Jump to content
270soft Forum

Political Issues Either/Or Poll


Political Issues Either/Or Poll  

18 members have voted

  1. 1. In most cases I side with the issue on the left over the issue on the right. [I know it might be hard, but you must pick a side.]

    • Civil Rights over Civil Liberties
    • Labor Rights over Corporate Rights
    • Free Trade over Protectionism
    • Main Street over Wall Street
    • Globalism over Nationalism
    • Military non-interventionism over Military interventionism
    • Lenient immigration over strict immigration
    • Lenient drug laws over strict drug laws (War on Drugs)
    • Business regulations over business deregulations
    • Alternate energy over Oil & Gas
    • Small farmers over Corporate Farmers
    • universal healthcare over free market healthcare
    • Strict gun laws over lenient gun laws
    • Lenient abortion laws over strict abortion laws
    • Secular education over religious education
    • Public schools/universities over private schools/universities
    • Popular Vote over Electoral College
    • Wealth Tax over no-Wealth Tax
    • Pro-Science policies over Science-skeptic policies
    • Futurism over Traditionalism
    • I side entirely with the right side options.
      0


Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, vcczar said:

That's fine then, so let me ask this, which of these are you most conflicted about? 

Civil Rights vs. Civil Liberties, already very ill-defined and nebulous and easily-abused by their common definitions, are a big source as is of a lot of the social and cultural issues, not just in the U.S., but in much of the first world, and I feel such a sharp choice between them would only make things WORSE, frankly, regardless of which was chosen.

Free Trade vs. Protectionism-There needs to some sense of context and product-by-product with trade partner-by-partner view in a workable manner. Either extreme is economic, if not disaster, degradation, we'll say, in the long-term.

Globalization vs. Nationalism - Nationalism and Parochialism are among the toxic ideologies in the world, and have been the root of intent of some of the worst atrocities, most genocides and demographic-based prejudiced and oppressive laws, and is the root ideology that Fascism in all of it's various forms and other monstrous ideologies grow from - it breeds sociopaths, taught to dehumanize people of other nations in their minds. Globalization, however, as I'm sure you mean it, would also be a nightmare in application - the idiom "commanding a Celtic army," from Middle Ages England comes to mind for any serious attempts to get things done.

Military Interventionism - Although I personally believe that no military conflict after WW2 was ESSENTIAL to fight, nor needed to fight, and that fighting them was never anything but a transgression to the other nations, a deception to one's own people, enriching big corporation, and crimes of horrible, vile caliber committed on BOTH sides by the end, I DO however believe that fighting the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis was a necessity, and an existential conflict for the world as we know it (though anyone comparing any later conflict to it in that way is a disingenuous purveyor of shameless propaganda), but such an obvious and overt conflict may possibly rise again.

Lenient vs. Strict immigration, drug, and abortion laws - How about sensible ones? Common sense, like a sense of perspective and proportion, long-term thinking, and lack of partisan dogma, are dying traits, and even actively discouraged and persecuted in many areas. The dying of these ways of thinking, or at least heavy atrophying, will become a great and crippling socio-political and cultural weakness down the line - the same sort of things as were happening in the Roman Empire as it was winding towards it's end...

Small Farmers vs. Corporate Farmers - I personally believe farming co-ops (not referring to Communist State-owned Collective Farms, mind, but endeavours of shared land and asset ownership by a bunch of farm families, who manage a bigger piece of land - closer in size and output to a corporate farm - and all reap the results) could actually a wave of the future is a growing thing in some parts.

I'm not clear on what a "Wealth Tax," is specifically - is that income tax, another tax, or a collective of taxes including income tax - nor am I quite clear on what you mean by "Futurism" - that term is REALLY vague...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

27 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

I think it's because Trump has largely consolidated support within the Republican party. Republican party approval of Trump is 92% according to latest Gallup, which is roughly as high as it's been for Trump re Gallup (93%).

https://news.gallup.com/interactives/185273/presidential-job-approval-center.aspx

 

If he loses in 2020, they'll probably throw him under the bus and disavow him, despite this fact. Like, at the end of WW2, and member of the Allied Occupational Command in Germany said, "like magic, not a single voter from 1933 who admitted to voting for Hitler or the Nazis could be found - and Germany didn't lose THAT many people in the War." Also, after Nixon resigned in 1974, despite winning a landslide victory of awe-inspiring proportions in 1972, the number of people who admitted to voting for Nixon PLUMMETED drastically. It'll be the same for Trump if he loses in 2020 - he's THAT kind of politician.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Civil Rights vs. Civil Liberties

