Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

Progressive Legislation Poll

Progressive Legislation Poll  

21 members have voted

  1. 1. Which kinds of Progressive Legislation do you generally support?

    • Civil Rights legislation, such as emancipation, women's suffrage, voting rights acts, anti-lynching laws, LGBT rights, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
    • Environmentalism, including conservation and the National Park System
    • Reform allowing voters more direct control of government, (i.e. La Follette's "Wisconsin Idea")
    • Government healthcare (Medicaid, medicare, Obamacare,, desire for universal single-payer healthcare)
    • Labor laws (Child labor ban, work safety laws, anti-discrimination laws, minimum wage)
    • Protect unions and encourage Unionization of workers
    • Prohibition laws which ban, limit, or curb things like guns, alcohol, soda, and fast food in hopes of forcing people to be healthier for their own good
    • Anti-monopoly legislation, aimed to help small businesses and competition
    • Social Security
    • Anti-discrimination laws (protecting the elderly, disabled, minorities, LGBT, etc.)
    • Welfare programs (assistance for very impoverished families)
    • Government-funded infrastructure programs (building/updating roads, canals, bridges, airports, highways and also reducing unemployment in the process)
    • Keynsian economics (or a tolerance of spending, rather, as a means of eventual greater economic output)
    • Financial regulations and audits on banks and other financial industries
    • Regulation of some businesses and corporations
    • Lenient immigration laws
    • Military action and intervention as a last resort, for defense and humanitarian reasons.
    • Promote secular, public education
    • A general tendencies in legislation towards a greater relation with the international community, and less of an isolationist "America First" attitude
    • None of the above
  2. 2. Do you believe you are a Progressive?

    • Yes, much in the form of Teddy Roosevelt, La Follette, FDR, Henry Wallace, Dennis Kucinich, Elizabeth Warren, or Bernie Sanders
    • Yes, but I am more fiscally conservative, since I believe one can be a progressive and fiscally conservative.
    • No, but I consider myself liberal, so I will embrace some or much of this.
    • No, I am a conservative and a moderate, and while I support some of this, I don't see myself as a progressive.
    • No, I am conservative and this is antithetical to my conservative values.
    • Yes, but I don't support most or any of this. Progress is made, not through "progressive" legislature, but by the principles I avow.;
  3. 3. Who is your favorite progressive political figure? You must choose one, even if you don't like any of them.

    • Theodore Roosevelt
    • Robert La Follette
    • Hiram Johnson
      0
    • George W. Norris
      0
    • FDR
    • Huey P. Long
    • Henry A. Wallace
    • William Borah
      0
    • LBJ (as a domestic president only)
    • Dennis Kucinich
    • Barack Obama (in campaign mode only)
    • Bernie Sanders


Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, Presidentinsertname said:

he not getting reelected.

Then again, neither was Truman if you asked anyone in October of 1948.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

a right is universal or it is not one at all

I don't see how that could fit with an anti same-sex marriage viewpoint, because excluding people from that marriage is exactly what you're advocating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SirLagsalott said:

I don't see how that could fit with an anti same-sex marriage viewpoint, because excluding people from that marriage is exactly what you're advocating.

In his absence  I'm assuming that he's personally against it but doesn't think it's the goverment's job regulating it given his elaboration on some preious posts

"Very Traditional ( Psychiatric Treatment for Homosexuals, Complete Unconditional Ban on Abortion, Strict Sodomy Laws, No Stem Cell, Overturn Hodges v. Obergefell, Lawrence v. Texas, Roe v. Wade, Eisenstadt v Baird, and Griswold v. Connecticut.)" - Reagan04 on July 11,2016

"Yes, I was a character wasn't I, the government has no business paying for that, though I still believe in it for the private citizen."  - Reagan04 on June 28,2017 discussing the above comment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not really that great or impressive of a quote, since it is an impossibility. If we have completely freedom, then an individual or a majority of a population has the freedom to treat someone unequally. While through equalizing laws, one can also gain freedoms, such as the freedom to vote, to citizenship, freedom from economic fears, etc. As with any country, and any laws, there are some give in take. Our Civil Rights laws have made us a freer country on the whole, as more people have freedoms now because of them. 

