Jump to content
270soft Forum


Steering Council Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About jvikings1

  • Rank
    Political Guru
  • Birthday June 22

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Nicholasville, KY, USA
  • Interests
    Austin Petersen for US Senate

Recent Profile Visitors

2,672 profile views
  1. jvikings1

    Libertarian Purity Test

    It's my preferred website for political tests
  2. jvikings1

    Forum Amendments for Article 3

    I'd argue that labels like don't meet equal protection under the law
  3. jvikings1

    Libertarian Purity Test

    Because you really aren't that libertarian
  4. jvikings1

    Forum Amendments for Article 3

    in favor
  5. jvikings1

    Confederate States of America play through

    How would West Virginia still break off if the Confederates win the war? IRL, they were able brake off because the Union held the stronger position in the area at the time.
  6. jvikings1

    Political Would you rather? Part 2

    There's actually quite a bit of deal making that happens in Washington especially when it comes time to pass a budget. Controversial items usually never are included, both sides something (this last budget was an increase in military spending in exchange for an increase in domestic spending), and everyone goes about their business.
  7. jvikings1

    Trump-Putin meeting poll

    While Twitter can be fun sometimes, there are other times where I don't blame you. Like yesterday when I replied to a Joe Walsh tweet saying that I didn't trust either the Russians or the intelligence community, there were quite a few people accusing me of being a Russian bot, agent of Putin, un-American, unpatriotic, etc. There are those who follow Trump 100% and won't criticize when he's wrong and there are those who villainize Trump 100% and won't acknowledge anything that he does as being positive.
  8. jvikings1

    Trump-Putin meeting poll

    I can't answer these questions as an adequate amount of options were not given. I think it's great that Trump is reaching out for dialogue with Russia and seeking to reduce tensions. It was irresponsible for neocons to think that he should just not meet at all. But, he did make a mistake on his comments about Russian meddling. So, I'm mixed about the meeting as a whole. I also do not trust any of the options given. Russia... that's self explanatory; Trump... While I support a lot of the policies he's accomplished while in office, he does make some dishonest statements (and signed the omnibus budget which brought back trillion dollar deficits an was supported by more Senate Democrats than Republicans). And, while I accept their conclusion that Russia meddled in the 2016 elections, I don't trust the IC because of past and current abuses as well as policies that trample the Constitution (especially the 4th Amendment).
  9. jvikings1


    But, the rejection of nationalism (and therefore borders) is needed for Marx's proposed worker's revolution to occur. It would happen simultaneously. The Communist nations that have occurred haven't been totally in line with Communism (as they mostly combine Communism with nationalism [you can see that in the Chinese-Russian Communism split during the Cold War]).
  10. jvikings1


    Communism is built on the rejection of nationalism and the uniting of the workers to overthrow the money class. Open border is essential to the Communist dream. Some libertarians do subscribe to open borders, but it must be noted that it comes with conditions which would be necessary for it to work. The welfare state would be abolished. Plus, private education would probably have to be privatized as well as almost all public lands. In extreme cases, the state would be abolished and everything privatized. But, generally speaking this is one of the crossovers between far-left and far-right. However, my reply was pointing out that open border is a far-left position because that's what was mentioned above.
  11. jvikings1


    She wants a jobs guarantee, government run healthcare (& believes healthcare is a right), and believes housing is a right. Not to mention her hostility to the 2nd Amendment (ban of "assault weapons" & accessories as well as a ban on Congressmen taking contributions from gun manufacturers [also a violation of the 1st Amendment]). She's also a part of the Democratic Socialists of America. In American politics, she's far left and would be considered on the left internationally as well. Open borders is a Communist position
  12. I think you're looking too much into that. He didn't tag me either.
  13. jvikings1

