>

Yeah I generally agree with you but in a lot of instances w the us Dems you’re left praying for a leftist and being let down in a primary and then reluctantly voting for a moderate/centrist dem in the general
Also agree on the caucusing, he might not agree with every leftist ideal but they’re gonna be closer to what he wants than most others (especially when you take into account that realistically policy that “true” leftists want isn’t passing most of the time anyways)
/u/MyFavoriteArm (OP) has awarded 5 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

I dunno, it seems like your ideal politician would be someone like... I dunno... Joe Biden? If that sounds wrong, I'm curious why? No politician is ever going to be perfectly tailored to your views, but in terms of what presidents actually do, he seems pretty in line with most of your bullet points. >

Haha, definitely not Joe Biden. I was/am actually a big Bernie guy. It was because I admired his honesty and he felt geniune and not a hypocrite unlike a lot of his competition
I only voted for Biden in the general because my state blocked the Green party from appearing on the ballot. I still feel like a hypocrite for voting for Biden in the general >

I guess I'd be interested in hearing you say more about this. You have this knee jerk "haha, definitely not Joe Biden" reaction, but why? If the sticking point is medicare for all, that's fine I guess, but can we agree that that's not happening right now no matter who the president is? He more or less checks your other left leaning boxes, and then is otherwise pretty moderate and chill. 
Maybe you just don't like Biden personally for whatever reason, but on a practical level, what is it that you actually want from a president that you're not getting from him? >

If he at least advocated for medicare-for-all rather than immediately promising to veto it, I'd be more receptive.
It also seems to me he doesn't want to do anything other than blame Manchinema or the Parliamentarian (who holds no power at all) for why he can't do anything.  
I just want him to fight for what's right rather than just what's politically convienent. Do I like that he did something about student loans? Yes I'll give that. It was obvious tho it was just to get votes for the midterms >


It also seems to me he doesn't want to do anything other than blame Manchinema or the Parliamentarian (who holds no power at all) for why he can't do anything. 

I mean...what is he gonna do, exactly? Those bills are passed through Congress.
Like, Biden's too milquetoast for me, too, and he's obviously playing games with shit like debt relief, but Democrats really are incredibly fucked by the makeup of the Senate. The fact that they hold 51 Senate seats is a miracle, and it's likely that, if nothing changes, they will not control the Senate for a long time after the 2024 election. >


if nothing changes, they will not control the Senate for a long time after the 2024 election.

That's precisely one thing I dislike about Biden. An effective leader gets those to buy in and effect change. LBJ did that. He was a flawed president, but rallied enough support to help get civil rights passed. 
It's a miracle that they held on in the senate in 2022 (Go Fetterman!)  yes but if Biden does nothing but accept defeat and put his feet up then yes, 2024 will be a bloodbath >

You can't get buy in when a party with massive systemic advantage - and in particular, the ability to block any legislation via a combination of the filibuster and their Senate advantage - has decided their one and only policy position is "fuck you".
LBJ wasn't working against a modern Republican Party. The parties of the 1960s were divided as much internally as between one another, and in fact the Civil Rights Act was the catalyst that created the modern Republican Party in the first place (as, essentially, northern Republicans merged with Democrats and southern Democrats merged with Republicans). In fact, the Civil Rights Act had more support from Republicans than it did from Democrats at the time, since many of the southern Democrats who would ultimately form the core of the modern Republican Party were still Democrats at the time. >

I would argue that you are broadly within the ambit of the current Democratic party. Let's look at the things that you say you have a problem with them on:

Guns: Good news! Democrats generally don't support banning all guns. We support banning some types of guns, requiring background checks, and safety courses. Hell, if the background checks and safety courses were universal, we probably wouldn't even need to ban specific types of guns.
I'm also sick of the culture wars. Democrats aren't the one making an issue of them. Democrats have had a trifecta for 2 years and have passed only one social issues bill, the Respect for Marriage Act. That bill had bipartisan support and was pretty milquetoast. The only reason that culture war issues keep coming up is because Republicans keep trying to do heinous things to LGBT folks. As a gay man myself who has trans friends, let me tell you: we do NOT want to be the focus of politics. Please, leave us alone.
Hate speech is absolutely protected free speech. I, and every person on the left that I personally know, is against criminalizing it. You won't find a single Democratic elected politician who supports criminalizing hate speech absent violence associated with it.
What exactly do you mean by personal responsibility? If you are referring to welfare programs, let's take a look at an imaginary person receiving benefits. We'll call him John. John never graduated high school and has practically no skills that are in demand. He's a drug addict with a criminal history. He's been homeless several times, but is currently living in public housing. What do we do about John to make sure that he takes "personal responsibility"? Do we let him starve to death? To my mind, personal responsibility is a great sounding narrative, but when you start looking at what it actually entails - letting people starve to death - it looks a lot less appetizing.
Broadly, Democrats are capitalists. There are some people on the far left who are not capitalists, and they vote with Democrats because Democrats are closer to where they are than Republicans, especially on social issues. Democrats don't want to eliminate capitalism; we want to regulate it. Corporations should pay their fair share of taxes, and watchdogs should be in place to find bad actors, especially in the economic sectors. Many of us think that healthcare should probably be nationalized because insurance companies and some medical providers have engaged in bad acts which have hurt consumers and caused people to die. That's really about the only thing I think you'd get popular Democratic support for nationalizing. >


What exactly do you mean by personal responsibility?

I wasn't referring to welfare specifically. I believe welfare is an important tool to help lift those in desperate situations. I mean more in terms of stuff like criminal justice and student loans. I say this as someone who is mired in student loan debt. 
Do I wish there was better stuff in place to help those with private student loans? Yes. But at the end of the day, I signed on the dotted line, and I have to live with the consequences and have no one to blame but myself.
In terms of criminal justice, I believe that yes, there are societal factors that can help lead one to a life of crime. That being said, at the end of the day, you do the crime, you do the time. >

Alright, let's talk about that. Student loans are a burden on the economy. Millennials and Gen Z aren't starting families or buying houses because of them. The economy faces potentially disastrous effects unless student loan debt is curbed. It is in the broader public interest that we not suffer from a major economic crash due to student loans.
As for crime, I'd love to talk about that. I'm a former public defender. "Tough On Crime" policies generally, and paradoxically, promote crimes rather than prevent them. When you are convicted in the US, and you can't afford bond or bail, the following happens to you:

You lose your current housing and employment.
You lose most of your friends and family who aren't in the criminal justice system.
You meet a lot of criminals who are planning on being involved in criminal activity after they get out of jail.
You get a new mark on your record that makes it very difficult to find anything more than menial employment.

So, essentially, we are taking away these peoples' means of making a living using legal routes. We are setting them up to enter the criminal world. Is it any surprise, then, that these people turn to lives of crime? Recidivism is the logical product of being "Tough On Crime."
Instead, we need to make extensive use of psychologically tested means of dealing with criminals, creating a network of social workers, attorneys, and employers who can help these people get their lives back to being in conformity with society. >


Alright, let's talk about that. Student loans are a burden on the economy. Millennials and Gen Z aren't starting families or buying houses because of them. The economy faces potentially disastrous effects unless student loan debt is curbed. It is in the broader public interest that we not suffer from a major economic crash due to student loans.

What would your solution be to someone like me who has more private loans than public loans? I know I'm a dumbass for taking private loans, but what would the solution be?
I agree that tough on crime rhetoric has led to a lot of the bad situations we are in now. In fact, I more believe that the only people who belong in prison are those convicted of violent crime, or super white collar crime. 

Instead, we need to make extensive use of psychologically tested means of dealing with criminals, creating a network of social workers, attorneys, and employers who can help these people get their lives back to being in conformity with society.

