Jump to content
270soft Forum

Ideology Poll  

34 members have voted

  1. 1. Of the following I identify with the following groups politically the most

    • Libertarian
    • Tea Party Conservative
    • Christian Conservative
    • Mainstream Conservative Republican
    • Moderate Republican
    • Independent Centrist or 3rd way moderate
    • Moderate Blue Dog Democrat
    • Mainstream Liberal Democrat
    • Progressive Warren-style Democrat
    • Social Democrat, or Sanders-style Independent Democrat
    • Green
  2. 2. If given the following fictional presidential candidates, and you had a tie-breaking vote to elect one of them, who do you think has a better chance at UNIFYING the country and fixing the most pressing problems?

    • Computer Programmer and bit coin advocate, Dave Mulligan, a purist Libertarian of the Ron Paul variety.
    • Pastor Wyatt Taylor, a social conservative, with controversial connections to White Supremacy groups, who advocates more Christianity in local and federal government.
    • Rep. Ryan Paul, a fiscal conservative, Log Cabin Republican, who's number one goal is to maximize profits for businesses, limit government, and reduce government spending to its bare necessities
    • Sen. John Lyndsey McGraham, a former war vet, advocating social moderation and an increased military defense budget and interventionist policies.
      0
    • Gov. Jonny Huntsich, a moderate Republican, advocating a strong desire to work with Democrats on every policy, even if he has to compromise on 40% of his goals to get 60% passed.
    • CEO John Doe, a wealthier billionaire than Trump, known lately for his philanthropy. A "severe moderate" wishing to compromise on everything, promising pass as many Democratic proposals as Republican proposals.
    • Rep. Betsy McCatclaws, a moderate Democrat, often working with and voting with Republicans on their more moderate proposals. She's willing to pass some Republican proposals if they support her more important proposals.
    • Sec. Hillary Clinton 2.0, an immortal robot designed to be exactly like Hillary Clinton, except more robot and less mortal. The robot will work 24-hours and never tire, finding Democratic solutions to our problems within seconds.
    • Prof. Hyam Goldstein, a professor of drama at Harvard, he advocates proven successful Scandinavian governmental policies, which he feels can be adapted to American government.
    • Dr. Albert Oppenheimer, a physicist, agnostic, who advocates scientific and humanitarian policies to serve not only America's policies, but also the world.
  3. 3. If John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and George Washington were stolen from 1787 and brought to the future in 2017, and then given an intensive social and political history of the US from their time to the present to keep them up to date, what do you think the majority (that is, 3 of the 5 men) would approve of?

    • The role of president as an advocate for the Will of the People
    • Congressional grid lock
    • Relative equality among the races and genders
    • The % of people not of English descent
    • Progressive Reform from Civil Rights Acts, to the Square Deal, New Deal, Great Society, Obamacare, etc.
    • The Tea Party
    • Sanders Democrats
    • Our hegemonic power over the globe
    • Drone warfare
    • Social media
    • Increased anti-intellectualism, and its influence in politics
    • Labor Unions
    • The power of the wealthiest 1%
    • The power of Wall Street
    • Technological innovations in American history
    • Child labor laws
    • Abraham Lincoln
    • FDR
    • Ronald Reagan
    • Donald Trump


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

48 minutes ago, vcczar said:

poll

There is no "adaptive pragmatic leader" like Nixon, or like Bill Clinton was in practice while actually President (all rhetoric or post-White House activity aside). As I've mentioned before, the two men were in fact close friends, despite being separated by party lines, over 30 years of age, and other concerns, and Nixon "went to China" for Clinton too, and Clinton delivered Nixon's eulogy. I've often felt the scandal at the end of Nixon's presidency has almost everyone overlooking every other aspect of what he did, but I seem to be in a minority for my admiration of Nixon, perhaps because he was NOT an ideological purist, but a pragmatic realist. Actually, George HW Bush (but not his son) could fit into the "adaptive pragmatic leader" role to a significant degree too. Although none of these three men got very far in advancing social programs (though Clinton tried somewhat), none of them worked to systematically take the ones already there apart, like many Republican candidates campaign on today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, how do you get MORE robotic than Hillary Clinton? :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The role of president as an advocate for the Will of the People"  I would say NONE of them. We don't live in a democracy, we live in a representative Republic.

