Jump to content
270soft Forum

1984 Election: Poll


This election follows the recovery of the 1981 recession. Foreign policy efforts by Reagan, Thatcher, Pope John Paul II and others have helped crumble the Soviets. Domestically, Reagan has become much more moderate to work with a Democratic Congress.   

22 members have voted

  1. 1. Which candidate do you support for president in 1984?

    • Ronald Reagan - CA - Republican (trickle-down economic theory, tax reform, increased defense spending, low taxes, appeal to Religious Right, reluctant support for most Social Programs, aggressive foreign policy, hard on crime, pro-business)
    • Walter Mondale - MN - Liberal Democrat (Improve and expand Social Programs, pro-labor, equal rights amendment, reduce nukes, focus on anti-poverty measures)
    • Jesse Jackson - IL - Liberal Democrat (appeal to Religious Left, cut defense budget, huge focus on Civil Rights and anti-poverty measures, somewhat populist, African-American, universal healthcare, equal rights amendment, endorses Palestinian state)
    • Gary Hart - CO - Moderate Democrat (balance budget, balance labor and business, cut tax, reform and improve social programs)
  2. 2. Despite Reagan's campaign against government spending, Reagan has greatly accelerated military spending in an attempt to force the Soviets to spend all they have left for defense in order to compete. As a member of Congress, what is your view on this?

    • Very Favorable - The strategy outweighs political ideology. Even if Reagan has hypocritically increased government spending more than any president, it will be worth it to see the Soviets defeated this decade.
    • Somewhat Favorable - I fault Reagan for being a hypocrite, but if the strategy works, then I'll forgive him.
    • Somewhat unfavorable - I will not forgive Reagan for being opposed to government spending, and then doing the opposite. However, I don't like Communism either. It's sort of a lose-win situation as I see it.
    • Unfavorable - Reagan is a hypocrite and the Communist threat is no longer viable. Most experts see them falling apart on their own. This is for show. Besides, if we were going to increase government spending, it should be used on domestic issues to improve people's lives.
    • I don't know; I don't care.
      0
  3. 3. As a member of Congress, what do you think of Ronald Reagan moderating by continually working with liberal Massachusetts Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O'Niell to get legislation passed?

    • Very Favorable - I approve of his handling of the Speaker and Congress. By doing so, he's probably influencing them as much as they are influencing him. His eagerness to work with them, forces Congress to work with him. Brilliant!
    • Favorable - I don't like campaign version of Reagan--too conservative--, but I must hand it to him. He has shown the American people that he will work for all Americans by working with Democrats, who represent most people at this time, based on the number of Representatives.
    • Somewhat unfavorable - The is greatly unfortunate, but when the House is dominated by Democrats, what choice does one have?
    • Unfavorable - Reagan has violated his Conservative creed by working with Liberals, especially regarding social programs and lenient immigration.
    • I don't know/I don't care.
      0


Recommended Posts

Here's 1984. 10 votes and I go to 1988. Past polls are in the forum.

Note: I incorrectly titled the 1944 poll as 1844. I can't edit the title, unfortunately. Please vote in that poll if you haven't done so. 

Also, I've started the semester, so the rest of these might not be as detailed as the previous polls, since I'll be spending about 10 minutes on them instead of 15 to 30 minutes. Also, I may only post one poll every day or two. I'll try to keep up with the 10 votes though. 

 

@vcczar

Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Ronald Reagan - actually a very proud vote here. I support nearly his entire policy, except his aggressive stance on foreign affairs. I'm more moderate here. 

2) Very favorable - Defense spending is okay, but don't use the weapons until there is no other way left. To be always prepared is fine.

3) Somewhat unfavorable - I wouldn't myself call it that way, but the description is near my opinion on that. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

1)Jackson (I despise him in the present,but him in 84' I liked)

2)Somewhat favorable

3)Very favorable

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

1)Reagan

2)Vey Favorable

3)Very Unfavorable

So you openly support a majorly hippocritical and, probably, unnecassary policy if it's Reagan doing it, but have sharply criticized past candidates and leaders for hippocritial and unnecessary policies when they're not hard conservatives?

