UO is a standard football crazy college. Somewhere like Reed College is much more left wing.
The city of San Francisco is very remarkably non-diverse. Especially when compared to neighboring cities. On average, black and Hispanic people have been more likely to be priced out of the city. 70% is either white or Asian.
There is a neighborhood in San Francisco called Bernal Heights. There are so many Sanders for President signs there that some have started calling it Bernie Heights.
No, American liberal or democratic party is more conservative than in Canada the conservative party. There is no city ,state or area that is liberal as Canada conservative party.
And the US is light years behind Europe their conservative party. Europe conservative party are socialist in American eye.
San Francisco is just as have lot of hipsters, Tech nerds and gays. More open and relax to gays and sexuality.
That’s a ridiculous oversimplification.
Generally, at least with reference to US politics, “liberal” means “left-wing”. “Everything goes” politics are what is referred to as “Libertarian”. Traditional Liberal politics in the US is very much non-Libertarian in terms of firearms, taxation, and protectionist legislation (e.g. environmental protection).
Liberals support free speech, free sex, and greater immigration, but higher taxes, greater protectionist legislation, and more restrictions on guns.
Conservatives support free guns, lower taxes, and lower protectionist legislation, but more restrictive speech, less immigration and more Puritanical sex laws.
Libertarians support free speech, free sex, greater immigration, AND free guns, lower taxes, and lower protectionist legislation.
This is just ridiculous. Liberalism is liberal by definition.
People on the other hand choose to hold a variety of opinions ranging from liberal to repressive. There is probably not a single person that holds exclusively all-liberal or all-repressive ideas. Statistically it’s going to be a distribution that can generally clump toward one or the other end of the spectrum or the middle, but a person will always have a few issues that are outliers within their overall philosophy.
If you encounter people that have some liberal beliefs and other beliefs that aren’t so liberal then you’ve found a centrist person.
Indeed. Politics aren’t a continuum from left to right. Even European conservative parties are in favor of single-payer, while US Democrats often avoid being so certain. That makes them pragmatic, not right-wing. Websites like the political compass you can nitpick to all hell, and I think their methodology isn’t always on, but they rate Canadian Conservative party to the right of Clintonon both of their metrics.
Where can I get these free guns? I usually have to pay!
I am not conservative. I can assure you that liberal and repressive are not mutually exclusive. I mean, I’ve never actually met a single Trump supporter outside of the Internet. I haven’t even met a real Clinton supporter. Either vocal Sanders or people who don’t talk politics. Even so, I have seen people who are living Portlandia sketches. Agreed on the rest though; people are rarely in one category.
UK,Canada and Europe does not have gun culture like the US or the libertarian base culture. And universal health care is not viewed as socialism.
The thought of ending social security or no tax would be laughable in those areas.
US also has very large prison population that does not come any where close to those areas. In the UK and many places in Europe front line police do not carry guns. And police brutality and police shooting are much lower.
Same sex marriage and discrimination laws where on the books way longer before the US started to talk about it or do any thing.
Open carry would be laughable and seen as cowboy wild wild west in their eyes.
There is also no workers party or far left party in the US like in those areas.
Let me disagree with one point of your post, sweat209. Same-sex marriages became legal pretty much in all the places where it’s now legal at roughly the same time (give or take a decade, which is about as close to simultaneity as happens in political matters). In fact, the overall trends in the acceptance of homosexuality happened pretty much roughly at the same time in all those places (Western Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand, Latin America to a lesser extent, and Eastern Europe to a lesser extent, but not most of Africa or Asia). Basically, cultural trends in what we think of as the First World happen at the same time, with only some countries holding back perhaps a decade or two.
Also, you say:
> There is also no workers party or far left party in the US like in those areas.
Partly that’s because there are only two major parties in the U.S. In general, those two parties only nominate people who are closer to centrists and not like the more extreme members of their parties. This year is apparently going to be different in both parties. Bernie Sanders is running a close second in the Democratic race for Presidential nominee. He’s never run on a Democratic ticket before, and his politics are close to socialist. Donald Trump is ahead in the Republican race for Presidential nominee. His views come close to the nationalist, anti-immigrant smaller parties in other First World countries. So there have always been extremist voters in both American parties, but with only two parties they don’t have their own party to advocate those views.