Shocking no one at all, generally in public debate I err on the side of individual instead of collective rights. Now, this is not to say I am anti-Civil Rights. I have always been for stringent criminal justice reform, allowing communities of color to have better access to their own Civil Liberties (of which they are often criminally deprived), and for equal protection under the law. Notice, however, all of these protections are from the government. I do not believe your Civil Rights, which are rights to be treated equally and fairly by the government, ever override another person's Civil Liberties or vice versa. For me, it all stems from the 1st Amendment and the rights to Religious Practice, Speech, and Association. 

Labor Rights vs. Corporate Rights

I believe that the best deal for workers is the free market. So I don't love the way that this question is represented but I will treat it as if the question is Business vs. Unions. In which case I'd have to say my hard line Right to Work policies have to align me with Business. But that's not to say that Labor Standards and Safety Laws aren't needed, they just aren't the most politically relevant anymore.

Free Trade vs. Protectionism

Not sure why Free Trade is on the left. I know Trump portends to be a Protectionist but he's also not a real conservative now is he? 😛 In reality this issue is one of the most topsy turvy in which political party plays which side so I understand making the mistake of putting Free Trade on the left when, by and large, it's still a right-wing ideal. Mind you, one to which I subscribe to wholeheartedly. I cannot extol enough the virtues of free trade. Indeed, as President Reagan said we must resist against "the siren song of Protectionism." We ought to support the domestic and global poor as well as make it easier for American families to buy goods from blenders to automobiles. Free Trade is the quintessential rising tide that lifts all boats.

Main Street vs. Wall Street

Again, these aren't diametrically opposed I just picked Main Street so I don't seem like the heartless, icy cold conservative libertarian I am. But really I don't think this is a fair issue. The stock market is important to millions of Americans. Yes, of course, when the stock market does well, some of us do better relatively. But when it does well, most Americans do well. That includes Main Street Americans with retirement funds for themselves and college funds for their children tied up in investments. This is a good deal for the economy and it's important that all Americans get a piece of this pie and get involved in the market when they have the financial means. Long story short, we should be deregulating both Main Street and Wall Street.

Globalism vs. Nationalism

Again, these things are in no way opposed when taken in proper moderation. Trump's coddling of white nationalists is equally as sickening as those who would sell out our culture and border to some quasi-world government. I am proud of the American way of government. I agree largely with @Conservative Elector 2's assessment here. I am a Free Trader while also generally UN-skeptical. What can I say! I prefer individually multilateral cooperation as opposed to collective cooperation.

Military Non-Interventionism vs. Military Intervention

Another issue of moderation for me. I don't believe in going around toppling nations willy nilly. I would not have gotten involved in Iraq initially, but I also fault Obama for losing a very winnable war. Once we got in, once we made that commitment to the Iraqi people, we should have kept it. BUT! We should have actually declared a war first. My issue with foreign policy isn't necessarily the amount of interventionism, this is not my axis. My axis is that we really need sweeping war powers reform to stop the droning of brown children by the American President with a pen and a phone. We need Congressional authorization and to restore the balance of powers. So because of this heavily restraintist position I checked non-interventionism. I really treat intervention on a case by case basis though. What should never be case by case is needing Congressional approval though.

Lenient Immigration vs. Strict Immigration

I'm a known advocate of Comprehensive Immigration reform. My party has its demons. One of those demons being extolling the virtues of free access to the American Dream, unless you are brown, of course. We love talking about getting opportunity and really getting out of the wall and tearing down walls for all people who want it to gain access to the Free Market. Unless of course they weren't born here, in which case we're totally erecting a literal multi-billion dollar wall at the border. We need much better immigration reform, we need more courts and more attorneys. We need to disincentive illegal immigration through e-verify and through making it easier to legally immigrate. We are the nation which shall take the tired, poor, huddled masses and breathe into them the freedom which they so desperately yearn to breathe. Immigration is a fantastic positive for a nation.

Lenient Drug Laws vs. War on Drugs

As I said in the first discussion, we need to get the government out of the way. The War on Drugs is a major civil rights abuse and criminal justice injustice. The President, first of all, has no right to regulate drugs. I believe in Federal decriminalization of all substances. The federal government, of course, can still deal with drug trafficking across national borders and state lines. At the state level, I certainly support restrictions on pushing drugs like cocaine and heroine into communities. This often victimizes communities of color. Addicts need to be treated with the medical issue they have and drug kingpins and pushers should be treated as victimizers of countless people.

