Jump to content
270soft Forum

Poll about your political leanings  

35 members have voted

  1. 1. Are you economically?

    • Far-left
      1
    • Left
      10
    • Center-left
      4
    • Center
      6
    • Center-right
      7
    • Right
      5
    • Far-right
      3
  2. 2. Socially?

    • Far-left
      4
    • Left
      13
    • Center-left
      8
    • Center
      6
    • Center-right
      1
    • Right
      2
    • Far-right
      2
  3. 3. Which party would you support more than the others?

    • Democratic Party
      19
    • Republican Party
      10
    • Libertarian Party
      4
    • Green Party
      2
    • Constitution Party
      1
    • Socialiast Party
      0


Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Presidentinsertname said:

hillary made a rfk comment during the 2008 presidential election.

She was saying that she wanted to wait until all the primaries were done before she dropped out. It got taken way out of context.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

18 hours ago, Presidentinsertname said:

why do you got mccain as a profile picture? really odd for a socialist.

I was a socialist 6 months ago, but now that I've learned more about politics. I am now a centrist. 

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

I was a socialist 6 months ago, but now that I've learned more about politics. I am now a centrist. 

So in 6 months you made a gigantic swerve in your ideology? That sort of implies that you didn't know that much before, or that you are highly impressionable. The latter means you may swerve again, which would mean your convictions are unreliable, possibly to your self. I know quite a few of people like this. I understand evolving, but a 6 month time period raises a flag. However, this is not to discount that your shift to the center doesn't ultimately find a home with you. I'd probably change your username, as people that don't know you will assume you are a socialist. 

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

So in 6 months you made a gigantic swerve in your ideology? That sort of implies that you didn't know that much before, or that you are highly impressionable. The latter means you may swerve again, which would mean your convictions are unreliable, possibly to your self. I know quite a few of people like this. I understand evolving, but a 6 month time period raises a flag. However, this is not to discount that your shift to the center doesn't ultimately find a home with you. I'd probably change your username, as people that don't know you will assume you are a socialist. 

Bernie Sanders made me believe I was a socialist. But then I've read lot of politics and politicians. Yes, I didn't know much before.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2017‎-‎06‎-‎06 at 11:37 PM, servo75 said:

I'm not accusing anyone here, and I believe nobody on this board would condone Kathy Griffin.  I would condemn a similar attack on Obama.  I always thought the birther movement was stupid, but comparing criticism of one's birthplace with the stuff that's going on today? There's clearly a double standard.  CNN got a rodeo clown fired for simply wearing an Obama mask.  I'd bet $100 that if anyone said/did the exact same things about Barack Obama, their lives would be ruined, yet I don't see the same outrage for the anti-Trump attacks from anyone in the mainstream media or the Democrat party. I just watched Eric Trump on Hannity's show, and regardless about how you feel about the President, his family, Fox News, or Hannity himself, you could see how upset he was - nobody deserves these levels of attacks.  Going after Trump's family, his 11 year old son, MSNBC anchor literally calling Trump a "piece of sh*t" on air.  Politics aside, there's been a total breakdown of decency and decorum in today's world.  We've seen vicious campaigns in the past, but there seems to be no low that the ESTABLISHMENT left won't sink to. 

By the way, this is interesting, from Tuesday's edition of Hannity's show, where Eric Trump essentially said the political opponents of his father's Administration (seemingly, everyone who dislikes or says ANYTHING negative about Trump or his Administration) are "not even people." That phrase, while more politely worded, is just as venomous, dehumanizing, vitriolic, and digging in "us vs. them" uncompromising mentality. As a psychologist and sociologist once said, "the purpose of propaganda is to brainwash people to think of 'the enemy' - however arbitrarily determined and decided that enemy is - as no longer being human."

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2017 at 9:06 PM, servo75 said:

I don't know about almost - it was second place but I think Johnson won on the first ballot.

austin lead in the polls for the primarys after the state conventions and primarys too late to make a different and he may not run in 2020 he may run as a republican for the mo senate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Presidentinsertname said:

austin lead in the polls for the primarys after the state conventions and primarys too late to make a different and he may not run in 2020 he may run as a republican for the mo senate.

