Conservatism, Liberalism, Authoritarianism and Libertarianism all relate on the political spectrum then you would understand that Trump's political position is the closest to that of Hitler of any modern candidate. But don't just take my word for it
Seen any obvious comparison?

When an American politician establishes their own army to patrol the streets and crush opposition; when they hold Nuremberg scale rallies; when they adopt a policy of territorial expansion...

Yeah yeah blah blah, but by then it's too late. We did actually learn some lessons from that episode, and as they say, those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. That is why Clinton has much higher support among educated voters . Why do you think that is?

Two characteristics? Is that all it takes? Well, if that's your metric..

It's not my metric...
If you understood how Conservatism, Liberalism, Authoritarianism and Libertarianism all relate on the political spectrum then you would understand that Trump's political position is the closest to that of Hitler of any modern candidate. But don't just take my word for it
Seen any obvious comparison?

When an American politician establishes their own army to patrol the streets and crush opposition; when they hold Nuremberg scale rallies; when they adopt a policy of territorial expansion...

Yeah yeah blah blah, but by then it's too late. We did actually learn some lessons from that episode, and as they say, those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. That is why Clinton has much higher support among educated voters . Why do you think that is?

The argument goes something like this ... "TRUMP IS HITLER/A NAZI" ... as if that excuses Hillary of being Stalin purging Soviet Union of dissidents.

I saw the question put this way ... "Which would you rather do, Microwave or boil the kitten?" As if one was better than the other.

Actually according to independent analysis , Trump is like Hitler, but Clinton is similar to Thatcher.
So a more accurate analogy is, which would you rather do microwave the cat, or merely punch it in the face? One is actually a less worse outcome.

The argument goes something like this ... "TRUMP IS HITLER/A NAZI" ... as if that excuses Hillary of being Stalin purging Soviet Union of dissidents.

I saw the question put this way ... "Which would you rather do, Microwave or boil the kitten?" As if one was better than the other.

Actually according to independent analysis , Trump is like Hitler, but Clinton is similar to Thatcher.
So a more accurate analogy is, which would you rather do microwave the cat, or merely punch it in the face? One is actually a less worse outcome.

You can track Clinton's real positions through her voting record, previous statements, and how they all shifted as she made a carbon copy of the Sanders campaign in order to grab the Progressive vote, despite her own position being a Neo Conservative. Trump is just unbelievable, unreal, no. Both of them way no. .

If you compare Trump on Clinton's positions on Political Compass, Clinton is similar to Thatcher (ie hard right), and Trump is similar to Hitler (right, extreme authoritarian).
So the Hitler comparison are quite valid.

Learn something instead of just blabbing: http://politicalcompass.org./

Fascist is not Nazi it's Italian; in fact the term and Fascist party itself were largely defined by Mussolini. "everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state" - very authoritarian just like Hitler and Mao and Stalin... but unlike them:
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power" (the unsourced Mussolini quote which experts agree sounds like him and his political philosophy.)

Rand Paul is very pro corporate and anti-authoritarian. The fact libertards think somehow corporate powers and the superior human beings who control them won't turn into a form of authoritarian power is why we put "tard" into their professed support for liberty.

Perhaps we should call them Randians since they belong in the cult of Ayn Rand believers... The religion where Jesus is bad and Sociopaths are Saints (yes I am referring to her admiration of a certain serial killer.) His name RAND is a hint if you don't know much of the rest.

>"Facebook knows a lot more about its users than they think. For instance, the New York Times reports, the company is categorizing its users as liberal, conservative, or moderate. "

First, it doesn't know more than I think... but, then, I am not a user.

In any case, the political spectrum is not a single scale of left and right. Never has been. That is a gross over-simplification of how things actually are. "Conservative" and "Liberal" mean absolutely nothing out of context. You can be conservative economically and liberal socially, for example.

See this for interesting information and a test: https://www.politicalcompass.o...

https://www.google.com/search?...

Conservative and Liberal is orthogonal to libertarian vs authoritarian. Both parties have tendencies for authoritarianism vs libertarianism.

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

And to give you an idea where each candidate in the current US presidential election resides:

https://www.politicalcompass.o...

So, since Hillary is more right wing than Trump, who would we vote for in your world?

https://www.politicalcompass.o...