I'm really surprised as a practicing Catholic, whose religion is headed by Pope Francis, that you aren't more inclined towards the attitudes of Pope Francis. Aren't Catholics supposed to believe that the popes are divinely appointed and are accurate representations of the Will of God? Then, I would assume, as someone who openly believes in eliminating a divide between politics and religion, and interpreting Constitution Law as a part of God's given enumerate rights, that you would be inclined to an America that Pope Francis would prefer which, if you read his statements, is one of social and economic justice, anti-war (I know you are more militant than most on this forum), etc. Frankly, he's the Bernie Sanders of popes. If some American Catholics divorce themselves from Pope Francis, then I'm wondering what the purpose of the Pope is at all. To him its clear that there are more sins than gender identity, gender orientation and abortion, and that right up there with these are the sin of economic injustice, social injustice and the sin of violence, including war. I would go so far to say that to him, the sins of economic and social injustice and war are greater sins than issues of gender and even the lacking of faith, since he seems much more tolerant of these, and shows little tolerance to those politicians and world leaders who squash legislation and laws aimed to be socially and economically equalizing.  

For someone that seems to openly support politicians, laws, and a history through a religious lens, you cannot afford to be hypocritical. In the end, you are a secularist that uses religion only when it fits the area of your agreement.

I'll admit I do the same, but only for the sake of arguments like this. I am a secularist first, because I cannot agree with all of Gods laws and with all of Gods punishments, especially in the Old Testament. And in the statements in which early Old Testament God, later Old Testament God, Synoptic gospel Jesus (Matthew, Mark, Luke), St. Paul, and later canonical gospel Jesus (John, Acts, Revelations, etc.) contradict one another, I tend to go with Synoptic Jesus, since out of all of these, he seems to be embody love. I think many of the Founding Fathers also didn't accept the Bible wholesale as being completely compatible with one another, but rather, saw it as a large work of contradictions, while possibly divinely inspired, written and mistranslated by human hands. Certainly, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, and others thought this. One would have to be absolutely devoid of critical thinking to think otherwise. Yet, these men would have considered themselves model Christians, since their Christianity did not divorce itself from reason, critical thinking, doubt, beneficence, modernization, science, tolerance, equality, and many other things that many supposed "Christians" ignore or actively work against today. 

Equality and Freedom more often go hand and hand, and inequality breeds on a lack of freedom of some to many. Again, we are said to be the freest nation on earth (I doubt this is the case anymore), because--historically-- of our greater social equality, economic equality and tolerance. To continue to be the promise of America, we must outpace the world in these areas at all time to better ensure a true Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness for ALL Americans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, vcczar said:

It's not really that great or impressive of a quote, since it is an impossibility. If we have completely freedom, then an individual or a majority of a population has the freedom to treat someone unequally. While through equalizing laws, one can also gain freedoms, such as the freedom to vote, to citizenship, freedom from economic fears, etc. As with any country, and any laws, there are some give in take. Our Civil Rights laws have made us a freer country on the whole, as more people have freedoms now because of them. 

 

*and

sorry about the grammar policing but I've been doing it on some other places when i've had to re-read the sentence to understand what they're saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

*and

sorry about the grammar policing but I've been doing it on some other places when i've had to re-read the sentence to see what they're saying.

That's bound to happen when I'm typing and submitting it. As this forum isn't an academic paper or something that I'm being paid to do, I'm much lazier in my sentence construction. Obviously, I knew an "and" went there. I generally don't correct people's grammar on a forum since I understand that this is just a forum and not professional or academic work. I find it generally pretty easy to figure out what someone means, despite the error. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, vcczar said:

That's bound to happen when I'm typing and submitting it. As this forum isn't an academic paper or something that I'm being paid to do, I'm much lazier in my sentence construction. Obviously, I knew an "and" went there. I generally don't correct people's grammar on a forum since I understand that this is just a forum and not professional or academic work. I find it generally pretty easy to figure out what someone means, despite the error. 