I answered "congressional grid lock" as  positive, which may seem strange. But here's why - When you think about the gridlock of the conventions it's something they were used to.  We had just fought a seven-year war to get away from a monarchy that seemed to make up laws and taxes on a whim, so to some at the Philadelphia convention, the very thought of having a single president as opposed to say, a "Presidency council" was unthinkable. They were suspicious of Presidential overreach and power grabs.  In the lead-up to the Revolution, the British Parliment was making up new taxes, and when we resisted, sent troops to occupy Boston to bring us to heel.  If a group is intentionally dragging their heels to oppose anything that a President or candidate does, that's problematic, but otherwise I feel that reactionary legislation is potentially dangerous, so we want to make sure that laws are well-thought through, not that this happens these days.

I also answered social media, since the press was very important in getting the Revolution started, and social media is the closest thing we have today to a free and independent press, so I think they'd like it well.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, jnewt said:

Maybe a canned line, but a damned good one :)

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

Lol, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and George Washington supporting civil rights.

In their day, not supporting 90% of the WHITE population being land-bound serfs, not endorsing an aristocracy with specific titles and noble privileges, and allowing people to choose between specifically Christian denominations freely was considered a proponent of civil rights... :P

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

Lol, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and George Washington supporting civil rights.

Sounds laughable, but I think if Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and Hamilton were caught up to day, that they'd approve of it, even while they don't feel comfortable with it. Remember the 5 go through an intensive study of social and political history through the time they've missed. They'd be given visual proof of the equal talents, abilities, heroism, competencies of women and racial minorities. Adams and Hamilton were as close to abolitionists as you could get at the time. Adam's wife, Abigail Adams, was a feminist, upset that the rights of women weren't being discussed, and Adams, while not doing anything to push that along, sympathized with her. Jefferson tried to blame slavery on the King of England and banned the slave trade. Franklin, being extremely sensible, would probably approve of the course of history, even when it wasn't ideal, since he was an extreme moderate and wasn't one for idealism or puritanism. I think only Washington would be aghast at Civil Rights legislation. 

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

I think only Washington would be aghast at Civil Rights legislation. 

Gadzooks, I now have no income! This presidential statesmen's stipend is a pittance! And a general's pension nowadays is little more than workhouse charity! :P

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

Lol, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and George Washington supporting civil rights.

Well it depends on how you would define "civil rights" to them.  Again, they've come forward in time and would have to be given the definition of the term by modern standards, but you can ask 10 people in 2017 and get 10 different answers, so you'd have to tell them WHAT civil rights are, then the answers could vary wildly.  Most likely we'd go generally by the notion of emancipation, equality, and citizenship for blacks.  If so, then possibly they'd be against it.  If slavery is the measure, the question was only what would a MAJORITY approve of.  Although one can't be sure, I would guess that at least Adams, Franklin and Hamilton would be for abolition.  All the things that we know to be wrong about slavery now weren't as apparent then, and despite giving the FF an education in modern history, there's no way to have their 1776 policies completely divorced from modern views. 