I would love it if he became Missouri's Senator.

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

By the way, this is interesting, from Tuesday's edition of Hannity's show, where Eric Trump essentially said the political opponents of his father's Administration (seemingly, everyone who dislikes or says ANYTHING negative about Trump or his Administration) are "not even people." That phrase, while more politely worded, is just as venomous, dehumanizing, vitriolic, and digging in "us vs. them" uncompromising mentality. As a psychologist and sociologist once said, "the purpose of propaganda is to brainwash people to think of 'the enemy' - however arbitrarily determined and decided that enemy is - as no longer being human."

I went back and listened to that interview again.  He started off with the "not even people" comment, but to me it was clearly a reference to heinous acts like holding up a severed Trump head, reporters calling the POTUS a "piece of shit" on the air, and the total lack of human decency that the media and Democrats have been showing.  How can you blame him?  He's right - the Democrats (I'm talking about the ones in leadership, not Dem voters) are sore losers who instead of working for their constituents have made their #1 agenda item to take down Donald Trump by any means necessary, no matter what lies or scandals they have to fabricate or who they have to hurt.  And then they have the nerve to accuse Trump and Republicans of hate speech. I would challenge anyone reading this - suppose you had a bunch of people holding the severed head of YOUR father, or making profane insults of your family? And then they attack you, your family, even your 11 year old half brother, and praying that your child gets aborted!  How would ANY of us act under those circumstances? Stop reading, pause for about 30 seconds and think about that.... 

 

 

...How would you feel?  And I guarantee that ANYONE doing/saying the same thing with Obama would be ostracized, burned in effigy, never work again and receive constant death threats.  Their life would be over But somehow threatening the POTUS when he's a Republican is somehow okay.  Eric was 100% justified in his comments.  If you ask me, he was unbelievably restrained under the circumstances.

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

He's right - the Democrats (I'm talking about the ones in leadership, not Dem voters) are sore losers who instead of working for their constituents have made their #1 agenda item to take down Donald Trump by any means necessary, no matter what lies or scandals they have to fabricate or who they have to hurt.

Oh, you mean like the Congressional Republicans during Obama's Presidency after the 2010 Mid-Terms, when all they were interested in was obstructionism and threatening to shut down the government constantly rather than get any real governance done. Yes, I know the attitude. And remember even a few of these "respected" members of Congress actually using terms like "Communist" and "Nazi" for Obama publically (I recall you using the former term for him a couple of times on these forums), when he in no way, shape, or form resembles either, and the usage of those terms either indicates a lack of education on political science or a deliberate attempt at defamation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am Fiscally Right Wing, Socially left Wing, and on Foreign policy I am a Centrist.

 

I identify as a Centrist. I am running for office as a Republican because I need the support of a major party and the Democratic party, for a party that preaches diversity, certainly doesnt welcome any platform diversity they told me I had to move to the fiscal left or they would not support my candidacy. the Republicans welcomed someone who supports homosexual marriage, Legalization of Weed, and is for Freedom of Energy....The Democrats here were really close minded in my home state. The Republican party welcomed me in and didnt try to make me change my vies and the party officials are being supportive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jdm06ltd said:

I am Fiscally Right Wing, Socially left Wing, and on Foreign policy I am a Centrist.

 

I identify as a Centrist. I am running for office as a Republican because I need the support of a major party and the Democratic party, for a party that preaches diversity, certainly doesnt welcome any platform diversity they told me I had to move to the fiscal left or they would not support my candidacy. the Republicans welcomed someone who supports homosexual marriage, Legalization of Weed, and is for Freedom of Energy....The Democrats here were really close minded in my home state. The Republican party welcomed me in and didnt try to make me change my vies and the party officials are being supportive.

You're running for political office? If I may ask, what office? What state?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jdm06ltd said:

I am Fiscally Right Wing, Socially left Wing, and on Foreign policy I am a Centrist.

 

I identify as a Centrist. I am running for office as a Republican because I need the support of a major party and the Democratic party, for a party that preaches diversity, certainly doesnt welcome any platform diversity they told me I had to move to the fiscal left or they would not support my candidacy. the Republicans welcomed someone who supports homosexual marriage, Legalization of Weed, and is for Freedom of Energy....The Democrats here were really close minded in my home state. The Republican party welcomed me in and didnt try to make me change my vies and the party officials are being supportive.