What would that look like? I'm genuinely curious, and you definitely sound like you know what you're talking about >

As far as student loans, we don't have great answers yet. I think that they should be more readily dischargeable in bankruptcy where the debtor can prove that they have no reasonable likelihood of ever paying off the debt. We also need to get tuition costs down. Regardless, "personal responsibility" isn't an answer to the problem.
Regarding the solution to crime that I mentioned, it looks something like this:

A multi-track intake system is created for criminal cases. If a judge finds probable cause that a crime occurred, the defendant gets assigned a public defender who reviews the case and makes a recommendation about whether it should be contested or not. No plea bargaining - that will be handled a bit later under this system. 
If the crime is not contested, as most are not, then we shift to an "improvement period" style system where a judge works with a social worker, the prosecutor and the defense attorney to figure out what led the person to make the choice to commit the crime. It might be that they don't have money. It might be that they have anger problems. It might be that they have problematic views of some minority. Regardless, we get them things to help them solve those issues. If it's monetary, we work to get them a job. If it's anger issues or hate issues, they get a therapist. Same for substance abuse issues.
The defendant shows up in court monthly for 6 months to make sure that they are following the improvement plan laid out by the court and the attorneys. The judge can extend the supervision if it looks like the defendant may need a bit more time.
Should the defendant successfully complete the program, the case is sealed and nobody ever needs to know that a crime was committed.
Should the defendant not successfully complete the program, then we go to traditional plea bargaining.

Will this be expensive? Yes. Will it be time-consuming? Absolutely. But it's the only way to truly put a dent in crime. We have to address the reasons that people make these choices, and people may not even be aware of the reasons themselves.
Relying on "personal responsibility" has clearly not solved these issues. "Personal responsibility" as a policy motivator is a dead-end street, for the reasons that I explained regarding welfare. >

You make some very solid points. I will give you a !delta as you actually have given me a new way to look and think at some of these personal responsibility issues. 
Thank you! >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/LucidLeviathan (51∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

Relatively speaking, I'd say your political identity is 'about average'.
Most people don't buy into every stance that a political 'side' takes.  They may lean towards one or the other, but the number of people that completely agree with any platform is really very small (percentage-wise).
What you have to be careful of is the messages that one party or the other (or the other, or the other...) espouses.  It will be very strict, since that's what 'the party' says things should be like.  But since you're not a mindless robot, you can disagree with some (or even all) of a given party's beliefs.
You are probably an independent, or unaffiliated if you prefer.  You don't need to sign up for any party, and it doesn't really benefit you do make that association if you don't agree with most of their views. >


You are probably an independent, or unaffiliated if you prefer

The only reason I don't register as an independent is because of the primary system in my state. Otherwise I would.
Both major US parties feel too far right for me. But I feel like I'm not left enough to be socialist >

If both of the major parties are "too far right" then you are ultimately a Democrat, as they are the further left of the two parties in question.
If you want a recommendation, you should register as a Democrat, if only so you can vote in Democratic primaries and help push further left candidates to party nominations. >


If you want a recommendation, you should register as a Democrat, if only so you can vote in Democratic primaries and help push further left candidates to party nominations.

I am still a D. In 2012 I almost registered R to vote for Ron Paul in the primary, but by the time my state had primary voting it was too late and he was out. >

So I guess I'm struggling with the issue here.  You seem to acknowledge that the Democrats are a closer fit for your beliefs, so you do have a place where you "fit" politically.  It isn't a perfect fit, but no party will ever be perfect, much less one of two parties that actually have a chance at victory. >

!delta
As much as I despise Democrats (more than republicans sometimes) you are correct that it is closer to my beliefs.
I wish there was a better party, but I definitely don't support what modern republicans and libertarians have become >


I wish there was a better party

Then my challenge to you is to help make a better party.  Support candidates in the primaries that push the agenda that you feel is right. >

Your beliefs are pretty typical, from what I see. The vast majority of people who were religious but became disillusioned by religion belongs in this camp.
There's much more logical consistency than US "democrats" and "republicans", where the ideology of both are basically internally contradictory
It's also the camp where all of their beliefs are the wrong ones :D >


The vast majority of people who were religious but became disillusioned by religion belongs in this camp.

