Summary of political beliefs
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 04:04:05 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Summary of political beliefs
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... 63
Author Topic: Summary of political beliefs  (Read 556614 times)
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,821


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #950 on: March 13, 2014, 07:35:47 AM »

Vladimir; back up your statement.

If you consider it to be a 'self induced mental state', please outline precisely how all observations of animal species that reproduce by procreation have shown the display of homosexual behaviours. Please give evidence that all these animals, separated by hundreds of millions years of divergent evolution induce themselves into a differing mental state.

With regards to humans, please provide hard evidence confirming the point in the life of an adolescent (and for my example I will choose a male) in which they induce themselves; i.e they make a conscious decision that their pupils will dilate, their palms will sweat, chemical responses will take place and blood will rush to engorge the penis to a state of erection whereby it may self lubricate when faced with an attractive specimen of the same sex. At what point in their life was that conscious decision made, particularly if they had not reacted in a similar fashion to females. If there is no sexual attraction until it actually manifests itself, can you please confirm with evidence at what point individuals made a conscious choice to have any sexual response heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise?

Please also provide evidence, that in the event your hypothesis is 'true' that it sets aside homosexuals as a group that should be denied rights on the basis that their orientation is either a choice or a self induced mental state. Please provide evidence, given that you believe in God, that people's religious choices which involve adhering to a faith, leaving it, joining another, changing what you believe over the course of your lifetime or abandoning it altogether would not fit the same definition of a 'choice' or a 'self induced mental state', or if it does, that it deserves an arbitrary exemption from the conditions under which rights can be given or received?

Please provide evidence that domestic violence rates amongst same sex couples are higher than amongst opposite sex couples.

You may wish to review the following source material;

Broken Rainbow Conference Report C Jones (2002)
Homophobic Crime and Same-Sex Domestic Abuse D Collins, M Vallely (2001)
Domestic Violence within Lesbian Relationships K Townley (2001)
At the End of the Rainbow: A Report on Gay Male Domestic Violence and Abuse M Lehman (1997)
Same-Sex Domestic Violence: Strategies for Change S Lundy, B Leventhal (1999)
Lesbian, Gay Male, Bisexual and Transgendered Elders: Elder Abuse and Neglect Issues L Cook-Daniels (2002)
Hold Tight, Tight Hold: A Project on Same-Sex Domestic Abuse: Same Sex Domestic Abuse - A New Approach D Shelley (2002)
Violence & Abuse in Same-Sex Relationships: A Review of Literature A Richards, N Noret, I Rivers (2003)
Hate crimes in Scotland: A summary of results from the Equality Network postcard and email survey on hate crimes  Equality Network (2004)
Gay identity, interpersonal violence, and HIV risk behaviors: an empirical test of theoretical relationships among a probability-based sample of urban men who have sex with men M Relf, B Huang, J Campbell,Catania, J (2004)
Violence and social injustice against lesbian, gay and bisexual people L Sloan, N Gustavsson (1998)
Domestic Abuse against Men in Scotland  D Gadd, S Farrall, D Dallimore,Lombard, N (2002)
Domestic Partner Abuse. L Kevin Hamberger, Claire Renzetti. (1999)
Loving in Fear: lesbian and gay survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Queer Press Collective. (1993)
Men who beat men who love them: battered gay men and domestic violence. David Island. (1995)
Naming the violence: speaking out against lesbian battering. National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Lesbian Task Force (1989)
No more secrets: violence in lesbian relationships. Janice Ristock. (2002)
Patterns of sexual violence among men. P.M. Davies (1998)
Professional’s guide to understanding gay and lesbian domestic violence: understanding practice interventions. J C. McClennen and J Gunther (2000)
Violent Betrayal: partner abuse in lesbian relationships. C M. Renzetti. (199

Please provide evidence, drawn from official government data of higher level of divorce rates

You may wish to refer to the following;

Badgett, M.V. Lee; Herman, Jody L. (November 2011). Patterns of Relationship Recognition by Same-Sex Couples in the United States

I am of course more familiar with UK data; the Office of National Statistics have confirmed that in the 7 year window since the introduction of civil partnerships, dissolution rates for those who had a civil partnership within those 7 years was 3.2% for m/m couples and 6.1% for f/f couples; which dovetails neatly into the existing understanding that in m/f couples, women are disproportionately higher instigators of divorce than men. The same figure for m/f couples, over the same 7 year window was 13%. While it is expected that over time these figures may converge, there is no evidence from my own country that divorce rates are higher.
Logged
Vladimir
Rookie
**
Posts: 16
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.55, S: 8.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #951 on: March 13, 2014, 05:42:17 PM »


May I be the first to say that you make me, as a gay man, an atheist, a man who thinks government shouldn't control what you put in your body, a man who believes that those who can afford it should give back to the community, who believes that science should lead the way on issues of women's health and that women shouldn't be made to carry their rapist's baby, that our military is bloated and needs to be cut, and that everyone deserves a basic standard of living, sick? I think you might find a certain other Vladimir to be a good friend of yours.