Unfortunately that's not right. The left does actually NOT say "mind your own fucking business". It says "I tell you what fucking business you should mind!" and more important "I also tell you what business you MUST NOT mind".

And that's where I had to detach myself from being "left". I do not feel that I have the right to tell people what they are allowed to fucking THINK.

This is a perfect example of why a one dimensional left/right -divide is utterly useless. I live in a globally very heavily to the left country (Finland) and adhere to many leftist ideas such as the universal health care and education systems we have here, as well as progressive taxation etc...

However, I do not buy into, nor support, any of the SJW crap about forcing people to feel/think/speak a certain way, and I say this as a part of one of the minorities (disabled since birth) that this crowd so often claims to be defending. There are loads of us. If you look at popular anti-SJW youtube chnalles such as Sargon of Akkad who has over 300 000 subscribers and over 74 000 000 views with numerous videos critizing and debunking this SJW thoughtcrime BS, and you take a look at the channel demographics, you'll note that the vast majority (55 %) of his viewership falls into the same category as the man himself (and me as well): a left-leaning libertarian. Ie. people who do not believe in letting the free markets decide over anything and everything, and believe the state serves as an important factor in making sure people's basic needs are met etc, but still at the same time maintain that individuals are free to say what they want, enjoy whatever substances they want etc... The authoritarian left of which you speak of is not just opposed by the right, but by a large quantity of us leftists ourselves, as one of the Sargon videos I linked above well puts it, the modern day SJW crowd has become very similar to the authoritarian right.

So no, there is no one 'The Left' anymore than there is one "The Right". The political field is much wider than that and we should all know that at this point. The political compass is a good tarting point to rid yourself of the tubelike vision that all members of left/right think alike or uniformly, I recommend checking it out if you haven't already,

But if it's a three person election - then Trump may very well win, regardless who the third person is. Lets say Bernie Sanders decides to run as an independent. While he lost on maths, the man got a LOT of votes, and even in the states where lost his margins were narrow. One could easily see him taking several states that would otherwise have gone to Hillary, and just one or two states could make all the difference. I would prefer Bernie over Hillary but right now I hope he drops out after the convention - because if he runs then Trump wins.

But would it be better to suffer four years under Trump, and then get a Democratic candidate that was closer to Sanders than Clinton? This is what those preferring to vote for the 'lesser of two evils', instead of the 'good, but unelectable' always miss: you can't push the party closest to your preferences closer to your preferences by voting for someone that's moving the party away from your preferences, even if the opposition is worse. You must be willing to lose in the short term to gain in the long term, or you'll just keep repeatedly losing in the short term while complaining that your vote doesn't matter. (not referring to the parent poster specifically)

The Democrats, for example, have no reason to move further left if all Sanders supporters vote for Clinton - if that happens, then as they see it, Clinton satisfied everyone fine! Maybe the next candidate can be even further right to pick up some Republicans! Whereas if they lose the election because of Sanders, the next candidate will have to move further left to capture those people they lost the previous election.

That's a bit simplified onto a single-axis system for the sake of example; at least some Sanders supporters would prefer Trump to Clinton. A two-axis system works better, but is less familiar to people.

And of course your comment that Bernie and Hillary are "less authoritarian than the other guys" SO, when did you stop beating your wife? Would you prefer execution by firing squad, or by hanging?

What? Do you even know how to read?
Authoritarian is a political position, just like Libertarian, or Left or Right. I don't make these up, each candidate positions themselves on the political spectrum based on their policy choices.
Based on policy analysis, Bernie is the least Authoritarian candidate still remaining, followed by Hillary. while Trump and Cruz are the most Authoritarian.
Is this news to you?

What we today call liberalism, and used to call fascism,

Fascism is now called Authoritarianism on the political spectrum, which is the opposite of Liberalism. Here's a diagram that might help: http://www.politicalcompass.or...
You want to at least ensure you know the basics before making stupid comments like that in public forum.

has destroyed all these societies.

Yes that's it, destroyed. The highest quality of life in history of humanity is right now, yet it's still not good enough for you....

You know, there are more than two parties in the elections?

No, I hate Hillary and Trump. Hillary lies constantly, which you seem to not believe for some reason, while Trump would lead to war. I am to center for Hillary, as the is a right wing fanatic, I have nothing in common with her.

http://www.politicalcompass.or...

I sit one block to the right and two blocks down from Sanders according to that site.