Though I am a centrist, it doesnt matter here in my country 'cause there's no real political parties here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mayor of a small borough in Pennsylvania.

 

I dont like the two party system, however, right now unfortunately, there will be no changing it and very little we can do when both systems have all the money. what we need is a billionaire like Trump, but not quite as blatantly Flamboyant about issues that cause division, that can run third party and self fund.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jdm06ltd said:

Mayor of a small borough in Pennsylvania.

 

I dont like the two party system, however, right now unfortunately, there will be no changing it and very little we can do when both systems have all the money. what we need is a billionaire like Trump, but not quite as blatantly Flamboyant about issues that cause division, that can run third party and self fund.

Political parties, regardless of country or situation, are the poison in the well of any constitutional government system of any real sort.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jdm06ltd said:

I am Fiscally Right Wing, Socially left Wing, and on Foreign policy I am a Centrist.

 

I identify as a Centrist. I am running for office as a Republican because I need the support of a major party and the Democratic party, for a party that preaches diversity, certainly doesnt welcome any platform diversity they told me I had to move to the fiscal left or they would not support my candidacy. the Republicans welcomed someone who supports homosexual marriage, Legalization of Weed, and is for Freedom of Energy....The Democrats here were really close minded in my home state. The Republican party welcomed me in and didnt try to make me change my vies and the party officials are being supportive.

Based on your descriptions, you sound like a Libertarian.

3 hours ago, jdm06ltd said:

Mayor of a small borough in Pennsylvania.

 

I dont like the two party system, however, right now unfortunately, there will be no changing it and very little we can do when both systems have all the money. what we need is a billionaire like Trump, but not quite as blatantly Flamboyant about issues that cause division, that can run third party and self fund.

How do your chances look?

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

Oh, you mean like the Congressional Republicans during Obama's Presidency after the 2010 Mid-Terms, when all they were interested in was obstructionism and threatening to shut down the government constantly rather than get any real governance done. Yes, I know the attitude. And remember even a few of these "respected" members of Congress actually using terms like "Communist" and "Nazi" for Obama publically (I recall you using the former term for him a couple of times on these forums), when he in no way, shape, or form resembles either, and the usage of those terms either indicates a lack of education on political science or a deliberate attempt at defamation.

Again, any obstructionism is wrong.  If the GOP was foiling Obama's legislation purely out of political spite, that is obviously wrong.  However Obama is not blameless in that either.  He put forth radical and unconstitutional legislation and then when the GOP congress rightly refuses to pass them, then he declares in the State of the Union that he will bypass Congress if needed and rule by executive order.  He in effect made himself a sort of dictator, selectively enforcing laws, unleashing federal agencies like the NSA and IRS on his political enemies and signing the USA on to treaties like Paris Climate Agreement without the vote of the Senate.  Those are total abuses of his Constitutional power and absolutely he deserves condemnation for that, and Congressional obstruction is not an excuse for that.  I have never used the word Nazi to describe him.  I have used communist (note with a lowercase "c") and I stand by that, because although he may not be a member of the Communist Party, he has had plenty of mentors and associates who have, including Frank Marshall Davis, Valerie Jarrett, and Van Jones.  He has sought to normalize relationships with Communist Cuba.  His Global Warming Czar Carol Browner (appointed without Senate approval I might add) was, according to a January 2009 Washington Examiner article, a member of the Communism for a Sustainable World Society, the climate change action arm of Socialist International.And his policies reflect some of Communism's tenets (I get these definitions from Merriam-Webster):

" a theory advocating elimination of private propertyHe has consistently spoke out against, and made laws to hinder private wealth and capitalism.

"single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of productionObamacare is the first step toward single-payer health care.  His support of Solyndra and the propping up of "green" energy while stifling coal production and oil pipelines show that he wants the government to decide which businesses and industries succeed and fail.

"a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed" He has spoken out multiple times about making the "rich" pay their "fair share", forcing people to buy expensive health insurance against their will with intent of redistributing those dollars to others, including illegal aliens

Again, is he a "true" Socialist.  No.  But these attitudes and the people he surrounds himself with reveal his distaste for Capitalism and the Western way of life.