Are you really losing your sh*t to an obvious troll?

Then again, I'd probably do the same thing.  THese trolls are like watching a train wreck.  So horrible, but you just got to watch.

   Hey, you should take a look at my political matrix score before assuming that. I'm the real deal Wink

Right, because it's not like any idiot can just type in a fake PM score. Roll Eyes

   Please keep the insults out of this. I don't really care whether or not you are repulsed by me, but try to keep the conversation cordial. Resorting to insults makes you look bad Smiley
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,039
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #952 on: March 13, 2014, 05:51:35 PM »

I see you are dodging all of the questions, Vlad...
Logged
Vladimir
Rookie
**
Posts: 16
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.55, S: 8.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #953 on: March 13, 2014, 06:20:06 PM »

Let's take this apart one piece at a time, shall we?

Good question! But, before I start, you don't have to get angry with me. I'm a nice guy once you get past your initial disgust and contempt with me Wink.
  Anyhow, I could simply answer that question based on my belief in God, but that's probably not what you are looking for, and I'd get a stock response for it so I'll stay away from that.

Your point?  I am seeking and preparing to be on the ordination path this fall, partly because, and not in spite of, my unwavering support for increased LGBT representation and acceptance in the Christian church.  Your personal belief in God or what God wants should not dictate the law of the land.  In fact, it's worth absolutely nothing in the realm of civic discourse because it has no bearing on what other members of society believe in or desire.  Nothing warrants its mention.  If you oppose gay marriage for religious reasons, you have the right to not marry a person of the same gender.  You do not have the right to tell other people to live your lifestyle.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why is your view on how marriage should be "defined" superior to any other view?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nobody cares how many gay people you know.  Really.  No one cares about your personal relations with other people.  If you affirm the right of opposite-sex couples to enter a marriage contract and oppose that same right for same-sex couples, you are essentially discriminating against the latter group.  I don't see how this doesn't constitute as hate.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Burden of proof is on you here.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure where you get the divorce rate statistic from, since gay marriage is not legal in most states.  However, domestic violence is common among both straight and gay couples, and the majority of same-sex couples are well functioning similar to that of healthy heterosexual couples.  Even if you can prove statistical disparities between these groups, the burden is on you to draw a clear and direct link to sexual orientation.
    
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

You condescendingly put quotations around the word 'marriage,' when referring to gay marriages.  Why should we think of you as anything other than a bigot, given that you have a clear animus for same-sex couples?

I will say no more until you provide sources.

    About my faith; I recognize this and that is exactly why I chose to leave that argument out. I chose to go along the logical/statistical/factual/what-have-you side. Thus, please keep the Jesus bashing out of it.
     Secondly; my/many many people through history's view on the definition of marriage is "superior" because of a few things. First off, I will note briefly that the term "marriage" as is used today (not the simple unions between men and women used before in Greece, Rome, etc) was created by Christianity. Either way, my so-called "superior" definition is the definition that has been time-tested and time-proven to be the most effective and lasting of any unions between any 2 people. It is the definition that has been widely recognized as the "purpose" of marriage in our society and the definition which is the most logical. Now, if you want to allow gay "marriage" to be legal, than you'd have to redefine the definition of marriage and thus invalidate all marriages by the previous definition. If you want to allow gay "unions", then that is a different argument entirely.
    You then go on to state that nobody cares about how many gays I personally know. Before I continue, let me just state that that is a ridiculous statement. Of course nobody cares. I doubt you care about anything I could possibly say. Quite frankly, I don't care about anything you say either. Don't want to sound mean by saying these things, but it's the sad truth. This is the internet. Anything you say about yourself cannot be validated without myself personally going to your house and observing the said action/situation (Which, might I add, is a bit creepy Tongue). So, yes, I know that you do not care. Save both of us time and leave out obvious, irrelevant, statements. Clearly you intended that to in some way belittle/ "get" me. And, I will once more say, this makes you look bad and makes it more difficult for me to take your position seriously. I said that I personally know many gays for the sole purpose of removing any notion that I am either ignorant or that I "hate" gays. Clearly this was lost on you, however.
    Next, all the "bigot" accusations. Once more this makes it very difficult for me to take you seriously. You cannot "prove" that I am a "bigot", nor can I "prove" that I am not a "bigot", therefore these accusations are irrelevant and beyond the purpose of me stating my opinions here. I plead you again to keep your argument relevant, and logical. Your whole accusation falls under the guise that anybody that opposes gay "marriage" is a "bigot". This statement alone is beyond the realm of reality.
    Lastly, my "condescending" use of quotation marks; I use them around gay "marriage" because I do not consider it to be marriage, therefore I consider the subject to be false and only call it gay "marriage" for lack of a better term. Thus, I insert quotation marks to show that I do not recognize it's so-called legitimacy.
    