But this is not an exclusive issue to blacks or slavery.  Civil rights is very broadly defined by dictionary.com as "A broad range of privileges and rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and subsequent amendments and laws that guarantee fundamental freedoms to all individuals. "  So by drafting the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, I think all five would EASILY support it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Libertarian, Christian Conservative, Moderate Republican, Centrist, Moderate Democrat

2. Dave Mulligan, though I do think Wyatt Taylor's surname is more than a coincidence to @Reagan04

3. None of the above. I'll just go with Trump

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

REEEEEEEEE

Uh oh, @jnewt touched a nerve I, knew this was going to happen. :D

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

1. Libertarian, Christian Conservative, Moderate Republican, Centrist, Moderate Democrat

 

Wow, that's, umm.. quite an eclectic mix there :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Question #3, I can almost guarantee that if the FF were suddenly transported to 2017, they would not recognize our country.  I don't just mean the technology, the modern geopolitical world, the expansion to 50 states, or any of that...  I mean that our government and nation have gone so far off the rails from their original vision, they'd be in complete disbelief.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Washington and Adams might initially be disheartened that the US not only intervened in European affairs, but might take pride in that the US has used her military as a vehicle to promote and keep stable democracies. I know Hamilton would love our hegemonic power since it insures a stable global market.

Hamilton and Franklin would love that the races today have more freedom than then, and I'm sure Washington would as well. As for Jefferson, I think he would be impressed we can view those that were once slaves as equals- since he grappled with the morality of slavery during his later years of life. 

I doubt, even with all of the knowledge possible, Jefferson would support any government programs such as the New Deal or Obamacare. Though, since alot of this came about due to the shift to an industrial economy, I feel Hamilton would back most- if not all of them. 

I am not sure though that elitist men such as Washington and Jefferson would take pride that Trump is president, I sense Hamilton wouldn't as Trump built his base off of the populace. This is not even touching the complex situation of how they would view how the Electoral College voted in the 2016 election. 

 

I know Hamilton would view the 99%/OWS movement as something that would give him flashbacks of the Jeffersonian-Republicans trying to crush the First National Bank. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dig on these polls and am anjoying the discussion on this one, but...

Why no "socialist" category in question 1? Social Democrats are not really Socialists...

Aside from this niggly bit, awesome poll, this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Take Me to La Riva said:

I dig on these polls and am anjoying the discussion on this one, but...

Why no "socialist" category in question 1? Social Democrats are not really Socialists...

Aside from this niggly bit, awesome poll, this.

What is the difference?

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, servo75 said:

What is the difference?

Quite a bit of difference. A lot to explain in fact. It's too bad American high schools don't teach the political spectrum (I remember learning it in high school, but that was about 15 years ago), and instead most in the US today seem rely on political pundits to "teach" it to them, pundits who are also highly uneducated on the topic or distort (or even lie about) the subject to push their incendiary agendas and viewpoints. Another reason the US education system is horribly broken, and the ideas of many modern Republicans for it's "reform" would only make this sort of ignorance and misinformation a worse problem in the majority of US states - certainly not an improvement.

Edit: High school was about 25 years ago... :S

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

Quite a bit of difference. A lot to explain in fact. It's too bad American high schools don't teach the political spectrum (I remember learning it in high school, but that was about 15 years ago), and instead most in the US today seem rely on political pundits to "teach" it to them, pundits who are also highly uneducated on the topic or distort (or even lie about) the subject to push their incendiary agendas and viewpoints. Another reason the US education system is horribly broken, and the ideas of many modern Republicans for it's "reform" would only make this sort of ignorance and misinformation a worse problem in the majority of US states - certainly not an improvement.

Edit: High school was about 25 years ago... :S

The problem is that with all of the federal regulations, the additional classes such as AP Gov get cancelled because there are not enough teachers to teach the important elective classes.

 

But, this is another reason why people should have to pass a civics test before voting.

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

The problem is that with all of the federal regulations, the additional classes such as AP Gov get cancelled because there are not enough teachers to teach the important elective classes.

 

But, this is another reason why people should have to pass a civics test before voting.

Although I agree with that in principle, I could see that being problematic, as the ACLU-types will claim that to be discriminatory, which is of course bull, but...