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

So you openly support a majorly hippocritical and, probably, unnecassary policy if it's Reagan doing it, but have sharply criticized past candidates and leaders for hippocritial and unnecessary policies when they're not hard conservatives?

 

No, It has nothing to do with his hypocrisy, a good leader has to be a hypocrite sometimes, but I am opposed to the liberalism in general, not the hypocrisy.

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

No, It has nothing to do with his hypocrisy, a good leader has to be a hypocrite sometimes, but I am opposed to the liberalism in general, not the hypocrisy.

Keep telling yourself that. Self-delusion is completely necessary to promote and preach a hippocitical, self-serving, inconsistent, and prejudiced (especially if said prejudices are not admitted to, but still evident) ideology that claims to hold moral firmness, solidity, consistency, and higher ground nonetheless...

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

Keep telling yourself that. Self-delusion is completely necessary to promote and preach a hippocitical, self-serving, inconsistent, and prejudiced (especially if said prejudices are not admitted to, but still evident) ideology that claims to hold moral firmness, solidity, consistency, and higher ground nonetheless...

 

What? I am not delusional and I think you know that, let not resort to petty personal attacks now, I'm sure we can be civilised. And what you said doesn't make sense I provided a very reasonable answer, in that I just am opposed to the Liberalism, I recognize he probably did what he had to do, I wasn't in the situation room, I don't know what went on ehing]d closed doors, but as a voter it really doesn't matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Patine

The common problem with the moralist is that the one moralizing often allows themselves to be above "the law." The common problem with ideology is that ideology is often two-faced, as well. For instance, @Reagan04 probably considered himself a strict constitutionalist and one that believes himself to reside closer, ideologically, to the founder of the country, than most people. Yet, he apparently opposes the separation of Church and State, since he is "for religious influence in laws". I believe he probably wants religious influence in more than just our laws. Yet, he's willing to conveniently avoid a religious influence in the laws, if the foundation of the laws that help the poor or other disadvantaged people. The New Deal and the Great Society are among our most Christ-like legislation, whether one wants them to be discussed that way or not. Also, we have Reagan04's Satanic version of Christianity again in his apparent pride of his Confederate ancestors. He is proud of them for fighting for the Confederacy or for having been Confederates, and possibly for having had slaves. I will say again that one can love their ancestors or a relative, despite their many faults. But pride is different. To be proud of a defender slavery, is just as bad as being proud of a defender of rape. One could probably still love a rapist ancestor because they're still family, but you can't be proud of a rapist ancestor and still claim the moral high ground in any political discuss past, present or future. The culmination of about everything Reagan has said has been hypocritical of the highest order, and shows know Christ-like mentality or understanding of his message. 

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

 

The common problem with the moralist is that the one moralizing often allows themselves to be above "the law." The common problem with ideology is that ideology is often two-faced, as well. For instance, @Reagan04 probably considered himself a strict constitutionalist and one that believes himself to reside closer, ideologically, to the founder of the country, than most people. Yet, he apparently opposes the separation of Church and State, since he is "for religious influence in laws". I believe he probably wants religious influence in more than just our laws. Yet, he's willing to conveniently avoid a religious influence in the laws, if the foundation of the laws that help the poor or other disadvantaged people. The New Deal and the Great Society are among our most Christ-like legislation, whether one wants them to be discussed that way or not. Also, we have Reagan04's Satanic version of Christianity again in his apparent pride of his Confederate ancestors. He is proud of them for fighting for the Confederacy or for having been Confederates, and possibly for having had slaves. I will say again that one can love their ancestors or a relative, despite their many faults. But pride is different. To be proud of a defender slavery, is just as bad as being proud of a defender of rape. One could probably still love a rapist ancestor because they're still family, but you can't be proud of a rapist ancestor and still claim the moral high ground in any political discuss past, present or future. The culmination of about everything Reagan has said has been hypocritical of the highest order, and shows know Christ-like mentality or understanding of his message. 