Business Regulation vs. Business Deregulation

I'm all about slashing them regulations baby. This is a fairly straightforward one for me.

Alternate Energy vs. Oil and Gas

This is probably the worst constructed choice for me. Because conceivably Coal is an "Alternate Energy" to Oil and Gas while Gas is both far cleaner and far more sustainable than Coal is. I have always taken an all of the above energy policy. If the coal industry wants to remain viable it's going to need to invest in Carbon Capture. And Oil and Gas are going to have to compete with regionally sourced clean alternatives that ought to be put at the forefront of research to combat climate change. It's really all about the power of American innovation. Nuclear, hydro, bio, solar, wind, geothermal are all valid routes and all of it should be regionally sourced.

Small Farmers vs. Corporate Farmers

Is this even a valid dichotomy? All farmers are incredibly important for feeding the nation and the world.

Universal Heathcare vs. Free Market Healthcare

It's all about the 3 Cs. Competition, Competition, Competition. Remove the competition lines and let the public sector compete in the private sector. That's what it's all about. 

Strict Gun Laws vs. Lenient Gun Laws

I am a notorious supporter of the 2nd Amendment and I believe in very very little gun control. We need a citizenry that is armed and educated and ready to exercise their right to self-determination. We need to get out of the way of firearm ownership, especially in communities of color. Like with all Constitutional Rights and Civil Liberties, the right to keep and bear arms must be protected and shall not be infringed.

Lenient Abortion Laws vs. Strict Abortion Laws

My thoughts on equal protection are well known. The unborn should qualify for the 14th amendment's guarantee of equal protection and should be treated as living persons as such. The only "abortions" which would remain legal are the non-abortions which pro-abortion advocates use to scapegoat the Pro-Life movement because they are in fact not abortions. I'm talking about salpingostomies and other medically necessary procedures in the case of ectopic pregnancies which no physician worth their salt considers an abortion. There is no medical need for an abortion ever and the unborn ought to be given equal protection under the law to that end. In the case of life-threatening conditions for the child, equal protection still applies and it would depend on that state's euthanasia laws.

Secular Education vs. Religious Education

Both are important and both are valid. 

Public Schools vs. Private Schools

See above. Localization and vouchers are just as key to education policy as the increased spending at that local level.

Popular Vote vs. Electoral College

I am a staunch supporter of the electoral college and staunch opponent of tyranny of the majority. The Electoral College goes a long way in coalition building.

Wealth Tax vs. No-Wealth Tax

Bad idea to begin with and will hamper economic growth. Simply ineffective at its goal.

Pro-Science Policies vs. Science-Skeptical Polices

Again, I'm not even sure what this means in the real world but yes we need to listen to the science that confirms Climate Change and yes we need to listen to the science that confirms Life at Conception. So yes, I'm Pro-Science. Weird dichotomy.

Futurism vs. Traditionalism

Ditto to what @Conservative Elector 2 had to say on the topic. These are not mutually exclusive and are equally important in the modern world.

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

If he loses in 2020, they'll probably throw him under the bus and disavow him

And if he wins he might become a new Reagan-like figure in the Republican party. We'll see.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

And if he wins he might become a new Reagan-like figure in the Republican party. We'll see.

Trumplicans will probably exist for another 20-50 years. Their numbers might be small, the offices they get elected to might be few and far between even. Regardless there will be some in the Republican party who will view Trump in a favorable light and want to see more politicians like Trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Reagan04 Love your detailed explanations, with which I mostly agree. Glad to see that you also agree on my points, which seem to be not as much as considered nowadays as they should be.

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

Civil Rights vs. Civil Liberties

Shocking no one at all, generally in public debate I err on the side of individual instead of collective rights. Now, this is not to say I am anti-Civil Rights. I have always been for stringent criminal justice reform, allowing communities of color to have better access to their own Civil Liberties (of which they are often criminally deprived), and for equal protection under the law. Notice, however, all of these protections are from the government. I do not believe your Civil Rights, which are rights to be treated equally and fairly by the government, ever override another person's Civil Liberties or vice versa. For me, it all stems from the 1st Amendment and the rights to Religious Practice, Speech, and Association. 

