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

44 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Correct he never said that, we aren't talking about that I wouldn't refuse to service unless were it from a wedding, I have not lost my way from the light, I am speaking from a legal and constitutional side that the government has no right to regulate service, remember Patine, separating of Church and State wink.

I think you are a politician in the making, and not the sort of politician where that is a compliment. You are quickly learning the art of  hypocrisy, double standards, turnaround, double-talk, and such that has made the "classical politician" such a detested archetype amongst common voters who don't have personal interest in studying or following different politicians or political ideals in depth. For instance, why are so many "limited government" and "minimal spending" types (including yourself, by admission)in the U.S. (outside pure Libertarians) in favour of MONUMENTAL defense budgets with are FAR, FAR more than is remotely needed for the defense of the United State, and a lot of waste, and huge sub-budgets that are not available for public scrutiny or review in any way or by any request, but they label it part of "fiscal responsibility" and even a "balanced and necessary budget?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

I think you are a politician in the making, and not the sort of politician where that is a compliment. You are quickly learning the art of  hypocrisy, double standards, turnaround, double-talk, and such that has made the "classical politician" such a detested archetype amongst common voters who don't have personal interest in studying or following different politicians or political ideals in depth. For instance, why are so many "limited government" and "minimal spending" types (including yourself, by admission)in the U.S. (outside pure Libertarians) in favour of MONUMENTAL defense budgets with are FAR, FAR more than is remotely needed for the defense of the United State, and a lot of waste, and huge sub-budgets that are not available for public scrutiny or review in any way or by any request, but they label it part of "fiscal responsibility" and even a "balanced and necessary budget?"

I ONE HUNDRED PERCENT Agree, we need a cut defense budget. And darlin, name me one President that isn't all of those adjectives, the road to power is paved in igneous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

I ONE HUNDRED PERCENT Agree, we need a cut defense budget. And darlin, name me one President that isn't all of those adjectives, the road to power is paved in igneous.

James Garfield - unfortunately. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Patine said:

I think you are a politician in the making, and not the sort of politician where that is a compliment. You are quickly learning the art of  hypocrisy, double standards, turnaround, double-talk, and such that has made the "classical politician" such a detested archetype amongst common voters who don't have personal interest in studying or following different politicians or political ideals in depth. For instance, why are so many "limited government" and "minimal spending" types (including yourself, by admission)in the U.S. (outside pure Libertarians) in favour of MONUMENTAL defense budgets with are FAR, FAR more than is remotely needed for the defense of the United State, and a lot of waste, and huge sub-budgets that are not available for public scrutiny or review in any way or by any request, but they label it part of "fiscal responsibility" and even a "balanced and necessary budget?"

I don't see that for @Reagan04 in this thread.Aside from some commenting on a statement made a year ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

I don't see that for @Reagan04 in this thread.Aside from some commenting on a statement made a year ago.

I'm commenting on the fact that he freely swaps between "Christian virtue," and "Constitutional purity," as his moral high point, whichever is convenient at the time, and ends up contradicting his own point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

I'm commenting on the fact that he freely swaps between "Christian virtue," and "Constitutional purity," as his moral high point, whichever is convenient at the time, and ends up contradicting his own point.

I've tried to drop the Christian virtue thing as a line for governance, that only is used now if it passes the Constitutional Purity check first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reagan04 said:

I've tried to drop the Christian virtue thing as a line for governance, that only is used now if it passes the Constitutional Purity check first.

Alright. And, you have to also accept that the rights (as mentioned in the Bill of Rights, and other similar documents like the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and later such documents), were the creation and innovation of 18th Century Enlightenment thinkers (of which John Locke is credited with first creating the concept, though he didn't write a full, comprehensive list), not dictated in Biblical Scripture. That was another melding of the two that's not backed in Scripture, but that your declaration these rights were "given God, not by the Government," started this whole argument in the first place.

Share this post


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

Alright. And, you have to also accept that the rights (as mentioned in the Bill of Rights, and other similar documents like the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and later such documents), were the creation and innovation of 18th Century Enlightenment thinkers (of which John Locke is credited with first creating the concept, though he didn't write a full, comprehensive list), not dictated in Biblical Scripture. That was another melding of the two that's not backed in Scripture, but that your declaration these rights were "given God, not by the Government," started this whole argument in the first place.

Well the Bible and God are two different things. These rights WERE endowed by our Creator, not given by the government, for if they were, the government could take them away just as easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Well the Bible and God are two different things. These rights WERE endowed by our Creator, not given by the government, for if they were, the government could take them away just as easily.

Do you have a personal rapport to God? Does He tell you things in your head in His voice that are completely different and contrary, or completely additive to Scripture? You should see a psychiatrist. Even the modern Roman Catholic Church agrees with that advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Patine said:

Do you have a personal rapport to God? Does He tell you things in your head in His voice that are completely different and contrary, or completely additive to Scripture? You should see a psychiatrist. Even the modern Roman Catholic Church agrees with that advice.

Don't get where that logic jump came from.

Share this post


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

Don't get where that logic jump came from.

He said, "Well the Bible and God are two different things." Then proceeded to speak as though he knows more about the will of the Creator and what was endowed by Him than most others. What other conclusion could I come to. Believing God is taking to you directly is a common symptom of schizophrenia.

Share this post


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

He said, "Well the Bible and God are two different things." Then proceeded to speak as though he knows more about the will of the Creator and what was endowed by Him than most others. What other conclusion could I come to. Believing God is taking to you directly is a common symptom of schizophrenia.

or he's just typing really quickly and being misunderstood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I think we should probably just stick to talking about progressive legislature in this post @Reagan04 @Patine @NYrepublican I'm of course equally at blame for veering off track. Let's consider this legislation as whether or not it is an improvement to the country or society, and not whether or not it is inspired by Christian values or not. This is my fault for leading it this way. 

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...