I'm not on a crusade to correct the BBC, but I'm happy to correct you. Here is where the presidential candidates stand, if you'd like to compare that with the parties in the UK then the UK parties are here.

Clinton looks pretty super-left-wing, doesn't she? Note that Obama is to the left of Clinton, but more authoritarian, or at least he was in 2012 when he was trying to get re-elected. When he was trying to get elected in 2008 he was far left of where he is now.

Hillary Clinton is a conservative, she's just not as conservative as the Republicans. Bernie Sanders is probably forcing her to campaign to the left on various issues, but her record speaks for itself. Like virtually all politicians in this country (with the notable exception of Sanders, and a few others), she is conservative.

The reason why Trump might be viewed as a moderate is because nearly everything he says can be contradicted by something he said at some earlier point. He doesn't stand for anything except himself, he just says things that he think will keep him in the spotlight. He was a Clinton donor for years before running against Obama and asking for his birth certificate, and now he's appealing to racists and other conservatives who are unhappy with the establishment. The things that he is saying are not moderate, but where he actually stands once the cameras are off is anyone's guess.

I'm not on a crusade to correct the BBC, but I'm happy to correct you. Here is where the presidential candidates stand, if you'd like to compare that with the parties in the UK then the UK parties are here.

Clinton looks pretty super-left-wing, doesn't she? Note that Obama is to the left of Clinton, but more authoritarian, or at least he was in 2012 when he was trying to get re-elected. When he was trying to get elected in 2008 he was far left of where he is now.

Hillary Clinton is a conservative, she's just not as conservative as the Republicans. Bernie Sanders is probably forcing her to campaign to the left on various issues, but her record speaks for itself. Like virtually all politicians in this country (with the notable exception of Sanders, and a few others), she is conservative.

The reason why Trump might be viewed as a moderate is because nearly everything he says can be contradicted by something he said at some earlier point. He doesn't stand for anything except himself, he just says things that he think will keep him in the spotlight. He was a Clinton donor for years before running against Obama and asking for his birth certificate, and now he's appealing to racists and other conservatives who are unhappy with the establishment. The things that he is saying are not moderate, but where he actually stands once the cameras are off is anyone's guess.

I'm not on a crusade to correct the BBC, but I'm happy to correct you. Here is where the presidential candidates stand, if you'd like to compare that with the parties in the UK then the UK parties are here.

Clinton looks pretty super-left-wing, doesn't she? Note that Obama is to the left of Clinton, but more authoritarian, or at least he was in 2012 when he was trying to get re-elected. When he was trying to get elected in 2008 he was far left of where he is now.

Hillary Clinton is a conservative, she's just not as conservative as the Republicans. Bernie Sanders is probably forcing her to campaign to the left on various issues, but her record speaks for itself. Like virtually all politicians in this country (with the notable exception of Sanders, and a few others), she is conservative.

The reason why Trump might be viewed as a moderate is because nearly everything he says can be contradicted by something he said at some earlier point. He doesn't stand for anything except himself, he just says things that he think will keep him in the spotlight. He was a Clinton donor for years before running against Obama and asking for his birth certificate, and now he's appealing to racists and other conservatives who are unhappy with the establishment. The things that he is saying are not moderate, but where he actually stands once the cameras are off is anyone's guess.

I'm not on a crusade to correct the BBC, but I'm happy to correct you. Here is where the presidential candidates stand, if you'd like to compare that with the parties in the UK then the UK parties are here.

Clinton looks pretty super-left-wing, doesn't she? Note that Obama is to the left of Clinton, but more authoritarian, or at least he was in 2012 when he was trying to get re-elected. When he was trying to get elected in 2008 he was far left of where he is now.

Hillary Clinton is a conservative, she's just not as conservative as the Republicans. Bernie Sanders is probably forcing her to campaign to the left on various issues, but her record speaks for itself. Like virtually all politicians in this country (with the notable exception of Sanders, and a few others), she is conservative.

The reason why Trump might be viewed as a moderate is because nearly everything he says can be contradicted by something he said at some earlier point. He doesn't stand for anything except himself, he just says things that he think will keep him in the spotlight. He was a Clinton donor for years before running against Obama and asking for his birth certificate, and now he's appealing to racists and other conservatives who are unhappy with the establishment. The things that he is saying are not moderate, but where he actually stands once the cameras are off is anyone's guess.