How did you know my official religion is Recovering Catholic? >

Because you show all the signs of "oh, I'm a liberal, but I'm not one of those liberals" that comes from having swapped your beliefs but trying to not make yourself what the people you were raised around hate.
Fuck 'em. They're bad people. >


Because you show all the signs of "oh, I'm a liberal, but I'm not one of   
those  
liberals" that comes from having swapped your beliefs but trying to not make yourself what the people you were raised around hate.

Eh, I wouldn't say that for me. I'm not one of those liberals/leftists. Nor am I one of those religious types either >


Eh, I wouldn't say that for me. I'm not one of those liberals/leftists.

If democrats are too far right for you and you like Bernie and you're skeptical of capitalism, I cannot describe you as anything but a leftist. What do you think leftist means, exactly? >

Isn't Leftist is usually synonymous with socialist (NOT a bad thing; just not me) >

Socialists are a kind of leftist, but leftism as a concept seeks to dismantle social and economic hierarchies, and you seem to not like those hierarchies. "It is bad that some people have billions while others are poor" is a textbook leftist position. >


I still believe in gun rights (You should have to pass a bg check and comprehensive safety

There are left wing gun nuts and even most 'antigun' people don't want guns banned out right. >

It sounds like, ideologically, you align strongly with Bernie Sanders. Of course, he is an independent who caucuses with Democrats. Do you feel like that political description/identity resonates with you as well? >

Sort of. I despise the Democratic Party, as I view them to be hypocrites that stab you in the back.
My view of Republicans is that they stab you in the chest >

I don't know this, and would be open to being proven otherwise - but I think there are probably a substantial number of left-leaning members of Congress who only loosely affiliate with the Democratic party because they see it as a vehicle for change within the system instead of outside the system. So I think you would find that you "belong" to this group more than you might expect, if you wanted to.
Either way, regardless of how you decide to vote, or self-identity, going forward, I hope you'll consider that Bernie Sanders and the "Sanders Wing" of the party will generally retain a lot more power when the party they choose to caucus with is in power, compared to when Republicans are in power. Maybe that's enough to cause you to vote for a Democrat, maybe that's not enough. It's fine either way. Just recognize that your vote doesn't exist in a vacuum. For example, if you voted for a Democratic senator who wasn't Bernie Sanders, that was also indirectly a vote for Bernie Sanders to retain his chairmanship of the Senate Budget committee within the Democratically-controlled Senate. >

I do vote mostly Democrats. Voting Republican the last 7ish years hasn't really happened because I view Trump-era Republican party to be utterly repugnant >


I loathe Identity Politics/Culture War and think both are pointless distractions created by the ruling class to sew discord amongst the working class

But you think systemic racism is a problem? How exactly do you think we solve systemic racism without identifying its victims and countering its effects accordingly?

I am skeptical of unions (Workers should have every right to unionize if they want, but I want no part of them)

But you "dislike a lot about modern capitalism", a system that is built almost completely on the destruction of unions during the Reagan/Thatcher/etc 1980s?
Modern capitalism exists precisely because there are no labor movements to stop it.

I believe hate speech is free speech (you have every right to say hateful things, you also have every right to face backlash/ostracization for having backward beliefs)

Very few people on either side of the aisle disagree with this statement. You may legally say hateful things. You should absolutely be ostracized for saying them and not have a place in polite society if you do.

I believe that while yes, systematic racism/classism is real, it shouldn't absolve anyone of personal responsibility

No one claimed otherwise.

I still think capitalism has a place in society. It should just be for things like "what brand of peanut butter/car/art supplies should I buy?" rather than for things like healthcare

We toppled whole governments and left regions in ruins for bananas. Capitalism is malignant on any good, because capitalism operates the same way on every good. Just because it's not directly making your life annoying doesn't mean it's not de facto enslaving whole countries to sell you that peanut butter (where do you think they get the palm oil?), poisoning whole regions to sell you that car (lol mining), or cutting costs and endangering you through your art supplies (remember when we had a whole thing of lead poisoning because we outsourced this to China?).