2

 

Fun Fact, you can look if you want, separation of church in found nowhere in the Constitution, you can look however much you want, but it's not there, that phrase was actually coined by Jefferson in a letter to a Baptist leader to ensure his freedom of religion as the Baptists were being persecuted by the British and he wanted them to know the American Nation would protect them. (The First Amendment is simply freedom of religion not separation of Church and state). As you can see cultural Liberals have twisted what was once simply a phrase to mean that the government would not persecute particular religions into something demonic. And again Christ never wanted the government to rob the people, he wanted PRIVATE Charity if not Monetary than emotional. And Furthermore I condemn slavery and it's just silly that you think otherwise, I m proud because without them I would not be here. I am proud that they fought for what they believe in despite it being terribly wrong. I condemn their side on the war but honor them as individuals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Reagan04 

Religious influence in laws violates the first amendment, since "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Most court cases, most constitutional lawyers, and as you say, Jefferson, who was alive then, believes the amendment creates a separation of Church and State. Another founding father, John Adams, concurs. As does Madison, "The Father of the Constitution," 

Additionally, religions come in many forms. How do you choose which religion will influence a law. Would you support Islam influencing law, since you favor religious influence in laws. Would you support sharia law? Or are you trying to establish a Christian dominance, which violates the first amendment?

We are, and will always be, a secular nation, for the benefit of all religions, all sects of religions, for those uncertain of religion, and those against religion. 

Going back to your ancestors. What you said in a previous poll was your pride in that they fought for the Confederacy. I don't think you realize how racist you are. You show no guilt and no shame for their actions. I ask you not to throw away your love for them. Love them. But to have pride in their defense of the Confederacy is abhorrent. 

I'm not saying that Jesus said that governments should help people out. I'm saying that Christians, real Christ-like Christians, and not the Michelle Bachmann-Satanic Charistian varieties, would likely support measures in line with their believes. Here's a situation. When a social conservative favors something like anti-abortion measures, they bring up their faith. If it comes to something like free healthcare, which Jesus did himself, they oppose it. There is a weird satanic hypocrisy in this. I don't consider anyone a Christian, unless they make efforts to act like Christ. If you prefer profit to helping the disadvantaged, then you're not a Christian to me. One that professes Christianity, but avoids mimicking Christ is like a snake oil salesman. I'l call them Satanic Christians. 

I know a lot of great Christians that do act Christ-like. Many of them are my friends. If all the world were like them, we'd already be in Heaven. We'd have no wars, no economic fears of unemployment, old age, disability. No loneliness. No judgment--"judge not, lest ye be judged". While I might not refrain from judgment, they do. They are Christ-like. I don't pretend to be, but I try.  But it's these "Satanic Christians" ("who preach like the pharisee on the street corners so everyone can see them") drive people away from the religion, that corrupt the message of Jesus, increase the membership of ISIS, and are just terrible people, especially when they brainwash their own young at home. 

Do not tell me you are a Christian, until you act like one. Until then, you will be considered what you appear to be. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus did not teach on free healthcare.  Also, the establishment clause is referring to a tax supported church and this was based off of the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@vcczar

1)Well it's not written in the Constitutions so it's not law.

2)Of course I mean Christianity you know that. And supporting Gay Marriage and Abortion is sin and I strive to avoid that. It doesn't violate the first amendmentAnd I do as it does not abridge freedom of religion, you can be atheist or Muslim or Jewish or whatever.

3)I didnt say I had pride in the Confederacy simply their courage, however ignorant. And I don't think you understand the definition of the word "racist". "a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another" is what Websters has to say, and I don't so I'm not racist. Unless you want to make a suggestion to Webster as I'm sure he has received many a letter from SJWs.:P

4)Well, Bachmann is a great hero to the faith but I'll just leave that. And its sad trying to call miracles free healthcare it really is, they are miracles and on;y he could perform them, it impossible to healthcare to be free and you know that.