       My next post will include sources for you guys; but before I continue, I just want to ask this fellow to please keep any responses cordial and for them to be valuable responses that actually add something to the discussion. You say that you will not respond further until I provide sources (which I am about to do), likewise, I will not respond to you further unless your replies contain something of value and abstain from frivolous and trial accusations. I'd like a relatively serious discussion.
Logged
Vladimir
Rookie
**
Posts: 16
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.55, S: 8.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #954 on: March 13, 2014, 06:21:44 PM »

I see you are dodging all of the questions, Vlad...

 Give me a bit of time, Goldwater; I have many responses to attend to haha. I'm going to spend a bit of time and pull up my sources next. If you have questions after that, then I'll get to them.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,130
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #955 on: March 13, 2014, 06:39:36 PM »
« Edited: March 13, 2014, 06:45:03 PM by Speaker Scott »

    About my faith; I recognize this and that is exactly why I chose to leave that argument out. I chose to go along the logical/statistical/factual/what-have-you side. Thus, please keep the Jesus bashing out of it.

Well, you obviously didn't leave it out, otherwise it wouldn't have been in your post.  And please, the last thing I am is a 'Jesus-basher."

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I fail to see how giving the same rights that everyone else has to gay couples invalidates the integrity of straight marriages.  As far as definitions go, no word is written in stone.  Language is an evolving thing, otherwise we would all be speaking the same language as our ancient ancestors.  Social institutions are evolving, as well, and many languages use one word to refer to multiple things.  In either case, semantics has little bearing on why two consenting adults should be allowed to enter a marriage contract.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can just as easily say, "I have a black friend," and support Jim Crow laws.  Again, it really doesn't matter.  My point is, you can say whatever you want and that doesn't change the context of your views.  No one is going to excuse you for bigotry based on how many gay people you know.  You will be called a bigot, and rightly so.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

But I can.  You openly oppose allowing gay couples to enjoy the same rights as straight couples.  The evidence speaks for itself.  Try saying to someone, "Y'know, I wish they'd bring slavery back.  That's not because I'm racist, or anything."  See how they react.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay.  I will continue to call you a bigot and refuse to recognize you as human-being to show that I don't recognize you as anything else.  Sound good?

I'm going to call a shovel a shovel regardless of how much it hurts your feelings or "makes me look bad."  Get used to it.
Logged
Vladimir
Rookie
**
Posts: 16
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.55, S: 8.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #956 on: March 13, 2014, 07:04:34 PM »

I see you are dodging all of the questions, Vlad...

    Whelp, I spent about 30 minutes readying a post and citing sources, but it says I cannot post links until I have 20 posts. So, you guys decide; should I remove the links or just wait until I have 20 posts and insert the entire thing? (Copy-pasted the whole post into a word document).
Logged
Vladimir
Rookie
**
Posts: 16
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.55, S: 8.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #957 on: March 13, 2014, 07:13:16 PM »

    About my faith; I recognize this and that is exactly why I chose to leave that argument out. I chose to go along the logical/statistical/factual/what-have-you side. Thus, please keep the Jesus bashing out of it.

Well, you obviously didn't leave it out, otherwise it wouldn't have been in your post.  And please, the last thing I am is a 'Jesus-basher."

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I fail to see how giving the same rights that everyone else has to gay couples invalidates the integrity of straight marriages.  As far as definitions go, no word is written in stone.  Language is an evolving thing, otherwise we would all be speaking the same language as our ancient ancestors.  Social institutions are evolving, as well, and many languages use one word to refer to multiple things.  In either case, semantics has little bearing on why two consenting adults should be allowed to enter a marriage contract.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can just as easily say, "I have a black friend," and support Jim Crow laws.  Again, it really doesn't matter.  My point is, you can say whatever you want and that doesn't change the context of your views.  No one is going to excuse you for bigotry based on how many gay people you know.  You will be called a bigot, and rightly so.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

But I can.  You openly oppose allowing gay couples to enjoy the same rights as straight couples.  The evidence speaks for itself.  Try saying to someone, "Y'know, I wish they'd bring slavery back.  That's not because I'm racist, or anything."  See how they react.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay.  I will continue to call you a bigot and refuse to recognize you as human-being to show that I don't recognize you as anything else.  Sound good?

I'm going to call a shovel a shovel regardless of how much it hurts your feelings or "makes me look bad."  Get used to it.


    It's pretty ridiculous to equate a lack of allowance for gay "marriage" to slavery. Texas doesn't have gay "marriage", and my cousin's doing just fine. He's recently got a new boyfriend and brought him over for my New Year's party. He's a nice guy too. But, I may have missed their shackles and whipping scars and the dogs that were chasing them down for escaping their plantation Wink. I never stated that I advocated suppression of gays in any kind or extermination of them or what have you. I simply said that gay "marriage" should not be considered "marriage". Am I a promoter of slaughter of the gay populace for this horrid offence? I'd think that the overwhelming majority of people would disagree with you.
   Anyhow, trying to speak to you logically is impossible. I even resorted to your class of rhetoric to reply. But, like I've said, I will stop responding to you if you continue to fail to make a legitimate statement.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,130
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #958 on: March 13, 2014, 07:16:47 PM »

    About my faith; I recognize this and that is exactly why I chose to leave that argument out. I chose to go along the logical/statistical/factual/what-have-you side. Thus, please keep the Jesus bashing out of it.

