Jump to content
270soft Forum

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

1 minute ago, SirLagsalott said:

If it's a non right and should be restricted why have it at all?

This is a cultural question, but the sacred bond between man and woman -Hillary Clinton, 2004 lel Is an extremely important one

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

10 minutes ago, SirLagsalott said:

If it's a non right and should be restricted why have it at all?

I think he means to say Marriage should be a personal (and/or) religous issue not a govermental one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Reagan04 said:

This is a cultural question, but the sacred bond between man and woman -Hillary Clinton, 2004 lel Is an extremely important one

This is what I mean when I say that if a politician ever changes their mind, on any issue, over any span of time, they will be attacked for this basic aspect of being a human being who exists and travels linearly through time (and to a lesser degree space) in a manner that allows them to cultivate new experiences and learn new things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, President Garrett Walker said:

This is what I mean when I say that if a politician ever changes their mind, on any issue, over any span of time, they will be attacked for this basic aspect of being a human being who exists and travels linearly through time (and to a lesser degree space) in a manner that allows them to cultivate new experiences and learn new things.

 

True

And ok Neil DeGrasse Tyson:P

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

And ok Neil DeGrasse Tyson:P

This is the greatest complement anyone's given me today, and possibly ever :P

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

The Supreme Court has consistently disagreed with you for more than a century, all the way back to Maynard v Hill in 1888.

And we have a right to do so, you know how I know, it's in the Constitution.

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

This is a cultural question, but the sacred bond between man and woman -Hillary Clinton, 2004 lel Is an extremely important one

This is really the crux of the problem.  We use one word, "marriage", to describe two different things. 

On the one hand, marriage is a sacred rite where a man and a woman go before God and have their lives combined. No law or court decision is going to change that. It is not within the jurisdiction of courts or legislatures. It is something God joins together and no man can put it asunder. 

On the other hand, we use that same word, "marriage", to describe a legal arrangement where two people agree to share a bundle of reciprocal rights. I've never heard or seen any good reason that this legal arrangement should be limited to opposite sex couples. 

Ideally we would quit calling this merger enforced and protected by law "marriage" and start calling it something else, since it is a fairly modern development. That isn't likely to happen, so the dual meaning of "marriage" will continue to muddy the debate.

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

And we have a right to do so, you know how I know, it's in the Constitution.

While I agree that marriage isn't a right, in the sense that one can't demand marriage and the government must provide for the marriage. I do think that an LGBT couple has the RIGHT to equal treatment under the law, which means the government should provide a civic marriage license to everyone that is legally old enough to get married. I'd compromise and allow Churches to discriminate on religious grounds, since I believe in a separation of Church and State, the government shouldn't interfere with this decision. I wouldn't expect an LGBT couple to want to get married in a Church that would discriminate anyway. 

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

While I agree that marriage isn't a right, in the sense that one can't demand marriage and the government must provide for the marriage. I do think that an LGBT couple has the RIGHT to equal treatment under the law, which means the government should provide a civic marriage license to everyone that is legally old enough to get married. I'd compromise and allow Churches to discriminate on religious grounds, since I believe in a separation of Church and State, the government shouldn't interfere with this decision. I wouldn't expect an LGBT couple to want to get married in a Church that would discriminate anyway. 

And I wouldn't expect them to want to buy a cake from a store that discriminates, but gays have a funny way of not moving on to the next shop BUT SUING THEM FOR EVERYTHING THEY OWN.

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

And I wouldn't expect them to want to buy a cake from a store that discriminates, but gays have a funny way of not moving on to the next shop BUT SUING THEM FOR EVERYTHING THEY OWN.

In 1991, Richard Harris sued Anheiser-Busch for $10,000 for false advertising. Harris claimed to suffer from emotional distress in addition to mental and physical injury. Why? Because when he drank beer, he didn't have any luck with the ladies, as promised in the TV ads. Harris also didn't like that he got sick sometimes after he drank. The case was thrown out of court.

that's what came to mind.

 

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

And I wouldn't expect them to want to buy a cake from a store that discriminates, but gays have a funny way of not moving on to the next shop BUT SUING THEM FOR EVERYTHING THEY OWN.

*assigns the actions of like 10 people as a common trait of around 32 million Americans*

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, President Garrett Walker said:

*assigns the actions of like 10 people as a common trait of around 32 million Americans*

It only takes one to ruin a family's life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, President Garrett Walker said:

*assigns the actions of like 10 people as a common trait of around 32 million Americans*

as of 2012 it's only 9,083,558  let's assume it's increased to 15-20 million since, that's not 32 million.

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

And I wouldn't expect them to want to buy a cake from a store that discriminates, but gays have a funny way of not moving on to the next shop BUT SUING THEM FOR EVERYTHING THEY OWN.