5)I do not judge "Love the sinner, hate the sin" I take the Lord's given judgement and apply as written, again supporting murder is a straight ticket to Hell, abortion Doctors are just as guilty as Jeffrey Dahmer. And I might add, if you tell me not to judge, should we then apply that and abandon the 6th Commandment "Thou shalt not Murder"? Should we not convict these monsters?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Jesus did not teach on free healthcare.  Also, the establishment clause is referring to a tax supported church and this was based off of the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom.

To be fair, Jesus didn't preach free healthcare, no. "Medicine," as it was in his day, was largely shamanism, mysticism, alchemy, herbalism, and the very primitive knowledge of Greco-Roman physicians. It wasn't anywhere resembling "healthcare'" as we know it today, and, other than the educated phyiscians, most of these primitive healers working in their specific community and didn't charge, and certainly didn't expect to become rich, but typically did not work outside their communities, nor were different community's healers accepted or tusted in each other's communities. HOWEVER, Christ freely healed through miracles on several occasions, with no expectation at all of material gain, and being Christ-like is defined as being as close to as Christ as is humanly possible.

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

@vcczar

1)Well it's not written in the Constitutions so it's not law.

2)Of course I mean Christianity you know that. And supporting Gay Marriage and Abortion is sin and I strive to avoid that. It doesn't violate the first amendmentAnd I do as it does not abridge freedom of religion, you can be atheist or Muslim or Jewish or whatever.

3)I didnt say I had pride in the Confederacy simply their courage, however ignorant. And I don't think you understand the definition of the word "racist". "a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another" is what Websters has to say, and I don't so I'm not racist. Unless you want to make a suggestion to Webster as I'm sure he has received many a letter from SJWs.

4)Well, Bachmann is a great hero to the faith but I'll just leave that. And its sad trying to call miracles free healthcare it really is, they are miracles and on;y he could perform them, it impossible to healthcare to be free and you know that.

5)I do not judge "Love the sinner, hate the sin" I take the Lord's given judgement and apply as written, again supporting murder is a straight ticket to Hell, abortion Doctors are just as guilty as Jeffrey Dahmer. And I might add, if you tell me not to judge, should we then apply that and abandon the 6th Commandment "Thou shalt not Murder"? Should we not convict these monsters?

 

Answer this, then, on number 5. How can a Navy SEAL sniper (who targets civilians over military personnel as a larger number of documented, declassified targets, in cold blood) be a Dominionist Chiristian, as apparently many of them claim to be, and why do so many Americans who say they themselves are Christian regard them as heroic? How are they're actions different, in a broad sense, from your view of an abortion doctor or Jeffery Dahmer? There's a good question.

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

Answer this, then, on number 5. How can a Navy SEAL sniper (who targets civilians over military personnel as a larger number of documented, declassified targets, in cold blood) be a Dominionist Chiristian, as apparently many of them claim to be, and why do so many Americans who say they themselves are Christian regard them as heroic? How are they're actions different, in a broad sense, from your view of an abortion doctor or Jeffery Dahmer? There's a good question.

 

It is actually a good question that fueled my own agnosticism that I struggled with about 4 years ago, but I digress. There is a difference between Murder and Killing, the Commandment is Thou Shalt not Murder. Murdering is unlawful killing, whereas killing in general is actually sanctioned in the Bible. The Commandments are definitely one of the most important teaching and this is an important distinction of word choice that God made purposefully.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Reagan04 and @Patine

"The Hebrew verb רצח (r-ṣ-ḥ, also transliterated retzach, ratzákh, ratsakh etc.) is the word in the original text that is translated as "murder" or "kill", but it has a wider range of meanings, generally describing destructive activity, including meanings "to break, to dash to pieces" as well as "to slay, kill, murder".