Well, you obviously didn't leave it out, otherwise it wouldn't have been in your post.  And please, the last thing I am is a 'Jesus-basher."

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I fail to see how giving the same rights that everyone else has to gay couples invalidates the integrity of straight marriages.  As far as definitions go, no word is written in stone.  Language is an evolving thing, otherwise we would all be speaking the same language as our ancient ancestors.  Social institutions are evolving, as well, and many languages use one word to refer to multiple things.  In either case, semantics has little bearing on why two consenting adults should be allowed to enter a marriage contract.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can just as easily say, "I have a black friend," and support Jim Crow laws.  Again, it really doesn't matter.  My point is, you can say whatever you want and that doesn't change the context of your views.  No one is going to excuse you for bigotry based on how many gay people you know.  You will be called a bigot, and rightly so.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

But I can.  You openly oppose allowing gay couples to enjoy the same rights as straight couples.  The evidence speaks for itself.  Try saying to someone, "Y'know, I wish they'd bring slavery back.  That's not because I'm racist, or anything."  See how they react.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay.  I will continue to call you a bigot and refuse to recognize you as human-being to show that I don't recognize you as anything else.  Sound good?

I'm going to call a shovel a shovel regardless of how much it hurts your feelings or "makes me look bad."  Get used to it.


    It's pretty ridiculous to equate a lack of allowance for gay "marriage" to slavery. Texas doesn't have gay "marriage", and my cousin's doing just fine. He's recently got a new boyfriend and brought him over for my New Year's party. He's a nice guy too. But, I may have missed their shackles and whipping scars and the dogs that were chasing them down for escaping their plantation Wink. I never stated that I advocated suppression of gays in any kind or extermination of them or what have you. I simply said that gay "marriage" should not be considered "marriage". Am I a promoter of slaughter of the gay populace for this horrid offence? I'd think that the overwhelming majority of people would disagree with you.

Way to miss the entire point.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thank you for ignoring half my post.

I don't care if you decide to not respond anymore.  You will still be challenged on your assertions.
Logged
Vladimir
Rookie
**
Posts: 16
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.55, S: 8.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #959 on: March 13, 2014, 07:26:16 PM »

    About my faith; I recognize this and that is exactly why I chose to leave that argument out. I chose to go along the logical/statistical/factual/what-have-you side. Thus, please keep the Jesus bashing out of it.

Well, you obviously didn't leave it out, otherwise it wouldn't have been in your post.  And please, the last thing I am is a 'Jesus-basher."

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I fail to see how giving the same rights that everyone else has to gay couples invalidates the integrity of straight marriages.  As far as definitions go, no word is written in stone.  Language is an evolving thing, otherwise we would all be speaking the same language as our ancient ancestors.  Social institutions are evolving, as well, and many languages use one word to refer to multiple things.  In either case, semantics has little bearing on why two consenting adults should be allowed to enter a marriage contract.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can just as easily say, "I have a black friend," and support Jim Crow laws.  Again, it really doesn't matter.  My point is, you can say whatever you want and that doesn't change the context of your views.  No one is going to excuse you for bigotry based on how many gay people you know.  You will be called a bigot, and rightly so.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

But I can.  You openly oppose allowing gay couples to enjoy the same rights as straight couples.  The evidence speaks for itself.  Try saying to someone, "Y'know, I wish they'd bring slavery back.  That's not because I'm racist, or anything."  See how they react.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay.  I will continue to call you a bigot and refuse to recognize you as human-being to show that I don't recognize you as anything else.  Sound good?

I'm going to call a shovel a shovel regardless of how much it hurts your feelings or "makes me look bad."  Get used to it.


    It's pretty ridiculous to equate a lack of allowance for gay "marriage" to slavery. Texas doesn't have gay "marriage", and my cousin's doing just fine. He's recently got a new boyfriend and brought him over for my New Year's party. He's a nice guy too. But, I may have missed their shackles and whipping scars and the dogs that were chasing them down for escaping their plantation Wink. I never stated that I advocated suppression of gays in any kind or extermination of them or what have you. I simply said that gay "marriage" should not be considered "marriage". Am I a promoter of slaughter of the gay populace for this horrid offence? I'd think that the overwhelming majority of people would disagree with you.

Way to miss the entire point.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thank you for ignoring half my post.

I don't care if you decide to not respond anymore.  You will still be challenged on your assertions.