Labor Rights vs. Corporate Rights

I believe that the best deal for workers is the free market. So I don't love the way that this question is represented but I will treat it as if the question is Business vs. Unions. In which case I'd have to say my hard line Right to Work policies have to align me with Business. But that's not to say that Labor Standards and Safety Laws aren't needed, they just aren't the most politically relevant anymore.

Free Trade vs. Protectionism

Not sure why Free Trade is on the left. I know Trump portends to be a Protectionist but he's also not a real conservative now is he? 😛 In reality this issue is one of the most topsy turvy in which political party plays which side so I understand making the mistake of putting Free Trade on the left when, by and large, it's still a right-wing ideal. Mind you, one to which I subscribe to wholeheartedly. I cannot extol enough the virtues of free trade. Indeed, as President Reagan said we must resist against "the siren song of Protectionism." We ought to support the domestic and global poor as well as make it easier for American families to buy goods from blenders to automobiles. Free Trade is the quintessential rising tide that lifts all boats.

Main Street vs. Wall Street

Again, these aren't diametrically opposed I just picked Main Street so I don't seem like the heartless, icy cold conservative libertarian I am. But really I don't think this is a fair issue. The stock market is important to millions of Americans. Yes, of course, when the stock market does well, some of us do better relatively. But when it does well, most Americans do well. That includes Main Street Americans with retirement funds for themselves and college funds for their children tied up in investments. This is a good deal for the economy and it's important that all Americans get a piece of this pie and get involved in the market when they have the financial means. Long story short, we should be deregulating both Main Street and Wall Street.

Globalism vs. Nationalism

Again, these things are in no way opposed when taken in proper moderation. Trump's coddling of white nationalists is equally as sickening as those who would sell out our culture and border to some quasi-world government. I am proud of the American way of government. I agree largely with @Conservative Elector 2's assessment here. I am a Free Trader while also generally UN-skeptical. What can I say! I prefer individually multilateral cooperation as opposed to collective cooperation.

Military Non-Interventionism vs. Military Intervention

Another issue of moderation for me. I don't believe in going around toppling nations willy nilly. I would not have gotten involved in Iraq initially, but I also fault Obama for losing a very winnable war. Once we got in, once we made that commitment to the Iraqi people, we should have kept it. BUT! We should have actually declared a war first. My issue with foreign policy isn't necessarily the amount of interventionism, this is not my axis. My axis is that we really need sweeping war powers reform to stop the droning of brown children by the American President with a pen and a phone. We need Congressional authorization and to restore the balance of powers. So because of this heavily restraintist position I checked non-interventionism. I really treat intervention on a case by case basis though. What should never be case by case is needing Congressional approval though.

Lenient Immigration vs. Strict Immigration

I'm a known advocate of Comprehensive Immigration reform. My party has its demons. One of those demons being extolling the virtues of free access to the American Dream, unless you are brown, of course. We love talking about getting opportunity and really getting out of the wall and tearing down walls for all people who want it to gain access to the Free Market. Unless of course they weren't born here, in which case we're totally erecting a literal multi-billion dollar wall at the border. We need much better immigration reform, we need more courts and more attorneys. We need to disincentive illegal immigration through e-verify and through making it easier to legally immigrate. We are the nation which shall take the tired, poor, huddled masses and breathe into them the freedom which they so desperately yearn to breathe. Immigration is a fantastic positive for a nation.

Lenient Drug Laws vs. War on Drugs

As I said in the first discussion, we need to get the government out of the way. The War on Drugs is a major civil rights abuse and criminal justice injustice. The President, first of all, has no right to regulate drugs. I believe in Federal decriminalization of all substances. The federal government, of course, can still deal with drug trafficking across national borders and state lines. At the state level, I certainly support restrictions on pushing drugs like cocaine and heroine into communities. This often victimizes communities of color. Addicts need to be treated with the medical issue they have and drug kingpins and pushers should be treated as victimizers of countless people.

Business Regulation vs. Business Deregulation

I'm all about slashing them regulations baby. This is a fairly straightforward one for me.

Alternate Energy vs. Oil and Gas

This is probably the worst constructed choice for me. Because conceivably Coal is an "Alternate Energy" to Oil and Gas while Gas is both far cleaner and far more sustainable than Coal is. I have always taken an all of the above energy policy. If the coal industry wants to remain viable it's going to need to invest in Carbon Capture. And Oil and Gas are going to have to compete with regionally sourced clean alternatives that ought to be put at the forefront of research to combat climate change. It's really all about the power of American innovation. Nuclear, hydro, bio, solar, wind, geothermal are all valid routes and all of it should be regionally sourced.