In a global/historical context, Obama is firmly "right", with no centre to him. However, you are correct that by Australian standards, he appears somewhat central.

In a global/historical context, Obama is firmly "right", with no centre to him. However, you are correct that by Australian standards, he appears somewhat central.

The part you are missing is that the left in the US is often further to the right than the right in most other countries

Absolutely! This site has a good overview of political leanings, showing the current trend towards the right/authoritarian.

Take from that what you will.

Jack Griffin is flaming leftest who thinks anybody to the right of PolPot is a right winger.

Either that or you are so far right that you are off the scale?
So how do we know which is true? I did the test and came out as centre right. So maybe it's you?

I know Sanders won't get everything he wants, but socialism isn't something positive in this country.

The term isn't seen as positive, but in practice it's fairly well liked. Social Security and Medicare are pretty good examples. Many of his policies are favored by a majority. His problem is really an image problem. If he called himself a Social Democrat he would be more well-received than calling himself a Democratic Socialist, even though they both describe the same kinds of policies. Referring to himself as a socialist causes a kind of knee-jerk reaction in a lot of people who just instantly hate him. The label "socialist" is the only label that will cause fewer people to vote for you than if you label yourself "atheist". That's changing among younger people, but it's a fact. It has a bad reputation (possibly deservedly so), but in practice a little bit of socialism can do a lot of good. That's what he's trying to illustrate with the comparisons to some of the European socialist countries like Denmark or the Nordic countries.

But, all labels aside, this is really what I want to move away from. That cluster in the upper right (Clinton included) I think is a problem for this country. We just need more voices and more ideas, and we as a country need to be able to listen and react to those in a rational way without just casually dismissing anything that isn't conservative authoritarian. It may take someone on the far left to help pull the country more towards the center.

If you can hardly see anyone to your left, and the only people you see speaking on the right are far-right, you should seriously consider that you might not be in the middle.

According to Political Compass I'm very slightly right leaning middle of the road. But when I hear the US political arguments I come across as a left wing looney.
The only conclusion is that the US is so far right now that even the middle seems left.

I'll note that the political compass puts Hitler just right of center, https://www.politicalcompass.o... which seems to agree with what you're saying, namely a mixture of right and left wing politics. The nationalism and racial bigotry do seem to be a right wing thing with the left authoritarianist repressing people for economic reasons rather then racial reasons. As you say, the power hungry authoritarian has no problem adjusting to keep their power as that is the most important thing.

While you're correct about being authoritarian, you're making a mistake in thinking that authoritarianism is different then conservative vs liberal. They're actually different axises on the political chart. You can have authoritarian conservatives, libertarian conservatives, authoritarian liberals (the American meaning of liberal) and libertarian liberals. Most successful politicians have been fairly authoritarian and to the right of the spectrum.
Check out the political compass, even has a nice quiz you can take which will show where on the chart you are. http://politicalcompass.org/ and look at the chart of the 2012 US election, http://politicalcompass.org/us...

While you're correct about being authoritarian, you're making a mistake in thinking that authoritarianism is different then conservative vs liberal. They're actually different axises on the political chart. You can have authoritarian conservatives, libertarian conservatives, authoritarian liberals (the American meaning of liberal) and libertarian liberals. Most successful politicians have been fairly authoritarian and to the right of the spectrum.
Check out the political compass, even has a nice quiz you can take which will show where on the chart you are. http://politicalcompass.org/ and look at the chart of the 2012 US election, http://politicalcompass.org/us...

http://www.politicalcompass.or.... It wont be long before Trudeau's handlers rein him in. The Liberals will get more pipelines built then the Conservatives ever did, mostly by not being confrontational.
Note also that the Liberals voted right along with the Conservatives for Bill C51 and have only promised minor tweaks to it.

You're confusing the authoritarian line with the economic line. Fun facts, anarchists have traditionally been leftists and libertarianism started out as a leftist philosophy. Generally rightist, at least the successful ones, are authoritarian, sometimes they want small government so the government doesn't interfere with their authoritarianism, think of the mafia or the Mexican drug cartels, both right wing business types who want less government interference in their businesses.
Take a look at the political compass, http://www.politicalcompass.or... and perhaps take their test. Here's their take on the 2012 US election, http://www.politicalcompass.or... Here's an article on libertarian socialism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...