According to the Priestly Code of the Book of Numbers, killing anyone outside the context of war with a weapon, or in unarmed combat, is considered retzach, but if the killing is accidental, the accused must not leave the city, or he will be considered guilty of intentional murder. The Bible never uses the word retzach in conjunction with war." (from Wikipedia..don't know how credible it is)

 

One question I have. Is how do you choose what to do, what to say, or what to think when The Old Testament, New Testament, God, Jesus, Paul contradict one another? 

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

@Reagan04 and @Patine

"The Hebrew verb רצח (r-ṣ-ḥ, also transliterated retzach, ratzákh, ratsakh etc.) is the word in the original text that is translated as "murder" or "kill", but it has a wider range of meanings, generally describing destructive activity, including meanings "to break, to dash to pieces" as well as "to slay, kill, murder".

According to the Priestly Code of the Book of Numbers, killing anyone outside the context of war with a weapon, or in unarmed combat, is considered retzach, but if the killing is accidental, the accused must not leave the city, or he will be considered guilty of intentional murder. The Bible never uses the word retzach in conjunction with war." (from Wikipedia..don't know how credible it is)

 

One question I have. Is how do you choose what to do, what to say, or what to think when The Old Testament, New Testament, God, Jesus, Paul contradict one another? 

 

While it is rare Jesus abolished the Levitican Codes of Food and Cloth so tht=a does take precedence but we should remember that God and Jesus are in one so they cannot contradict and Pal should be treated with the utmost respect but really it should be treated case by case because it is rare and always has an explanation.

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

While it is rare Jesus abolished the Levitican Codes of Food and Cloth so tht=a does take precedence but we should remember that God and Jesus are in one so they cannot contradict and Pal should be treated with the utmost respect but really it should be treated case by case because it is rare and always has an explanation.

Also, throughout almost all of history, civilized nations have regarded "justified kill" in war (even if only ideally) as being restricted to members of enemy nations, or their allies or supporters thereof, who take up arms in war. This idea was even in existence, in some form, in Biblical times and the area that the old Kingdom of Israel was in. With that in mind, tell me now how it is a "justified killing" in Christians terms to snipe an unarmed civilian?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Reagan04

A single person and a single God can contradict, since one statement is made first and another second. This is assuming that the specific contradictions are polar opposites. For instance, and I'll make this up, if God in the old testament says, grow the head on your head down to your shoulders, and Jesus says, "You have heard it said that we should grow our head down to our shoulders. But this is what I say to you, we should grow it down to our feet." Then if God Jesus said both, then I'm assuming you'd stand with the Jesus quote, since it came later, right? 

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

Also, throughout almost all of history, civilized nations have regarded "justified kill" in war (even if only ideally) as being restricted to members of enemy nations, or their allies or supporters thereof, who take up arms in war. This idea was even in existence, in some form, in Biblical times and the area that the old Kingdom of Israel was in. With that in mind, tell me now how it is a "justified killing" in Christians terms to snipe an unarmed civilian?

 

They are in war.

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

They are in war.

You completely the statement I made. You've done this quite a few times, I've noticed, where if you have no answer or response to something, you ignore answering it and either answer a different part of the last message, ONLY, or you segwe the conservation away from the question.

 

Also, does your answer mean that you, as an unarmed, untrained minor, and a civilian, are a LEGITIMATE target of ISIS, and if they do target you, they are doing nothing wrong and committing no crime, because your nation is at war with them?

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

You completely the statement I made. You've done this quite a few times, I've noticed, where if you have no answer or response to something, you ignore answering it and either answer a different part of the last message, ONLY, or you segwe the conservation away from the question.

 

Also, does your answer mean that you, as an unarmed, untrained minor, and a civilian, are a LEGITIMATE target of ISIS, and if they do target you, they are doing nothing wrong and committing no crime, because your nation is at war with them?

 

To answer your first question yes they are a legitimate target because they are at war. And to answer your 2nd one, yes I am as a Christian, catholic, and American citizen I am a legitimate target of them, now they of course are wrong and committing a crime because they are monsters and behead people on live TV and fight for a false prophet and against the One True GOD.

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...