    I want to be challenged for my assertions. If I didn't, I wouldn't be spending time typing all this Smiley
Logged
Vladimir
Rookie
**
Posts: 16
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.55, S: 8.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #960 on: March 13, 2014, 07:35:11 PM »

Also, I'm open to other arguments as well. But, I don't want to leave off on the gay thing unfinished... just need to keep finding ways to make semi-meaningless posts so I can get my count to 20 and be able to post all of my sources Smiley
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,063
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #961 on: March 14, 2014, 10:39:12 PM »

"I'm also opposed to taking rights from others in order to benefit other individuals" - Is this not the foundation of modern society?
Logged
Flake
JacobTiver
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,688
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #962 on: March 15, 2014, 05:18:00 PM »

A modern Socialist society maybe.

lol
Logged
Cassius
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,586


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #963 on: March 15, 2014, 06:21:26 PM »

"I'm also opposed to taking rights from others in order to benefit other individuals" - Is this not the foundation of modern society?

To some extent, it is among the foundation stones of every society that has ever existed. I mean, some of us right-wingers, myself included, talk a big game about "left-wing social engineering'. We're correct, in the sense that the left does like to engage in social engineering (through the tax system, through education etc.). But, and this is a big but, so do we (or at least a few of us). I mean, take a few of my views, such as on keeping most drugs criminalised, supporting restrictions on Sunday shopping and censoring obscene publications. All of those count as some form of social engineering. The truth is, everybody supports it to some extent.
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,063
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #964 on: March 15, 2014, 08:41:27 PM »

"I'm also opposed to taking rights from others in order to benefit other individuals" - Is this not the foundation of modern society?
A modern Socialist society maybe.

So how's the public fire department working out for you?
Logged
ajackson
Rookie
**
Posts: 57
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: 0.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #965 on: March 17, 2014, 12:52:09 AM »

I have a general mish mash of positions that could be summarized as "vaguely libertarian, centrist Republican".

On social issues; I adhere to the theory that liberty should be maximized such that we are free to administrate our lives in any manner we wish so long as the equal rights of others are not violated in any manner by our actions. I'm far from a radical Liberatrian, but I am pro-drug legalization and anti-surveillance state. I am generally opposed to social engineering and "progressive" regulations such as smoking and school prayer bans.

On economics; For starters, I want to abolish the federal reserve and the private central banking system in favor of a truly federal central bank that issues debt-free currency and that is backed  by either gold and silver or a bundle of several commodities which includes gold and silver.

Beyond that;
  • I want to replace as much welfare spending as possible with direct cash payments in the form of refundable tax credits.
  • I am opposed to Obamacare, but my plan involves replacing the entire bill with the public option - a government run insurance company that offers below market rates, forcing downward pressure on prices in the private sector - I oppose the personal mandate.
  • I am not opposed to a progressive tax system, but do believe rates should be flatter. I want the child and EITC credit expanded (in accordance with the first bullet), and fewer brackets (I like some of the proposals for two brackets). I support abolishing the corporate tax.

These would the issues I'm most focused on at the moment.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #966 on: March 25, 2014, 10:07:26 AM »

Social Policy
Abortion: Allow on demand at any stage of pregnancy, with no questions asked, no frivolous restrictions placed upon it by state legislatures and completely free of charge.
Drugs: Legalize 'em.
Censorship: No thank you.
Gay Marriage: I'm partial to the 'end marriage and give everybody a civil union' school of thought, but I think the time when that might have been a possibility has largely passed, so I'm obviously in favor of marriage equality and am favorable toward the idea of further re-defining marriage and allowing more people to get in on the action (i.e. legalization of group marriage) in years to come.
Death penalty: No thank you.
Prostitution: Legalize it.
Church and State: Ban religious schools, restrict religion in the public sphere, and tax churches proportional to their income.
Stem cell research: Support (not living in 2003)
PATRIOT Act: Repeal it.
Gun control: Completely opposed, legalize all guns and require gun training courses in schools. Ideally replace the standing army with citizens' militia, same goes for the police force (assuming we're also abolishing most of the criminal code in favor of a more restitution-oriented kind of criminal code, of course) and nationalize the gun industry. Very strongly supportive of "gun culture" and individual self defense.
Assisted suicide: Legalize it.
Gambling: Collectivize the gambling industry and make it a socially productive activity.

Electoral Reform
Term Limits: I oppose term limits in that they're anti-democratic. A better solution is to implement recall provisions for all elected officials, from members of Congress to the President.
Statehood: For whom? Let the territories decide their own fate, err on the side of independence. Ideally redraw all state boundaries along cultural/geographic/economic lines.
Voting Age: 16.
Campaign Finance Reform: Ban all corporate donations, end corporate personhood, limit campaigning to two weeks only, completely cover all campaign expenses out of the public treasury.
Gerrymandering: Adopt proportional representation for the House of Representatives on the D'hondt method, abolish the Senate.
Voter ID: End voter registration, let anyone who can make it to the polls vote.