Small Farmers vs. Corporate Farmers

Is this even a valid dichotomy? All farmers are incredibly important for feeding the nation and the world.

Universal Heathcare vs. Free Market Healthcare

It's all about the 3 Cs. Competition, Competition, Competition. Remove the competition lines and let the public sector compete in the private sector. That's what it's all about. 

Strict Gun Laws vs. Lenient Gun Laws

I am a notorious supporter of the 2nd Amendment and I believe in very very little gun control. We need a citizenry that is armed and educated and ready to exercise their right to self-determination. We need to get out of the way of firearm ownership, especially in communities of color. Like with all Constitutional Rights and Civil Liberties, the right to keep and bear arms must be protected and shall not be infringed.

Lenient Abortion Laws vs. Strict Abortion Laws

My thoughts on equal protection are well known. The unborn should qualify for the 14th amendment's guarantee of equal protection and should be treated as living persons as such. The only "abortions" which would remain legal are the non-abortions which pro-abortion advocates use to scapegoat the Pro-Life movement because they are in fact not abortions. I'm talking about salpingostomies and other medically necessary procedures in the case of ectopic pregnancies which no physician worth their salt considers an abortion. There is no medical need for an abortion ever and the unborn ought to be given equal protection under the law to that end. In the case of life-threatening conditions for the child, equal protection still applies and it would depend on that state's euthanasia laws.

Secular Education vs. Religious Education

Both are important and both are valid. 

Public Schools vs. Private Schools

See above. Localization and vouchers are just as key to education policy as the increased spending at that local level.

Popular Vote vs. Electoral College

I am a staunch supporter of the electoral college and staunch opponent of tyranny of the majority. The Electoral College goes a long way in coalition building.

Wealth Tax vs. No-Wealth Tax

Bad idea to begin with and will hamper economic growth. Simply ineffective at its goal.

Pro-Science Policies vs. Science-Skeptical Polices

Again, I'm not even sure what this means in the real world but yes we need to listen to the science that confirms Climate Change and yes we need to listen to the science that confirms Life at Conception. So yes, I'm Pro-Science. Weird dichotomy.

Futurism vs. Traditionalism

Ditto to what @Conservative Elector 2 had to say on the topic. These are not mutually exclusive and are equally important in the modern world.

You know, I think the point is ideology right now I actually still sharply and greatly disagree with you on (other than your insistence on keeping an antiquated relic of an electoral system that prevents the voters from having real choice in their chief executive, de facto, and whose original purpose, regardless of later revisionist speech, was to preserve South Slave Power and express Alexander Hamilton's contempt and distrust for the competence of the common voter) is that I think you side FAR to much with the ultra-wealthy, corrupt, and out-of-touch plutocratic oligarchy to walk all over everyone else with even more empowerment and less restrictions than they already do - and they cause a lot of misery, despair, death, and most sources of unemployment, homelessness, inability to make ends meet, towns turned to "ghost towns," shoddier goods and services, insulting-to-the-intelligence advertising everywhere, banking practices that SHOULD be considered rackets and loan sharking, legally, and graft and bribery of government to get their, and their multinational statuses, as well as "fallguy subsidiary loopholes, and such, allowing any real consequences legally against them to be shrugged off easily. As your opinions evolve, I can see more and more some common ground - if not full applications - outside of these two BIG sticking points.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

And if he wins he might become a new Reagan-like figure in the Republican party. We'll see.

 

7 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

Trumplicans will probably exist for another 20-50 years. Their numbers might be small, the offices they get elected to might be few and far between even. Regardless there will be some in the Republican party who will view Trump in a favorable light and want to see more politicians like Trump.

Except, that unlike Reaganomics and other Reagan ideals, "Trumpism," is not actually a coherent ideology or platform or socio-political set of goals, agendas, or beliefs. It's an attitude and tenor, and style of campaigning, proclamations, and reactions. It's a subset of populism, not a subset of ideology, in any true sense. And thus, new "Trumpists," would be very rare, because very few could command that campaign and public behaviour style, which IS Trumpism, effectively, without attracting ridicule.

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

Crazy how Trump made Free trade a left wing policy now.

