Progressive Legislation Poll

[vcczar 1,224]

Here's a poll on Progressive legislation. Let me be clear that I believe someone can be a progressive and fiscally conservative (at least, somewhat), but they can't be progressive and socially conservative (or at least, I fail to find a case that it can be). In some ways, I'd imagine Jon Huntsman, though a Republican, would come off as a progressive Republican, in the sense that he would aim to improve lives through government, and innovate and reform in the process. That's just an example of a "progressive Republican" for anyone thinking that I'm tying Progressivism only to liberals. I do not see the terms as interchangable. I think liberals can be anti-Progressive. 

Anyway, here's a poll. I hope one of my conservative friends on this board can make a similar poll with traditional and current conservative legislation. There may be a few cases of overlap, of course, since even a conservative and a progressive may agree on something from time-to-time. 

[Sunnymentoaddict 39]

From time to time, there's a giant "what if" scenario: what if FDR picked Wallace over Truman in 44? Just then, for at least 3 brief years the US could of had a socialist leaning president. Would he get reelected? Doubt it, let alone would the south stay Democrat after his administration, but it's a fun mental excersise.

 

[Guest]

I've noticed that @Reagan04 is against civil rights legislation, can you please explain why?

[vcczar 1,224]

1 hour ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

From time to time, there's a giant "what if" scenario: what if FDR picked Wallace over Truman in 44? Just then, for at least 3 brief years the US could of had a socialist leaning president. Would he get reelected? Doubt it, let alone would the south stay Democrat after his administration, but it's a fun mental excersise.

 

You might like this Huffington Post blog I wrote. The slideshow has the information, and this sometimes doesn't work when viewing from the phone for some reason, but you can try. I mention Wallace as a What-if Presidency: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-hobratsch/7-vice-presidents-the-gre_b_905490.html

Henry A. Wallace (VP for Franklin Roosevelt)

The second of three VPs under Franklin Roosevelt's tenure, Wallace, who had pacifist tendencies, might have kept America neutral during WWII had FDR died before December 7, 1941. Controversially, Wallace also supported close ties with the Soviet Union (he later ran as the Progressive Party candidate and was endorsed by the Communist Party). The possible outcomes of a Wallace presidency are seemingly innumerable. Also, there would have been no Truman presidency.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

From time to time, there's a giant "what if" scenario: what if FDR picked Wallace over Truman in 44? Just then, for at least 3 brief years the US could of had a socialist leaning president. Would he get reelected? Doubt it, let alone would the south stay Democrat after his administration, but it's a fun mental excersise.

 

that'd be an interesting what if and mess up all of modern history.

[Sunnymentoaddict 39]

10 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

that'd be an interesting what if and mess up all of modern history.

For starters, no NATO. That alone will change a major part of American foreign policy. Let alone would stanch anti-soviet Kennedy be able to receive the nomination for a party of Wallace?  Would the Red Scare be more intense? 

[Reagan04 658]

2 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

I've noticed that @Reagan04 is against civil rights legislation, can you please explain why?

So, on that list, I am 50/50. Emancipation, Suffrage, basic Democratic rights I support. Those are Constitutional Rights, not Civil ones in my opinion. When we begin to talk about infringing on the rights of another non-government entity, we are a society that is right back where some people's rights are worth more than others, right where we started. (This is where I get VERY VERY Libertarian in my beliefs, though holding that Evangelical twang .)

[vcczar 1,224]

8 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

So, on that list, I am 50/50. Emancipation, Suffrage, basic Democratic rights I support. Those are Constitutional Rights, not Civil ones in my opinion. When we begin to talk about infringing on the rights of another non-government entity, we are a society that is right back where some people's rights are worth more than others, right where we started. (This is where I get VERY VERY Libertarian in my beliefs, though holding that Evangelical twang .)

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "some people's rights are worth more than others"?

[Reagan04 658]

Just now, vcczar said:

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "some people's rights are worth more than others"?

Sure, when we talk about RFRA's and just, in general, the government at a point forcing businesses to do business with folks they refuse to (Please don't get me wrong, it is evil, but should be legal) serve, we wouldn't be a nation of Liberty or Justice. LGBT rights are something I think we need to define as I don't believe that you should get any special rights for being LGBT, a right is universal or it is not one at all. A right is given by God, not by the Government, and a right is enumerated in the Constitution.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Sure, when we talk about RFRA's and just, in general, the government at a point forcing businesses to do business with folks they refuse to (Please don't get me wrong, it is evil, but should be legal) serve, we wouldn't be a nation of Liberty or Justice. LGBT rights are something I think we need to define as I don't believe that you should get any special rights for being LGBT, a right is universal or it is not one at all. A right is given by God, not by the Government, and a right is enumerated in the Constitution.

on that topic.

"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

[Reagan04 658]

4 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

on that topic.

"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. 