OP, you sound a lot like me a few years ago. Clinging to old pseudo-libertarian beliefs to prove I wasn't just some liberal sheep, because while I had actually adopted liberal views on almost everything, I was still holding on to the very effective propaganda strawman of liberals as far more radical than they actually are. >

You make some good points.
Systematic racism is a problem, but focusing on stupid stuff like dr. suess, potato head, and "diversity in movies." isn't solving it either. Systematic racism can be solved with guaranteed civil rights, and by not sowing discord amongst the working class.
As for your second to last paragraph, you make a good argument, but I don't think that the government brand car/art supplies/peanut butter is the solution either >


Systematic racism can be solved with guaranteed civil rights

We've had guaranteed civil rights for decades. Systemic racism is still here.
The reason is that systemic racism is precisely the stuff that doesn't go away by being colorblind.

As for your second to last paragraph, you make a good argument, but I don't think that the government brand car/art supplies/peanut butter is the solution either

Perhaps or perhaps not, but we can surely agree that stricter regulation and far less economic incentive to engage in such activities (say, by making $1 billion instead of $50) are a start, right? >

I understand where you're coming from, but I believe the right to choose one's own doctor is more important than choosing their car, as medicine has become a capitalist community. >

In Australia in the public health system you chose your own primary care doctor, and can choose a private specialist if you pay, or get assigned a hospital service and consultant if you don't.
Even paying privately the cost is much less, both per service and for the system as a whole. >

Have you looked into Left Libertarianism? It is not on the american political spectrum and is an umbrella of a bunch of ideologies. You are right you don't fit in the mainstream political spectrum, but that doesn't necessarily mean you don't fit in the american political culture. The mainstream is dominated by those who can afford to be in politics
Edit: Local politics are where its at here. You may not be ale to influence even state governance (depending on the state), but you absolutely have a say in municipal politics. Participating in mutual aid or local initiatives can help you express your social views in a manner that doesn't need to align any party >


Local politics are where its at here

I definitely agree with that. I did get involved briefly with my local DSA, I didn't feel like I fit in, but I'm gonna give that another shot.
I wish I had more time/money to get srsly involved >

Given that you believe both Republicans and Democrats are both too far right, you're clearly a very left-wing person with the oddity that you don't like unions. Plenty of leftists believe that culture wars are a distraction created by an elite to divide workers. Given that culture topics, like abortion and gun rights, are in your view overall a distraction, your political identity should be described in terms of your beliefs about improving the material conditions of workers. And in that respect, you're very left wing. >

It's not that I dislike unions, it's that I'm skeptical of them. The police/public sector/athletic unions I think have given me reason to view unions with skepticism.
Workers should have every right to unionize if they so choose to. I just don't wouldn't want any part of it >

Apologies for my bad phrasing.
Many left wingers are skeptical of police unions. Public sector unions are probably more where you'll come to some clashes. Left wingers will tend to give push back when it comes to skepticism towards teacher's unions, even if you ultimately recognize the need to organize for better conditions.
This is definitely a more right wing leaning you have. But considering things on a whole, this seems like it might be an outlier among an otherwise pretty left wing worldview.
Do you support right to work laws by the way? >

No worries!
I don't support right to work laws. I dislike the notion that you can be fired for any reason w/o documentation. I probably should have mentioned that earlier. I think unions go to far the other way in protecting bad workers >

In that case, I don't see much reason to identify as anything other than a left winger. You're taking the Democratic position of being against right to work laws, albeit you're doing so with more skepticism. If social issues are what's holding you back, then the only thing left to consider is whether your position on gun rights and other things should override your position on how to deal with the material conditions of the working class in terms of what part of the spectrum you identify with. >

!delta
I think that is what I will do. I guess I am a left winger. Maybe I still have more learning/listening to do
While I have skepticism on some social issues, voting for Republicans was never on the table for me. Especially in the Trump era >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Ballerson (1∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