Economic Issues
Welfare: Universal basic income + National Healthcare + Universal housing program + $21 an hour minimum wage + Right to a Job + National Education
Unions: Should essentially run the economy, very very very supportive, abolish all restrictions on them (Taft-Hartley, Landrum-Griffin, Hatch Act, ect), encourage their growth, ban scabs, require union shops and hiring halls, etc. Collectivize industry and allow unions to manage it wherever industry is collectivized.
Privatization: Make a U-Turn and start collectivizing large industries, with vital sectors divided between state owners and worker owners. Eventually stamp out private enterprise altogether and transform the economy into a worker-owned and managed democratic enterprise. (i.e. socialism)
Environment: something something free mass transit something something universal auto insurance something something national parks
Minimum Wage: $21/hour
Taxation: Land Value Tax pls
Healthcare: NHS style, with the state owning the hospitals and allowing Nurses and Doctors' unions to manage them; the state should also own all drug companies and produce useful drugs for public consumption
Trade: End "free trade," in favor of an industrial policy focused on employing Americans and creating products that are long lasting and cheap. Collectivize factories left here by ungrateful corporations and let workers own and manage them.
Embargo: End it, recognize the Castro government and make amends to build a better relationship in Latin America.
Pork: Ban
Subsidies: Nationalize/collectivize any institution receiving federal dollars
Military: End standing army in favor of citizen militias, end all overseas activity, bring troops home etc

Foreign Policy
War: Only if the US is attacked
Israel-Palestine: Recognize Palestine, ignore Israel
Draft: No, but favorable to the idea of universal national service in non-military settings, provided said service pays union wages to those employed by it (and because that's not likely, the answer is emphatically 'no')
UN: Support, make more democratic and weaken the influence of the Security Council
Nukes: Seek international treaty banning or placing them under UN control
Foreign Aid: Cancel all debt owed to the US and leave them alone
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,063
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #967 on: March 25, 2014, 02:30:30 PM »

Abortion: Allow on demand at any stage of pregnancy, with no questions asked, no frivolous restrictions placed upon it by state legislatures and completely free of charge.

So you're saying that life begins at birth? How did you come to this conclusion?

Gun control: Completely opposed, legalize all guns and require gun training courses in schools. Ideally replace the standing army with citizens' militia, same goes for the police force (assuming we're also abolishing most of the criminal code in favor of a more restitution-oriented kind of criminal code, of course) and nationalize the gun industry. Very strongly supportive of "gun culture" and individual self defense.

What if the "self-defense" turns out to be unnecessary - would have acquitted George Zimmerman? Does "abolishing most of the criminal code" mean changing our punishment system or abolishing most criminal laws? What if a psycho goes and takes a cannon and kills a hundred people? Are you aware that a gun in the home is more likely to kill a child than an intruder?

Voter ID: End voter registration, let anyone who can make it to the polls vote.

What if they're not citizens? I don't think Venezuelans should be allowed to choose our leaders.

Unions: Should essentially run the economy, very very very supportive, abolish all restrictions on them (Taft-Hartley, Landrum-Griffin, Hatch Act, ect), encourage their growth, ban scabs, require union shops and hiring halls, etc. Collectivize industry and allow unions to manage it wherever industry is collectivized.

I'm inherently suspicious of anyone "essentially running" anything with no restrictions. What if unions go bad (and don't say they can do no wrong because of your union fetishism)?

Military: End standing army in favor of citizen militias, end all overseas activity, bring troops home etc
War: Only if the US is attacked
Foreign Aid: Cancel all debt owed to the US and leave them alone

I agree with most of this stuff, but what if, say, North Korea attacks South Korea and the only way to stop them is military intervention (Kim Jong-un is not one for diplomatic negotiation, after all)? Are we not obliged to defend our friend, an ally, and a democratic state from North Korean dictatorship? Secondly, what if South Korea's economy is devastated by the Second Korean War and they need our help to get back on our feet?
Logged
H. Ross Peron
General Mung Beans
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,406
Korea, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: -1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #968 on: March 25, 2014, 07:44:42 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do you mean by the bolded portion?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Would absentee voting and/or voting by mail still exist?



Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,130
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #969 on: March 25, 2014, 07:50:37 PM »

Ban religious schools, restrict religion in the public sphere,
Would 'religious schools' include seminaries and colleges?  If so, I guess I can kiss that M.Div goodbye. Sad

I'm also curious to know what the second part means.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do clarify.  So, anyone who drives to a voting booth gets to vote and not show or tell anyone anything, regardless of whether they've voted before that day?
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,063
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #970 on: March 25, 2014, 09:06:36 PM »