 

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

Again, any obstructionism is wrong.  If the GOP was foiling Obama's legislation purely out of political spite, that is obviously wrong.  However Obama is not blameless in that either.  He put forth radical and unconstitutional legislation and then when the GOP congress rightly refuses to pass them, then he declares in the State of the Union that he will bypass Congress if needed and rule by executive order.  He in effect made himself a sort of dictator, selectively enforcing laws, unleashing federal agencies like the NSA and IRS on his political enemies and signing the USA on to treaties like Paris Climate Agreement without the vote of the Senate.  Those are total abuses of his Constitutional power and absolutely he deserves condemnation for that, and Congressional obstruction is not an excuse for that.  I have never used the word Nazi to describe him.  I have used communist (note with a lowercase "c") and I stand by that, because although he may not be a member of the Communist Party, he has had plenty of mentors and associates who have, including Frank Marshall Davis, Valerie Jarrett, and Van Jones.  He has sought to normalize relationships with Communist Cuba.  His Global Warming Czar Carol Browner (appointed without Senate approval I might add) was, according to a January 2009 Washington Examiner article, a member of the Communism for a Sustainable World Society, the climate change action arm of Socialist International.And his policies reflect some of Communism's tenets (I get these definitions from Merriam-Webster):

" a theory advocating elimination of private propertyHe has consistently spoke out against, and made laws to hinder private wealth and capitalism.

"single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of productionObamacare is the first step toward single-payer health care.  His support of Solyndra and the propping up of "green" energy while stifling coal production and oil pipelines show that he wants the government to decide which businesses and industries succeed and fail.

"a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed" He has spoken out multiple times about making the "rich" pay their "fair share", forcing people to buy expensive health insurance against their will with intent of redistributing those dollars to others, including illegal aliens

Again, is he a "true" Socialist.  No.  But these attitudes and the people he surrounds himself with reveal his distaste for Capitalism and the Western way of life.

 

Again, villainizing Obama for using executive orders. Statistically, Obama (not including Trump, who can't be judged yet, having been in office less than a year) made less executive orders in his Presidency than any other U.S. President since Grover Cleveland, and that even includes one-term Presidents and Presidents , like Kennedy and Ford, who didn't serve an entire four-year Presidential term. AND many of those past Presidents, including, I may add, Reagan, who you like to hold in a higher Constitutional purity than any other post-WW2 President, used executive orders to bypass a Congress that would not cooperate with their vision. Also, if you read my quote, I said you "called the former," that term, as I listed them in my quote, was Communist - thus, I wasn't accusing you of calling him a Nazi. And, also, political mentors do not define a leader's own style of governance strictly. Benjamin Franklin and George Washington had mentors in their youth who were staunch monarchists in a day when the American Revolution was an unthinkable event of treason and not desired by anyone. Also, let's break this down.

" a theory advocating elimination of private property"  He has consistently spoke out against, and made laws to hinder private wealth and capitalism.

Laws to regulate and control uninhibited, rapacious, and predatory policies of (you inserted the "hinder" in place of this) private wealth and capitalism is an EXTREME far-cry from elimination of private property. If you want  to see examples of the latter in REAL action, read about the governance of Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, and Mao Zedong, and you'll see it's like NOTHING happened, being threatened, or seriously spoken of or considered in the United States.

"single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production"  Obamacare is the first step toward single-payer health care.  His support of Solyndra and the propping up of "green" energy while stifling coal production and oil pipelines show that he wants the government to decide which businesses and industries succeed and fail.

Again, REALLY? And Obamacare and "Green" are your backing? Again, read about Lenin, Stalin, and Mao for contrast.

"a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed" He has spoken out multiple times about making the "rich" pay their "fair share", forcing people to buy expensive health insurance against their will with intent of redistributing those dollars to others, including illegal aliens.

Of course you realize that these example quotes by Obama still acknowledge, indefinitely in time line, the existence of a capitalist/corporatist economy and capitalistic social stratification, just a "realignment" policy within, if you will. A REAL Communist has no use for capitalism, corporatism, currency, or capitalistic social stratification, and those are among the first things to go after a Communist Revolution (or the insertion of a Communist government by a bigger outside Communist power).