Free Trade has been traditionally a Democratic platform. FDR made it where it was pretty much universally preferred. Reagan expanded on what FDR did, which culminated in NAFTA which is credited to both Bush I and Bill Clinton. You don't get protectionists again until the manufacturing sector was declining, which made it a Pro-Union policy. Perot made protectionism more popular outside of strong union sections. It wasn't a left-wing thing. It was a populist thing, which transcends the wings a lot of the time. Trump just enacted what Perot was proclaiming. 

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

Free Trade has been traditionally a Democratic platform. FDR made it where it was pretty much universally preferred. Reagan expanded on what FDR did, which culminated in NAFTA which is credited to both Bush I and Bill Clinton. You don't get protectionists again until the manufacturing sector was declining, which made it a Pro-Union policy. Perot made protectionism more popular outside of strong union sections. It wasn't a left-wing thing. It was a populist thing, which transcends the wings a lot of the time. Trump just enacted what Perot was proclaiming. 

I actually didn't know that. Very interesting.

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

Free Trade has been traditionally a Democratic platform. FDR made it where it was pretty much universally preferred. Reagan expanded on what FDR did, which culminated in NAFTA which is credited to both Bush I and Bill Clinton. You don't get protectionists again until the manufacturing sector was declining, which made it a Pro-Union policy. Perot made protectionism more popular outside of strong union sections. It wasn't a left-wing thing. It was a populist thing, which transcends the wings a lot of the time. Trump just enacted what Perot was proclaiming. 

I remember hearing this statement all the time, "while they've changed a lot over the century, the Republican party has always been the pro-business party, where the Democrats have been the pro-labor party", as someone who knows more about the history of the parties than I ever will, how much do you agree with this statement?

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

I remember hearing this statement all the time, "while they've changed a lot over the century, the Republican party has always been the pro-business party, where the Democrats have been the pro-labor party", as someone who knows more about the history of the parties than I ever will, how much do you agree with this statement?

That’s partially true. It’s more complicated than that. I’ll explain when I have more time. 

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

Crazy how Trump made Free trade a left wing policy now.

Trump has actually truly changed nothing. Free trade vs. protectionism is not properly set, and never was, and still isn't, on Political Spectrum - in the U.S., or any other country. It's more a difference between Unbridled Corporatism vs. Economic Nationalist, at least in it's modern incarnation, but that's not truly a left-right issue - at least no easily so - on the Spectrum itself. So, no Trump, hasn't actually changed any part of the Political Spectrum - because Trump is not actually a true ideologue, in any coherent sense. As I said upthread, "Trumpism," is just a style of campaigning, public behaviour, and reaction to criticism - a style of populism, really - not an ideological movement.

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

Relevant

republicansthenandnow.png

What is it with you and "wolf," comparisons between people. You do know that "Greek letter social dynamic," between humans is utter pretentious garbage, I hope. Human behaviour is not anywhere akin to "pack," or "pride," behaviour, but a more aggressive "herd," behaviour, to be honest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Small question but I didn't think it would deserve it's own thread.

How would you guys feel about a compromise on the electoral college where it works as it does now, but if a person receives an outright majority (more than 50%) they win regardless of the EC results? As far as I know it's only happened once.

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

Small question but I didn't think it would deserve it's own thread.

How would you guys feel about a compromise on the electoral college where it works as it does now, but if a person receives an outright majority (more than 50%) they win regardless of the EC results? As far as I know it's only happened once.

That’s an improvement on our current system. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ThePotatoWalrus So basically, the Republicans inherited the protectionist philosophy of the Federalists and Whigs. This policy, in theory, allows growing American industries to compete with Europe, specifically the UK. Wall Street, Banks, shipping, and large factories and corporations favored protection. However, industries, such as farming, and Commodities that we’re mostly unique to America (cotton and tobacco) really hated it. UK would retaliate when we raised a tariff by buying Indian or Egyptian Cotton. 
 

Anyway, it might be better to say Big Business has always been with Republicans. Rather than say the workers, I’d say the wage workers have been on the side of Democrats. Democrats have also been traditionally more populist and Republicans have been more establishment/order. Relative Traditional Democratic populism allowed the possibility that 90% of the Deep South votes FDR 4x in a row. FDR and Democrats catered to the typical working class. Identity politics of race or nationality was only local.

Goldwater, Reagan, Gingrich, and Trump sort of inaugurated the slow takeover of the populist voter from the Democrats. Sanders, AOC and others rise as an attempt to keep some of it or take it back.