I'm slowly getting used to people's typos but I still have issues with it.Sorry if that was misunderstood @vcczar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

I'm slowly getting used to people's typos but I still have issues with it. Sorry if that was understood [SIC] the wrong way, @vcczar.

Irony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

I quite like that, I came up with it one day and I can't find I source I might have gotten it from, so I'm going with it.

I'm pretty sure that's a paraphrase from Jean-Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Patine said:

The Founding Fathers, who were mortal men with all the flaws, weaknesses, temptations, prejudices, and sin nature of mortal men, and showed no sign at all of having been selected as Prophets or as having had Epiphanies, wrote the Bill of Rights, NOT the Hand of God Himself. Ignore the delusional (and blasphemous) statements of people like Tom DeLay.

Even Jefferson said it was self evident that men were endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights and that governments are established to secure those rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

Yes, I was a character wasn't I, the government has no business paying for that, though I still believe in it for the private citizen. 

Being able to look back at yourself and think "That was a dumb view to hold" is a fantastic trait in anyone, and definitely a good one to have if you aspire for public office. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CalebsParadox said:

Being able to look back at yourself and think "That was a dumb view to hold" is a fantastic trait in anyone, and definitely a good one to have if you aspire for public office. 

Personally it's wonderful but politically it's horrible. It seems that if you ever change your position on anything, even over a period of years, you'll be labeled a flip-flopper and a panderer. (See: Hillary Clinton, John Kerry)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, President Garrett Walker said:

Personally it's wonderful but politically it's horrible. It seems that if you ever change your position on anything, even over a period of years, you'll be labeled a flip-flopper and a panderer. (See: Hillary Clinton, John Kerry)

I think that it's useful so that you can keep current with the trends of American politics. The politics of today are not the politics of 40-50 years ago, yet we still have some politicians that served then serving us now due to being able to adapt and update their views. If it's relatively major of a switch, yeah, it's an awful trait, but following trends can help keep you relevant if you serve for awhile. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody else like LBJ? I think if it weren't for the effects of Vietnam, he could have got a lot more done. I think his work on civil rights was admirable, especially if he himself was racist (which I don't believe.) You need a president who can get stuff done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LegolasRedbard said:

Nobody else like LBJ? I think if it weren't for the effects of Vietnam, he could have got a lot more done. I think his work on civil rights was admirable, especially if he himself was racist (which I don't believe.) You need a president who can get stuff done

even in the bathroom?

http://knowledgenuts.com/2013/08/20/lyndon-johnson-held-meetings-on-the-toilet/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NYrepublican said:

Johnson is reported to have had conversations while exposing his genitals, urinating in the sink, and sitting on the toilet

 

WHAT?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, LegolasRedbard said:

Johnson is reported to have had conversations while exposing his genitals, urinating in the sink, and sitting on the toilet

 

WHAT?!

 

Edited by NYrepublican
removed various links

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, vcczar said:

It's not really that great or impressive of a quote, since it is an impossibility. If we have completely freedom, then an individual or a majority of a population has the freedom to treat someone unequally. While through equalizing laws, one can also gain freedoms, such as the freedom to vote, to citizenship, freedom from economic fears, etc. As with any country, and any laws, there are some give in take. Our Civil Rights laws have made us a freer country on the whole, as more people have freedoms now because of them. 

I'm really surprised as a practicing Catholic, whose religion is headed by Pope Francis, that you aren't more inclined towards the attitudes of Pope Francis. Aren't Catholics supposed to believe that the popes are divinely appointed and are accurate representations of the Will of God? Then, I would assume, as someone who openly believes in eliminating a divide between politics and religion, and interpreting Constitution Law as a part of God's given enumerate rights, that you would be inclined to an America that Pope Francis would prefer which, if you read his statements, is one of social and economic justice, anti-war (I know you are more militant than most on this forum), etc. Frankly, he's the Bernie Sanders of popes. If some American Catholics divorce themselves from Pope Francis, then I'm wondering what the purpose of the Pope is at all. To him its clear that there are more sins than gender identity, gender orientation and abortion, and that right up there with these are the sin of economic injustice, social injustice and the sin of violence, including war. I would go so far to say that to him, the sins of economic and social injustice and war are greater sins than issues of gender and even the lacking of faith, since he seems much more tolerant of these, and shows little tolerance to those politicians and world leaders who squash legislation and laws aimed to be socially and economically equalizing.  