You can't use an isolated incidence to stereotype an entire group. That would be like me saying all conservative Christians will discriminate against gay people, because of this one baker (or whatever he was). As I said in the past, I strongly oppose discrimination, but I would probably only forbid it in incidents in which the LGBT individual has no other choice. For instance, my example of a hospital. 

Do you believe hospitals, ambulances, police, military, legislation, teachers, pharmacists should be legally allowed to discriminate at their pleasure, including in life-or-death situations? 

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

as of 2012 it's only 9,083,558  let's assume it's increased to 15-20 million since that's not 32 million.

Gallup found that 4.1% of Americans in 2016 identified as LGBT. I would bet money that once you throw in everyone who's still in the closet, in denial, or unsure but definitely not straight, it gets closer to 10% of Americans.

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

You can't use an isolated incidence to stereotype an entire group. That would be like me saying all conservative Christians will discriminate against gay people, because of this one baker (or whatever he was). As I said in the past, I strongly oppose discrimination, but I would probably only forbid it in incidents in which the LGBT individual has no other choice. For instance, my example of a hospital. 

Do you believe hospitals, ambulances, police, military, legislation, teachers, pharmacists should be legally allowed to discriminate at their pleasure, including in life-or-death situations? 

Private institutions, yes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, President Garrett Walker said:

Gallup found that 4.1% of Americans in 2016 identified as LGBT. I would bet money that once you throw in everyone who's still in the closet, in denial, or unsure but definitely not straight, it gets closer to 10% of Americans.

I think going from 4.1% to 10% is a slightly inflated  increase given that LGBT's are much more accepted today than they were say 10 or even 5 years ago. (I'd probably put it closer to 8.5% or so.)

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

Is a place of public accommodation truly a private institution?

If it is owned by private entities, yes. It may not be a good business model, but it is your business and property, and if it isn't, the landlord has the right to evict you for your policies.

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

Private institutions, yes.

That's a positively Satanic and un-American policy to deny a dying person of the only available means to live, it denies "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." I would then suggest that no necessary service be private if it is the only service in that area capable of providing the necessary service. Also, that the private service be obligated to aid a person in need until a public service can arrive to take over (with the public service compensating the private service for stepping in before their arrival). 

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

That's a positively Satanic and un-American policy to deny a dying person of the only available means to live, it denies "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." I would then suggest that no necessary service be private if it is the only service in that area capable of providing the necessary service. Also, that the private service be obligated to aid a person in need until a public service can arrive to take over (with the public service compensating the private service for stepping in before their arrival). 

You're calling people Satanic again.

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

You're calling people Satanic again.

I'm not calling you Satanic. I'm saying the policy is. 

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

If it is owned by private entities, yes. It may not be a good business model, but it is your business and property, and if it isn't, the landlord has the right to evict you for your policies.

@Reagan04, strangely, in all of Christ's ministry (and I've read it in it's entirety many times), I see NOTHING, absolutely nothing, where Christ EVER ONCE condones persecuting, not dealing with, killing, harming, threatening, marginalizing, forcing certain behaviours on, dealing uncivilly with, or any other unpleasant actions toward at all any other group of people - in fact, quite the opposite, He enjoins his followers to show the unconditional forgiveness and undeserved grace to others on Earth that God has offered to all humanity through Christ's sacrifice. Even the old bloody rituals, bloody punishments, bloodshed, war and violence of the Old Testament are FULFILLED by the Blood of Christ in the same way the Death of Christ FULFILLS the Wages of Sin for all mortals (potentially), that being Death. It seems somewhere along the line (like in the Dark Ages at some point), a very large and vocal portion of the Christian community completely lost sight of this, including obviously you. I hope you find your way back to the Light. You have the luxury of at least being young.

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

@Reagan04, strangely, in all of Christ's ministry (and I've read it in it's entirety many times), I see NOTHING, absolutely nothing, where Christ EVER ONCE condones persecuting, not dealing with, killing, harming, threatening, marginalizing, forcing certain behaviours on, dealing uncivilly with, or any other unpleasant actions toward at all any other group of people - in fact, quite the opposite, He enjoins his followers to show the unconditional forgiveness and undeserved grace to others on Earth that God has offered to all humanity through Christ's sacrifice. Even the old bloody rituals, bloody punishments, bloodshed, war and violence of the Old Testament are FULFILLED by the Blood of Christ in the same way the Death of Christ FULFILLS the Wages of Sin for all mortals (potentially), that being Death. It seems somewhere along the line (like in the Dark Ages at some point), a very large and vocal portion of the Christian community completely lost sight of this, including obviously you. I hope you find your way back to the Light. You have the luxury of at least being young.

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.

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...