[vcczar 1,224]

15 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Sure, when we talk about RFRA's and just, in general, the government at a point forcing businesses to do business with folks they refuse to (Please don't get me wrong, it is evil, but should be legal) serve, we wouldn't be a nation of Liberty or Justice. LGBT rights are something I think we need to define as I don't believe that you should get any special rights for being LGBT, a right is universal or it is not one at all. A right is given by God, not by the Government, and a right is enumerated in the Constitution.

Do you think the right to bear arms is a right given by God and not government? 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

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

That explains a lot given your fiscal conservatism.

[Reagan04 658]

Just now, vcczar said:

Do you think the right to bear arms is a right given by God and not government? 

I do.

[vcczar 1,224]

9 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

I do.

I'm not sure how the right to bear arms is more of a divine right than most of the things that you do not consider rights. Perhaps my Christian God is more just and good than most. 

[Reagan04 658]

Just now, vcczar said:

I'm not sure how the right to bear arms is more of a divine right than most of the things that you do not consider rights. Perhaps my Christian God is more just and good than most. 

I'm not sure what you are insinuating but if you don't believe the ability to defend yourself from the forces of evil is a divine right, maybe our God's are a bit different.

[vcczar 1,224]

11 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

I'm not sure what you are insinuating but if you don't believe the ability to defend yourself from the forces of evil is a divine right, maybe our God's are a bit different.

It's not the right to bear arms that I'm talking about. It's the fact that you consider guns to be a divine right, while ignoring the possibility that the rights that you do not consider to be divine, as possibly divine. This is, of course, assuming the Constitution should only enumerate rights given by God. I think the right to equality and equal treatment is certainly divine ("Do not do unto others, what you would not have done unto yourself," for one example). 

This said, I think rights should expand beyond scriptural rights to rights that are and should be universal. I can understand the argument that people should be allowed to refuse service, but I think there are conditions in which that should be illegal. For instance, if a small rural town has only one hospital they must be forced to take care of anyone, even if they are a gay atheist from Iran. 

[Reagan04 658]

Just now, vcczar said:

It's not the right to bear arms that I'm talking about. It's the fact that you consider guns to be a divine right, while ignoring the possibility that the rights that you do not consider to be divine, as possibly divine. This is, of course, assuming the Constitution should only enumerate rights given by God. I think the right to equality and equal treatment is certainly divine ("Do not do unto others, what you would not have done unto yourself," for one example). 

This said, I think rights should expand beyond scriptural rights to rights that are and should be universal. I can understand the argument that people should be allowed to refuse service, but I think there are conditions in which that should be illegal. For instance, if a small rural town has only one hospital they must be forced to take care of anyone, even if they are a gay atheist from Iran. 

When we are free we are unequal, and when we are equal we are unfree.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Reagan04 said:

When we are free we are unequal, and when we are equal we are unfree.

When we are free we are unequal, and when we are equal we are unfree. - Reagan04

[Reagan04 658]

1 minute ago, NYrepublican said:

When we are free we are unequal, and when we are equal we are unfree. - Reagan04

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.

[Patine 469]

1 hour ago, Reagan04 said:

Sure, when we talk about RFRA's and just, in general, the government at a point forcing businesses to do business with folks they refuse to (Please don't get me wrong, it is evil, but should be legal) serve, we wouldn't be a nation of Liberty or Justice. LGBT rights are something I think we need to define as I don't believe that you should get any special rights for being LGBT, a right is universal or it is not one at all. A right is given by God, not by the Government, and a right is enumerated in the Constitution.

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.

[Bruce Fischer 1]

This devolved rather quickly...

[Guest]

8 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.

@Patine there's a huge different between delusional statements and blasphemous ones just pointing that out.

[RI Democrat 39]

I support pretty much all of these ideas, though my political philosophy is probably more a mix of social democracy and communitarianism than liberalism. If I'd been a mid-20th century Canadian, I suspect I'd have found plenty to like about Tommy Douglas and John Diefenbaker.

I do differ from the standard left position on a few issues, e.g. on abortion, I see it as a question primarily of protecting the most vulnerable and would say that the pregnant woman - as the party with greater power and agency than the unborn child - should carry the child to term and then give the child up for adoption if necessary. (I'd also make prenatal, maternity, and infant care fully government-subsidized, and the same for adoption services.) It's the same calculus that leads me to support higher taxes on the wealthy to fund social assistance for the poor. I also support a fairly wide range of "conscience exceptions," and not just for religious reasons either - an atheist baker who doesn't want to bake a cake that says "Praise Jesus" should be able to refuse without being accused of discrimination.

[Rarename91 0]

12 hours ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

From time to time, there's a giant "what if" scenario: what if FDR picked Wallace over Truman in 44? Just then, for at least 3 brief years the US could of had a socialist leaning president. Would he get reelected? Doubt it, let alone would the south stay Democrat after his administration, but it's a fun mental excersise.

 

he not getting reelected.