While I agree with @Patine that our education system is lacking, I'm not comfortable with " the ideas of many modern Republicans for it's "reform" would only make this sort of ignorance and misinformation a worse problem".  I'm not sure if you're referring to vouchers and charter schools and school choice, then I think those are exactly what we need.  We need more options for parents and kids, and for parents, kids, and students to hold their schools accountable for doing their job.  I work at a college and I see the "social justice" and "multiculturalism" movement at work.  Students are required to take these "general education" courses that have nothing to do with their major.  The state requires courses in "Global and Cultural Awareness" and yet we don't require a course in our government, civics, and Constitutional history.  If we spent half the time teaching kids about civics, government, and the Constitution as we do about "cultural diversity" and "women's studies," teaching them how racist and horrible our country is, and if they hear something uncomfortable they have the right to call the police and shout it down, then we'd have a more informed public which would mean more informed voters and much of the crap that our politicians do right now would not be tolerated.

 

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

Quite a bit of difference. A lot to explain in fact. It's too bad American high schools don't teach the political spectrum (I remember learning it in high school, but that was about 15 years ago), and instead most in the US today seem rely on political pundits to "teach" it to them, pundits who are also highly uneducated on the topic or distort (or even lie about) the subject to push their incendiary agendas and viewpoints. Another reason the US education system is horribly broken, and the ideas of many modern Republicans for it's "reform" would only make this sort of ignorance and misinformation a worse problem in the majority of US states - certainly not an improvement.

Edit: High school was about 25 years ago... :S

So we're probably about the same age then.  I remember in Middle School I had a Social Studies teacher who was clearly a Mike Dukakis supporter and didn't like George Bush (41), but she never bad-mouthed him and we had some interesting class discussions.  Apart from that, I can't remember any of my teachers ever talking politics, except obviously my AP History teacher but he was really cool about it.  And while the faculty probably leaned left back then at least as much as now, it was an age where people respected each other's opinions and I there were conservative teachers and students (even a conservative column in our school paper) and no one thought anything about it.  Two of my friends were very conservative and I was pretty liberal at that time, it resulted in a few heated discussions about some new guy named Rush Limbaugh. My history teacher had a colleague in the next classroom who was a Vietnam vet, he regularly dressed in fatigues and had a U.S. Flag hanging in his classroom - things that would cause trigger attacks these days.  They were more civilized times. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, servo75 said:

So we're probably about the same age then.  I remember in Middle School I had a Social Studies teacher who was clearly a Mike Dukakis supporter and didn't like George Bush (41), but she never bad-mouthed him and we had some interesting class discussions.  Apart from that, I can't remember any of my teachers ever talking politics, except obviously my AP History teacher but he was really cool about it.  And while the faculty probably leaned left back then at least as much as now, it was an age where people respected each other's opinions and I there were conservative teachers and students (even a conservative column in our school paper) and no one thought anything about it.  Two of my friends were very conservative and I was pretty liberal at that time, it resulted in a few heated discussions about some new guy named Rush Limbaugh. My history teacher had a colleague in the next classroom who was a Vietnam vet, he regularly dressed in fatigues and had a U.S. Flag hanging in his classroom - things that would cause trigger attacks these days.  They were more civilized times. 

"A House Divided Upon itself Cannot Stand," funny that this campaign line was used in 1860, when the divisions of the US at that time (which were just as sharp and vicious), led to the bloodiest war on US soil and the one with the most American casualties (if not overall casualties) in world history in how it was resolved. I will agree with you (a rarity, I know) that the sharp, vicious, "neither-side-wants-to-blink" social divide in the US today, that is not just political, but in the media (even films, TV shows, computer games, music, etc. not directly political in nature) and everyday interaction in communities is absolutely toxic, and, like in the 1860's (although probably not exactly the same), I don't foresee it's resolution going well...

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, servo75 said:

Although I agree with that in principle, I could see that being problematic, as the ACLU-types will claim that to be discriminatory, which is of course bull, but...

Ya, unfortunately it was used in the past for discriminatory reasons, so there is a negative stigma that that idea.

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...