No, I very much do. However, I don't know their specific positions well enough to offer an educated opinion. Maybe you'd like to? I try not to speak to things I don't have sufficient knowledge of. I also didn't realize having an opinion counts as "dictating" -- I was pretty sure it fell under the free speech umbrella ;)
> Communism is not "inevitable"
That's not communism, I suggest you fetch a dictionary. It's not communism any more than the monthly check everyone in Alaska (a republican stronghold) receives for their oil revenue. It's not communism any more than the right wanting to streamline administration of social programs by cutting people a check in lieu. But either way, I'm curious what you suggest we do with the people we don't need doing jobs.
> No, civil rights are a left position, in actuality, a democratic republic such as the US should have some mix of both left and right policy to function freely, it is not the other way around.
Which exactly civil rights do you think are a left vs right instead of a table stakes position?
Frankly I don't know what their specific positions are, but being anti-fascist on the face of it doesn't make you left, it makes you "not far-right."
> UBI is center-right?
UBI in my mind is apolitical, as it is the inevitable consequence of development. The more we develop, the fewer humans we'll need, as robots will replace them in the work they do. We won't need as many people working as we will have. Luckily as we develop birth rate goes down, so UBI is, for me, an artifact of a transient state where population will shrink to make up for development, and this is a humane way to handle the people who we don't need in the work-force.
The alternative is to create jobs we don't need and turn ourselves into a renaissance faire as a make-work project.
> Civil rights are center-right?
Civil rights should be apolitical. Everyone should believe in civil rights, left or right. Unless "left" means to treat people with respect, and "right" means not doing so, in which case I think you're making my argument, as most political systems treat civil rights as table stakes.
> Disregarding that, the rest of your post clearly shows you have a very skewed understanding of how politics (and laws) work.
Please do explain where, by law, anyone is required to publish someone else' views verbatim.