The political label that best suits you is Social Democrat. Yeah, sorry we don't have a Social Democrat party in America, so I can't help you with that.
You're probably not going to like my assessment of your positions much either.
It seems to me that your core values that led you to Libertarianism have informed your political shift to the Left as a practical/ policy position. But the psychology that also attracted you to Libertarianism is reactionary- that is why most Libertarians vere Right- and that has persisted and is causing the conflict in your political leanings.
You say that you're against "the culture war", yet the things that you claim to support, abortion and anti racism and civil rights, are the issues of the culture war.
This seems entirely contradictory to me.
Your opposition to "Identity politics", again contradicted by the above, is the typical right-wing view of focusing on economics and ignoring social issues from a policy perspective. You advocate for the working class against the elites, yet you don't see that framed as an identity politics. >


You say that you're against "the culture war", yet the things that you claim to support, abortion and anti racism and civil rights, are the issues of the culture war.

I never really viewed civil rights as culture war/identity politics. Those to me are inalienable rights that are not up for debate
Culture war was more stupid shit like Potato Head/Doctor Suess and stuff like complaining about "diversity in movies (both sides of that debate)" >

Those rights currently are up for debate, that's kind of the point.
Those inconsequential issues are the way to sell the larger social prescriptions by convincing people that they are being effected in their everyday situations by the people that they otherwise wouldn't have any reason to hate. >


Those rights currently are up for debate, that's kind of the point.

Even still, I don't ultimately consider that identity politics/culture war >

Good. Just be a good person and do more right than wrong. >

You belong in the 1960s Democratic Party. 
I am intrigued though, what do you mean by capitalism only being for consumer goods? >

Capitalism for consumer goods doesn't really exist under socialism which is just one brand for everything right? >

Socialist countries tend not to have consumer goods available at all. 
But why should someone get a choice in their toilet paper brand but not their bank or doctor? >


I still believe in gun rights (You should have to pass a bg check and comprehensive safety course first obviously)

This is fairly common as a left wing belief.

I loathe Identity Politics/Culture War and think both are pointless distractions created by the ruling class to sew discord amongst the working class

I think it's important that you're aware of the difference between defending your civil rights and attempting to limit peoples civil rights, but it doesn't need to be your main focus. I will add that "identity politics" is an essential feature of social and economic reform since you can't build a stable society on Shakey grounds (look at the USSR for an example).

I believe hate speech is free speech (you have every right to say hateful things, you also have every right to face backlash/ostracization for having backward beliefs)

That's a fairly unpopular stance, but nothing really all that crazy on the left.

I believe that while yes, systematic racism/classism is real, it shouldn't absolve anyone of personal responsibility

I don't think anyone think that it should. Personally I believe the concept of personal responsibility is an inherently flawed way to view the world, but that isn't a political stance it's just philosophical.

I still think capitalism has a place in society. It should just be for things like "what brand of peanut butter/car/art supplies should I buy?" rather than for things like healthcare

This is a semi common opinion in leftwing politics. I personally disagree since the concept of capitalism is inherently flawed, but that wasn't the point of the cmv.
In my opinion, you would be a leftist. You can call yourself whatever, but by leftist standards you are just a leftist. >

Every time there is a mass shooting, there's always talk of gun control and it usually seems the left wing position is to ban "assault" weapons, or weapons buy backs.
That being said. I despise the NRA >

Don't frame your political window around the news. Find the far reaches of the political sides and use them as reference points. Plenty of leftist areas are anti gun, but plenty of them are extremely pro gun. Guns are mainly despised by democrats in America. >

You belong on the left.
Although I doubt you actually favor Medicare for all. I think probably you favor universal health care, but not the Medicare system. Medicare is paid for through wage taxes. Those who work pay for Medicare. Those who simply invest do not. We could achieve universal health care by expanding ACA tax credit eligibility and paying for it equitably through income tax, instead of having workers alone carry the burden, as they do with Medicare.
With this  Joe Biden, centrist Democrat, is the way to go with this over Sanders. This is why I voted for Biden over Sanders--despite the personal charisma and appeal of Sanders. Also because I think blanket student loan forgiveness(rich as well as poor) is foolish. It's better to put that money into child tax credits, also something favored by centrist Democrats.
Your views fit very well with centrist Democrats, including the need for gun safety while respecting the 2nd Amendment.
My state has gone with ranked-choice voting. Under the system, you aren't penalized for not declaring a party. You might want to push for ranked-choice voting in your state. You still might want to register as a Democrat since it doing so would allow you to get in on writing the Democratic party platform for your state and in on supporting centrist candidates. You might even want to run for office yourself. >