And finally, wanting to normalize relations with Cuba no more makes Obama a Communist than it made Nixon a Communist to normalize relations with the PRC or that it made George H.W. Bush a Communist to normalize relations with Vietnam.

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

Again, villainizing Obama for using executive orders. Statistically, Obama (not including Trump, who can't be judged yet, having been in office less than a year) made less executive orders in his Presidency than any other U.S. President since Grover Cleveland, and that even includes one-term Presidents and Presidents , like Kennedy and Ford, who didn't serve an entire four-year Presidential term. AND many of those past Presidents, including, I may add, Reagan, who you like to hold in a higher Constitutional purity than any other post-WW2 President, used executive orders to bypass a Congress that would not cooperate with their vision. Also, if you read my quote, I said you "called the former," that term, as I listed them in my quote, was Communist - thus, I wasn't accusing you of calling him a Nazi. And, also, political mentors do not define a leader's own style of governance strictly. Benjamin Franklin and George Washington had mentors in their youth who were staunch monarchists in a day when the American Revolution was an unthinkable event of treason and not desired by anyone. Also, let's break this down.

" a theory advocating elimination of private property"  He has consistently spoke out against, and made laws to hinder private wealth and capitalism.

Laws to regulate and control uninhibited, rapacious, and predatory policies of (you inserted the "hinder" in place of this) private wealth and capitalism is an EXTREME far-cry from elimination of private property. If you want  to see examples of the latter in REAL action, read about the governance of Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, and Mao Zedong, and you'll see it's like NOTHING happened, being threatened, or seriously spoken of or considered in the United States.

"single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production"  Obamacare is the first step toward single-payer health care.  His support of Solyndra and the propping up of "green" energy while stifling coal production and oil pipelines show that he wants the government to decide which businesses and industries succeed and fail.

Again, REALLY? And Obamacare and "Green" are your backing? Again, read about Lenin, Stalin, and Mao for contrast.

"a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed" He has spoken out multiple times about making the "rich" pay their "fair share", forcing people to buy expensive health insurance against their will with intent of redistributing those dollars to others, including illegal aliens.

Of course you realize that these example quotes by Obama still acknowledge, indefinitely in time line, the existence of a capitalist/corporatist economy and capitalistic social stratification, just a "realignment" policy within, if you will. A REAL Communist has no use for capitalism, corporatism, currency, or capitalistic social stratification, and those are among the first things to go after a Communist Revolution (or the insertion of a Communist government by a bigger outside Communist power).

And finally, wanting to normalize relations with Cuba no more makes Obama a Communist than it made Nixon a Communist to normalize relations with the PRC or that it made George H.W. Bush a Communist to normalize relations with Vietnam.

Obama still interfered in the normal venutres of the market when his authority to do so is questionable especially if it's a ploy to get around an opposition congress.

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

Obama still interfered in the normal venutres of the market when his authority to do so is questionable especially if it's a ploy to get around an opposition congress.

But that's not Communism. He didn't try, or even state serious desire to, nationalize ALL corporate and private holders directly under the Government, have the Government be sole legal producer and provider of all goods and services, have every employee in the work for the Government at some level, directly control all media, and abolish all currency, banks, stock exchanges, and even taxation, which would all become redundant. What I described there is ACTUAL Communism, which seems to be elusive knowledge to many Americans today.

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

But that's not Communism. He didn't try, or even state serious desire to, nationalize ALL corporate and private holders directly under the Government, have the Government be sole legal producer and provider of all goods and services, have every employee in the work for the Government at some level, directly control all media, and abolish all currency, banks, stock exchanges, and even taxation, which would all become redundant. What I described there is ACTUAL Communism, which seems to be elusive knowledge to many Americans today.

here's what he said about it "Just choose from what works" 

Given his leaning toward goverment-run businnesses like his statement about preferring single-payer to Obamacare I'd assume that he leans towards socialism heavily. 

I thought you were talking about Obama's abuse of executive orders, sorry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama is no more a Communist than Trump a Fascist.

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...