For someone that seems to openly support politicians, laws, and a history through a religious lens, you cannot afford to be hypocritical. In the end, you are a secularist that uses religion only when it fits the area of your agreement.

I'll admit I do the same, but only for the sake of arguments like this. I am a secularist first, because I cannot agree with all of Gods laws and with all of Gods punishments, especially in the Old Testament. And in the statements in which early Old Testament God, later Old Testament God, Synoptic gospel Jesus (Matthew, Mark, Luke), St. Paul, and later canonical gospel Jesus (John, Acts, Revelations, etc.) contradict one another, I tend to go with Synoptic Jesus, since out of all of these, he seems to be embody love. I think many of the Founding Fathers also didn't accept the Bible wholesale as being completely compatible with one another, but rather, saw it as a large work of contradictions, while possibly divinely inspired, written and mistranslated by human hands. Certainly, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, and others thought this. One would have to be absolutely devoid of critical thinking to think otherwise. Yet, these men would have considered themselves model Christians, since their Christianity did not divorce itself from reason, critical thinking, doubt, beneficence, modernization, science, tolerance, equality, and many other things that many supposed "Christians" ignore or actively work against today. 

Equality and Freedom more often go hand and hand, and inequality breeds on a lack of freedom of some to many. Again, we are said to be the freest nation on earth (I doubt this is the case anymore), because--historically-- of our greater social equality, economic equality and tolerance. To continue to be the promise of America, we must outpace the world in these areas at all time to better ensure a true Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness for ALL Americans. 

I fully agree with this, though Jefferson, like Abraham Lincoln, Mark Twain, Leonardo Di Vinci, and some notable others in history in Western Europe and the areas it had a direct cultural (colonial) influence on) followed a religious movement (of sorts - more of a philosophy rectifying a growing of natural law with the existence of a Supreme Being that may not be the dogmatic, anthropomorphic one portrayed in the scriptures of Abrahamic Religions - a middle-point view between the Abrahamic Religious viewpoint and pure scientific, rationalist, secularism, that fell by the wayside over time) called Deism, and did not really identify as a definitive Christian, and certainly not a model one.

 

3 hours ago, President Garrett Walker said:

Personally it's wonderful but politically it's horrible. It seems that if you ever change your position on anything, even over a period of years, you'll be labeled a flip-flopper and a panderer. (See: Hillary Clinton, John Kerry)

Ronald Reagan and George Wallace were major flip-floppers if you follow their entire public lives where a political opinion is publically made, but almost no one today thinks of them that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LegolasRedbard said:

Johnson is reported to have had conversations while exposing his genitals, urinating in the sink, and sitting on the toilet

 

WHAT?!

Johnson was an interesting guy. Some selected quotes:

"If the circumstances make it such that you can't **** a man in the ***, then just peckerslap him. Better to let him know who's in charge than make him think he's got the keys to the car."

"Ford's economics are the worst thing to happen to this country since pantyhose ruined finger-****ing."

Those are the first two off the top of my head though there are more. 

(Censored because I don't know what the "language" policy is here)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SirLagsalott said:

"If the circumstances make it such that you can't **** a man in the ***, then just peckerslap him. Better to let him know who's in charge than make him think he's got the keys to the car."

This is one of my all-time favorites. I love LBJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2017 at 0:03 PM, SirLagsalott said:

I don't see how that could fit with an anti same-sex marriage viewpoint, because excluding people from that marriage is exactly what you're advocating.

Marriage isn't a right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...