I assume Tiffany means no crosses on public land and suchlike.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #971 on: March 25, 2014, 10:56:11 PM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, I believe that life begins at conception, because it's honestly kind of bizarre to argue otherwise. I just don't place an overwhelming priority on PRESERVING LIFE AT ALL COSTS that a lot of folks do. In my mind, however, the rights of the mother, as the carrier of the child, outweigh the rights of the unborn child and she should have full bodily autonomy until that child is born.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No sane advocate of self defense would permit so-called Stand Your Ground laws. Those go against the very spirit of self defense. When I say 'abolishing most of the criminal code', I mostly mean eliminating the causes of crime, gutting laws against victimless crimes, and changing our punishment system so that prisons are replaced by something more humane. I am definitely a prison abolitionist and support the end of the prison system as it currently exists. I don't think that a society that teaches children to use guns from a young age and make sure that said weaponry is properly maintained and taken care of is going to run into those kinds of problems. Plus, assuming want was eliminated, you wouldn't have the vast majority of crime, which involves property.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I support abolishing citizenship as a concept.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I favor a syndicalist economy, broadly speaking. Unions should be the basic economic unit of the economy and should hash out what the economy will look like, acting through workers' councils to plan production and distribution of goods. So long as internal union democracy is maintained, I have literally no problem with transferring the whole of private property and industry over to the workers themselves, acting through their unions.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

South Korea is a big boy. It can defend itself. So long as the U.S. has commitments to South Korea, I would support honoring those commitments, but in the meantime I would like the U.S. to sever those commitments and let the South Koreans defend themselves. In the event of a Second Korean War I would hope that the U.S. would enact some kind of aid package to South Korea, with no strings attached, though of course I'm not naive enough to actually think the U.S. would do so without significant 'concessions' in the form of South Korean capital destroying unions, privatizing decision-making, etc.



Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No religious displays on public land, mostly.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Definitely. In fact, voting would be as easy as possible, with multiple ways of doing it, from voting online (on extremely secure servers) to postal voting to absentee voting. I'd like to see elections moved to the weekend, starting on Friday and ending on Monday.



Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nah, I was mostly referring to private religious schools for persons under 18.

See above on the second part.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

One would assume that if they've been there once before a poll worker might notice? If not, I'm sure there'd be a way of writing down a name once you got in and voted, just for record-keeping purposes.
Logged
RTX
Rookie
**
Posts: 60
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #972 on: March 26, 2014, 08:52:18 PM »
« Edited: March 27, 2014, 07:12:44 AM by RTX »

Social Policy
Abortion: Against, with exceptions for rape, mother's health, and severe fetal abnormalities that would render it unviable. I'd be ok with states deciding their own policy up to 24 weeks. No public funding whatsoever.
Drugs: Decriminalize weed. Stop the drug war against the others, but keep illegal.
Censorship: Against, except for illegal things
Gay Marriage: The federal government doesn't issue marriage licenses, so I think it should be left up to the states to decide.
Death penalty: Undecided. I can see both sides of the argument.
Prostitution: Allow it, but heavily restrict where brothels can be set up
Church and State: Keep separate. I have no issue with "In God We Trust" on the money, after all, they are technically Federal Reserve Notes.
Stem cell research: Support, as long as it's not derived from embryos. Heavily support research.
PATRIOT Act: Repeal. Also eliminate the DHS.
Gun control: Keep it how it is now.
Assisted suicide: Against.
Gambling: Allow it

Electoral Reform
Term Limits: Against.
Statehood: If 2/3 of the states agree, a territory can become a state, or a region of an existing state can break away and form a new state.
Voting Age: 18
Campaign Finance Reform: Companies and unions restricted from donating  
Gerrymandering: It's going to exist as long as race plays an issue
Voter ID: Completely support, and allow free access to an acceptable form of identification.

Economic Issues
Welfare: Should primarily be for those who cannot help themselves. For people who fall on hard times, there should be assistance, but only for a limited amount of time.
Unions: I don't support mandatory membership in a union, and I think unions generally end up cannibalizing their members. There can be a mutually beneficial and respectful relationship though between businesses and unions where both sides work in good faith together without vilifying the other.
Privatization: Privatize AMTRAK. Raise the Social Security age for people 40 and younger.
Environment: Convert most government vehicles to natural gas or electricity and require all future non-law enforcement vehicles to be run on natural gas or electricity. Test pilot placing solar panels on government buildings. No carbon taxes or cap-and-trade. Against nuclear power.
Minimum Wage: Tie it to inflation - with a cap of 3% per year. It adjusts every five years.
Taxation: $1 income tax on the first $30,000. Cut other rates by 10%. Increase tariffs. Reduce the corporate tax. Eliminate the inheritance tax.
Healthcare: Repeal Obamacare. Make the FDA more efficient in approving new drugs. Require labeling of GMOs. Remove fluoride from the water.
Trade: Repeal NAFTA, CAFTA, and the other "free trade" agreements that hurt Americans. They are scams - true free trade agreements would be the repealing of the laws that originally created the impediments to trading freely, not passing bills that create rules of how to "freely" trade and set up trans-national courts that supersede US law. I'd rather spend a little more for American-made products.
Embargo: Doesn't really matter to me.
Pork: Each congressional district gets an equal amount of money each session to use for pork projects. Whatever the figure is cannot be exceeded. If it is, it is taken out of the representative's salary.
Subsidies: I think it depends on a case-by-case basis, but generally against.
Military: Close most overseas military bases and reduce the defense budget accordingly.
Miscellaneous: Reenact Glass-Steagal. Support a Balanced Budget Amendment.