Nevertheless, the big businesses and wage workers are still mostly on the side of the same party they’ve preferred since 1856. Some businesses and workers have adhered to the other party since not every worker or business is the same. Another thing to consider is that some businesses and workers are ideology specific rather than party specific. Pre-Reagan both parties had progressives and conservatives. Voters flipping parties was not unusual outside of the Deep South, where Democrats enforced loyalty and submission. 
 


 

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

@ThePotatoWalrus So basically, the Republicans inherited the protectionist philosophy of the Federalists and Whigs. This policy, in theory, allows growing American industries to compete with Europe, specifically the UK. Wall Street, Banks, shipping, and large factories and corporations favored protection. However, industries, such as farming, and Commodities that we’re mostly unique to America (cotton and tobacco) really hated it. UK would retaliate when we raised a tariff by buying Indian or Egyptian Cotton. 
 

Anyway, it might be better to say Big Business has always been with Republicans. Rather than say the workers, I’d say the wage workers have been on the side of Democrats. Democrats have also been traditionally more populist and Republicans have been more establishment/order. Relative Traditional Democratic populism allowed the possibility that 90% of the Deep South votes FDR 4x in a row. FDR and Democrats catered to the typical working class. Identity politics of race or nationality was only local.

Goldwater, Reagan, Gingrich, and Trump sort of inaugurated the slow takeover of the populist voter from the Democrats. Sanders, AOC and others rise as an attempt to keep some of it or take it back.

Nevertheless, the big businesses and wage workers are still mostly on the side of the same party they’ve preferred since 1856. Some businesses and workers have adhered to the other party since not every worker or business is the same. Another thing to consider is that some businesses and workers are ideology specific rather than party specific. Pre-Reagan both parties had progressives and conservatives. Voters flipping parties was not unusual outside of the Deep South, where Democrats enforced loyalty and submission. 
 


 

Although I admit this take goes along with the general alignment of the issue by the two main American political parties, I will argue that it doesn't actually confirm, refute, or really address the ideal of which WING of the Political Spectrum, in and of itself, each policy belongs to, which was the wording of @ThePotatoWalrus original post on the issue, and a question that adds even more nuances, permutations, and layers to the issue, and was what my response above was more trying to tackle. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, admin_270 said:

I think it's because Trump has largely consolidated support within the Republican party. Republican party approval of Trump is 92% according to latest Gallup, which is roughly as high as it's been for Trump re Gallup (93%).

https://news.gallup.com/interactives/185273/presidential-job-approval-center.aspx

 

Interesting to think that around the same time in his first term,Obama had low-mid 80’s Democratic approval,I wonder why that is. 

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

@ThePotatoWalrus So basically, the Republicans inherited the protectionist philosophy of the Federalists and Whigs. This policy, in theory, allows growing American industries to compete with Europe, specifically the UK. Wall Street, Banks, shipping, and large factories and corporations favored protection. However, industries, such as farming, and Commodities that we’re mostly unique to America (cotton and tobacco) really hated it. UK would retaliate when we raised a tariff by buying Indian or Egyptian Cotton. 
 

Anyway, it might be better to say Big Business has always been with Republicans. Rather than say the workers, I’d say the wage workers have been on the side of Democrats. Democrats have also been traditionally more populist and Republicans have been more establishment/order. Relative Traditional Democratic populism allowed the possibility that 90% of the Deep South votes FDR 4x in a row. FDR and Democrats catered to the typical working class. Identity politics of race or nationality was only local.

Goldwater, Reagan, Gingrich, and Trump sort of inaugurated the slow takeover of the populist voter from the Democrats. Sanders, AOC and others rise as an attempt to keep some of it or take it back.

Nevertheless, the big businesses and wage workers are still mostly on the side of the same party they’ve preferred since 1856. Some businesses and workers have adhered to the other party since not every worker or business is the same. Another thing to consider is that some businesses and workers are ideology specific rather than party specific. Pre-Reagan both parties had progressives and conservatives. Voters flipping parties was not unusual outside of the Deep South, where Democrats enforced loyalty and submission.

Interesting. Especially the last part. Thanks for this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2020 at 1:15 PM, vcczar said:

That why it is called an "either/or poll". It is a black and white poll. If you had a gun to your head, and had to pick one to support across the board, which would it be? That's the purpose of the poll. I'll tag @Patine here. 

I'd choose the side that would make the guy with the gun happy.

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...