You know, sweat209, if you quit exaggerating your points, you could persuade us better (and you could also take some courses in English composition so we could read your posts more easily).
Please disprove my other points on crime, guns, police and culture as you seem to know it all. I spent 10 years learning politics. And the US is most backwards and messed up first world country in the world. The US does not come light years close to any first world country.
I’d rather live under conservative government in those country than under your pathetic democratic party government.
I don’t hate Americans,( I work with Americans just do not talk about government) but your politics is really strange and Americans are still very backwards people when comes to politics. Yet you call you self first world nation. Yet your cities are full of ghetto and crime and guns are handed out like candy and people are cool with that. Or open carry of the wiled wiled west . Yet your prison population is exploding and your police have a IQ of less than 3 old. You have massive school shootings every year and gun violence that police officer do not see in their job career in the UK.
Well if you talking about welfare for the poor or homeless it not much different in US than those countries. Well because the cost of living lower in Houston and Dallas I would rather be poor or homeless there than in some of those other countries.
But crime, punishment,police and gun culture is nothing like those areas.
And people don’t think universal healthcare is socialism like uneducated Americans think.
Yes there are talks about tax money or too many welfare programs in those areas but you don’t get this libertarian base like you get in the US. The Americans are just strange.
sweat209 writes:
> Yet your cities are full of ghetto
No, the percentage of ghettos isn’t much more than other First World countries. How do you define ghettos? Poverty? The poverty in the U.S. isn’t that much different than other First World nations. Yes, there’s more income inequality, but the amount of poverty isn’t that much different. Or do you mean racial and ethnic neighborhoods that are separated from those where the other racial and ethnic groups live in other First World countries? Consider all the neighborhoods in French cities where mostly Moslems live.
> and crime
Crime? The rate of murders is certainly higher in the U.S. than in most other First World countries. The rate of rape is also higher. The rate of other crimes isn’t much different in the U.S. than in most other countries. Assault, robbery, burglary, and such are just about as common as in other First World countries.
> and guns are handed out like candy
No, they aren’t. Guns are certainly more common than in many First World countries, but they aren’t handed out like candy. You need a license in general. A lot of people not only don’t own a gun, but they never see a gun (other than those in policemen’s holsters, rifles in the hands of licensed hunters, BB guns, and antiques) in their life. It’s certainly possible to argue that guns are too common, but saying that they are handed out like candy is an exaggeration.
> and people are cool with that.
No, a lot of Americans certainly aren’t cool with the number of guns.
> Yet your prison population is exploding
This is another exaggeration and out of date. It grew a great deal from about 1980 to about 2006, but it’s been going down for the past ten years. It’s certainly possible to argue that our prison population is still too large, but calling it exploding is wrong.
> and your police have a IQ of less than 3 old.
This is a wild exaggeration. Yes, American police should be much better trained to avoid situations where they over-react. Yes, they should be punished more for over-reaction. But they are no smarter or stupider than police in other countries. The problem is that our police aren’t trained to handle situations so as to prevent violence by anyone, including themselves.
> You have massive school shootings every year
No, we don’t have that many. You think that because you see news stories about them and think that they are common occurrences. They aren’t. Every such shooting gets massive publicity, making people think they are common. Things that are in the news are (by definition) rare events.
> and gun violence that police officer do not see in their job career in the UK.
The average American policeman doesn’t shoot his gun (in real situations, I mean, not in training or practice) even once in their career.
> And people don’t think universal healthcare is socialism like uneducated Americans
> think.
The majority of Americans want universal healthcare.
> The thought of ending social security or no tax would be laughable in those areas.
The clear majority of Americans would never accept the elimination of social security. Very few Americans would be so silly as to think that any government could exist without taxes. Just because some politicians have suggested such things doesn’t mean that nearly everyone doesn’t know that they couldn’t possibly work.
You have seen too many bad movies and TV shows and news stories about the U.S. and have too little real experience of our country.