Gail Chord Schuler is Libertarian, Constitution & Green on Political Ideology Test (Ron Paul, Clarence Thomas & Jill Stein)
I decided to take a very comprehensive test to determine my political ideology, because I began to question whether I am truly a Centrist. Here are the results of the test I took in May 2019, which, interestingly, on this July 24, 2020 says I am now primarily a Constitution in ideology: https://www.isidewith.com/profile/3774811137/parties#/
If you decide to do this test be sure to answer ALL THE QUESTIONS, it makes a big difference in accuracy. What you see below are the screenshots of my results from the test taken in May 2019. It appears I am actually a Libertarian, and next most Constitution. I just wondered why I connected so much with Tulsi Gabbard and now I know why. The test actually said that Tulsi is my candidate. I may check out John Delaney out of curiosity since he matched up the same as Tulsi for me. However, I’m super impressed with Tulsi Gabbard and doubt that Delaney can outdo her in my estimation. What’s interesting is that my views can lean either left or right, depending on whether the candidate holds to my libertarian and constitution views. This explains why I voted for Trump in 2016, but will now vote the other party for Tulsi in 2020. Trump is not a true libertarian and has disappointed me.
The results of this test explain why I am having trouble finding one party that represents all my views and why I share articles from a blend of Conservative, evangelical, Green, Libertarian and liberal sources. Sadly, I am finding that no political party or movement seems to have the total truth or “rightness” on all issues, so I’ve had to borrow from many divergent sources. This does not mean I’m crazy. It means I don’t belong to any category. For this reason, I despise identity politics. Identity politics refers to political positions based on the interests and perspectives of social groups with which people identify.
My Libertarian views agree with Ron Paul about 97%: http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm
My Constitutional views agree with Clarence Thomas about 90%: http://www.ontheissues.org/Clarence_Thomas.htm
My Green views agree with Jill Stein about 80%: http://www.ontheissues.org/Jill_Stein.htm
To know my positions on most issues, study what Ron Paul, Clarence Thomas and Jill Stein believe and combine them. I believe in the death penalty for willing and knowing Loree McBride Jesuits. I am very much against regime-change wars and a very strong believer in peace and freedom. Though I feel the greatest opponents to peace and freedom are Loree McBride Jesuits, who must be removed like a cancer from any country that desires peace and freedom. The only legit war is war to remove Loree McBride Jesuits from a country. In areas where there is disagreement between Ron Paul and Clarence Thomas against Jill Stein, I would probably side with Ron Paul or Clarence Thomas. I believe the government should be used to regulate those aspects of society, that if not regulated, would lead to injustice or some groups being unfairly marginalized. This is why I have a National Health Care Plan and believe government should break up or regulate Big Tech, so that the rich and elite cannot rule the world at the expense of the poor. But if regulation is not necessary and imposes unnecessary burdens on people, the government should “butt out”. The decision as to whether the government should regulate, depends on whether some groups are being unfairly marginalized. If no marginalization is occurring, the government should let free enterprise rule, only breaking in to prevent monopolies and criminal capitalists from ruling over the poor and helpless. This would explain the disparity in some of my policies. I believe in strong borders and that Loree McBride Jesuits should be executed and no Loree McBride Jesuits can be allowed into any Conspiracy Law honoring country.
NOTE OF INTEREST: Ron Paul and Jill Stein are both physicians and Clarence Thomas is a Yale Law School grad and Supreme Court Justice. I tend to agree with high I.Q. people.