    Forum Amendments for Article 2

    A tie is absolutely needed in the Senate especially if we get stuck with a 50-50 split in the body. If there was no way to break ties, then it would have the potential of grinding everything to a halt (making it difficult to pass something is good but the inability to pass anything at all would be dangerous). Plus, the VP allows line of succession right after the President which the people voted for. This makes it a lot less likely that we get a President that wasn't voted on by the people (member of Congress or cabinet). The cabinet wasn't voted on by any of the public while every member can vote for a representative that serves in Congress. It makes a lot more sense to have a person elected by the representatives of the people (which everyone who wanted to vote voted in the election) than some unelected bureaucrat appointed by the executive.
  14. jvikings1

    Forum Amendments for Article 2

    None are necessary there hence why I question their proposal. There's no point in abolishing the position of VP. Plus, that brings a question of who breaks ties in the Senate which has been ignored in the proposals so far. At least people elected representatives to elect those (and so far having someone in the House and Senate [respectively] fill those positions) who are Speakers and President Pro Temp (unlike the unelected cabinet positions). If a President dies in office, there will be a lot of preparations that need to be made. If the person who assumes office wants to run for re-election, they would be distracted by a campaign which would limit their ability to lead. Natural born means born as an American (so on US soil or to parents that are Americans). I think that is fine. If someone is going to be President, they should have been an American citizen their entire life. The misdemeanors proposal doesn't do anything as it doesn't change the meaning of the clause.
  15. jvikings1

    Forum Amendments for Article 2

    award electoral college votes proportionally (with a minimum threshold of 10% in order to win any EVs) Note: if this proposal and proposal 13 both secure a majority, only the proposal with more votes will be approved Up to states; unnecessarily intrudes on federalism hold presidential elections every six years and prohibit the President from running for reelection (though allow for non-consecutive terms) Note: if this proposal and proposal 14 both secure a majority, only the proposal with more votes will be approved 4 years is long enough; 6 wouldn't allow the people enough options to change leadership if they feel it's failing them  abolish the office of Vice President Why? establish a new line of succession where the President is followed by the Vice President (if said office is not abolished) and then the members of the cabinet (in the order their positions were created) Why? The president must fill all open vacancies in all areas in which he or she can make an appointment. The president has 90 days to make a nomination, and Congress has 90 days to hear and confirm/deny or the position is automatically confirmed. Gives Senate majority leader too much power; the Senate needs to be able to disregard a nominee that isn't qualified or doesn't deserve a hearing Presidential recall: In order to initiate a recall election, a petition (or petitions) must be signed by an amount of people greater than 50% of that state's voters in the previous Presidential election. If this criterion is met, a recall election will be held with the winner serving the balance of the term.. If the voters elected a President, then they are stuck with them for the duration (unless impeached and removed for crimes); They'll have a chance to change leadership in 4 years. Would just create instability and move closer to pure democracy. Trigger a special election whenever a non-nationwide-elected official (e.g. Speaker of the House or Secretary of State) ascends to the Presidency (unless it is within one year of a scheduled election) Why? remove the words "natural born citizen" from Section 1 Clause 5 Why? a parliamentary system amendment (similar to the Westminister system, but only with the parts relevant for addition to the article) Would create instability and remove many of the checks and balances ranked-choice voting for Presidential elections You should chose a candidate and make a vote based on that. If they don't win, you shouldn't be able to vote for someone else. for treaties, 2/3rd's of the Senate must APPROVE not 2/3rds must DISAPPROVE eliminate the word "misdemeanors" from Section 4 Why? abolish the Electoral College entirely and have a popular vote with a second round if no majority is gained in the first round, like in France Note: if this proposal and proposal 1 both secure a majority, only the proposal with more votes will be approved Another dangerous step towards true democracy. Screws over the smaller states. Shorten the President's term to 2 years, but allow for the President to run for 3 consecutive terms Note: if this proposal and proposal 2 both secure a majority, only the proposal with more votes will be approved Would lead to constant campaigning and fundraising (like House elections). Allow the President to call early elections Way too much power in the President's hands; could easily lead to abuse; the system was designed to make it difficult to make major changes