I still am registered D, because my state has a backward primary system, and the Republican party is too hateful in it's current form for me >

Then you are registered in the way that will be the most effective. You still might want to push for ranked choice voting. It's new in our state but it has already resulted in the election of centrists, both Democrat and Republican. >

No one really feels like they perfectly align with either major political party.  The reality is that our voting system inevitably creates two "big tent" parties that have stances on every issues and its nearly impossible to expect that you'd agree with either party on each and every stance.
What you have to do is look at your belief system and decide what is most important to you.  Based on that, you align yourself with the party that is the closest match at any given time.  As issues change in priority and prominence, so may your party alignment change.
I'd advise looking past what the talking heads say about various things and really look at what policies each party is promoting.  Very often the rhetoric you hear from the news media will be a distilled version of a complex issue, and the reality of what the party stands for is far less polarizing than the sound bite would have you believe.  I'd also avoid basing your opinion of "the party" on what a few fringe politicians believe; look at what the main stream (i.e. most likely to have legislation pass) viewpoints are.
When it is all said and done, you are going to have to make compromises to fit under one of the two big tents.  That is just how politics works when you are talking about governing nearly 350M people. >

You can be a-political. You don't have to belong to a political party, or ideology. 
I'm not politically active: I have other ways through which I try to have a positive impact. 
I vote as my civic duty, but my vote swings everytime, based on the details of that particular vote: I don't owe any allegiance to a party, group, or ideology. >


I have other ways through which I try to have a positive impact.

What are some things you do to have a positive impact? Genuinely curious! >


What are some things you do to have a positive impact? Genuinely curious!

Volunteer for the local homeless shelter or community centre. 
In general trying to be good to individuals around me. 
Taking an interest in issues that don't directly affect me, but affect others, so I can represent the interests of others. >

Those are some good ways to have a positive impact. I used to volunteer at a food bank and I genuinely enjoyed doing that >

You don't share all your views with any of the parties in the US, but if there were say 6 more, would you find a party that 100% aligns with all your views? Or what'd be the percentage of views that align needed for you to not feel "homeless"? >


but if there were say 6 more, would you find a party that 100% aligns with all your views

Possibly. I identified as a libertarian for a long time. But now I don't vibe in that party/ideology.
I did look into DSA, but I didn't feel welcome due to some of my opinions >

So, how many of your opinions can be not represented in a party before you don't feel like you belong in said party? >

Sounds like youre just a leftist. Most leftists want to protect gun rights (plenty want working people to retain access to guns, lest the cops have a monopoly on violence. They aren’t the libs you’ll see on MSNBC, tho) and want to protect free speech and civil liberties (I would argue that there isn’t a serious political movement in the US to outlaw hate speech, nor would it ever be possible without a Constitutional amendment).
There isn’t a party that exactly matches your politics, but I’d say the progressive wing of the Democratic Party represents you pretty well.
The “culture war” isn’t much of a real public policy issue, mostly just Twitter and Fox News arguing back and forth with each other. I wouldn’t civically engage based on the dumb culture argument of the day
Get active in progressive challenges to Democratic Establishment candidates, and I think you’ll find your political home >

I generally agree with you, but if we’re trying to be pedantic about labels as OP seems to be “leftist” might not be the best? Usually that comes w a pretty strong anti capitalist sentiment. I suggested progressive but idk that’s probably not perfect either >

Maybe progressive is a better word.
So long as we’re stuck in a two party system, I think it’s smartest to vote according to which direction you want the country to go. If you want it further to the left, vote for the leftists, and then if they go too far left, vote for the moderates/conservatives two years later.
Seems like OP is more progressive than the center of the Democratic Party, so I’d recommend they caucus with leftists until they feel satisfied with how far left we’ve gone