Foreign Policy
War: Non-interventonist. No wars, unless we're attacked or unless there is an immediate, verifiable threat
Israel-Palestine: Recognize Palestine, substantially reduce foreign aid to Israel.
Draft: Against.
UN: Get the US out. The UN believes the government gives people their rights, instead of the people giving the government its rights. This is the antithesis of what the United States is about.
Nukes: They're here to stay, might as well keep them to provide a good deterrent
Foreign Aid: Drastically reduce foreign aid. Solve American problems first.
Logged
daveosupremo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 468
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.32, S: -2.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #973 on: March 26, 2014, 10:10:49 PM »

Social Policy*
Abortion: Only in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother. Focus on education and contraception as a means to curb unwanted pregnancies. Encourage charities and other non-governmental organizations to provide free vasectomies and tubal ligation surgeries.
Drugs: No federal regulations for possession, but stricter penalties for trafficking. States should decide drug policies, not the federal government. Ideally, implement marijuana policies similar to Colorado and Washington. Harder drug use treated as a public health issue, while distribution remains a criminal offense. Tighter regulation of prescription drugs, up to and including revocation of medical licenses for over-prescribing medication.
Censorship: None whatsoever, with the exception of child pornography.
Gay Marriage: Get the government out of marriage. Legally binding contracts such as civil unions are okay for anybody, including among more than two partners. Marriage would become a largely religious institution, as it has been historically. Also, no tax incentives for civilly united couples (more on that later).
Death penalty: I don’t like the idea of the government taking the lives of its own citizens, except in the case of treason and terrorism.
Prostitution: “Selling is legal. F***ing is legal. Why isn’t selling f***ing legal?”~George Carlin. Prostitution should be legalized and regulated by the states.
Church and State: Religious symbols are fine on public land, but federal money should not be used to erect them. Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion. No religious litmus test for public officials. Teachers can pray with students, but not compel students to participate. 
Stem cell research: Fully support.
PATRIOT Act: Repeal and replace it. No domestic spying. No storing of call records. Eliminate the TSA and DHS.
Gun control: Completely opposed, legalize all guns and allow local school districts to provide firearm training to students. Allow non-violent felons to own guns after their sentences have been served. Implement stand-your-ground laws and castle doctrine in all 50 states.
Assisted suicide: Against it, but encourage insurance companies to include mental health and counseling in health care plans.
Gambling: Treat it like any other business. Allow casinos to go up anywhere, and tax them on their profits.
*Because I believe that local governments should trump state governments, and state governments should trump federal in most cases, allow local and state governments to make specific changes to social policies implemented by the higher echelons, with the exceptions of abortion, capital punishment and assisted suicide.
Electoral Reform
Term Limits: Enact term limits on the three branches of government to prevent a ruling class of government oligarchs passing laws that do not apply to them. Nobody needs to spend 40 years in the senate. Term limits would not apply to individuals who move to a different branch (i.e. a two term senator can still run for president). This would apply to the Supreme Court as well.
Statehood: No change. The will of the people of the territory, followed by the approval of congress.
Voting Age: 18.
Campaign Finance Reform: Free speech is free speech. Allow unlimited donations to political campaigns, to make politicians responsible for the content of their own commercials.
Gerrymandering: No change.
Voter ID: Implement and enforce voter ID laws in all 50 states.

Economic Issues
Welfare: Mandatory drug tests for all recipients. Able bodied individuals must be looking for a job or advancing education to increase marketability in order to collect welfare.
Unions: Eliminate all public unions. There should be no legislation of any kind related to private sector unions.
Privatization: As much as possible. Federal government should sell virtually all federal land back to the states. States should sell it as they see fit. Government industries should be privatized. Government research should be largely privatized.
Environment: Approve Keystone. Drill ANWR and offshore. Stop all energy subsidies to green energy and oil companies. Deregulate the energy industry.
Minimum Wage: Let states and localities decide minimum wage. Eliminate federal minimum wage.
Taxation: Flat tax for corporations and individuals. Eliminate ALL loopholes, including for charity and marriage.
Trade: Encourage free trade. Use sanctions on a case by case basis to encourage countries to see things our way.
Embargo: Keep it in place, and work to encourage Cubans to implement change in their own country and elect more suitable leaders after the Castro’s are out of power.
Pork: Ban
Subsidies: Far too broad a topic to cover here. Cut some, leave some. Government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers, or altering the market.
Military: Increase standards for soldiers, and kick out soldiers who do not meet the standards. Decrease the size of active military in favor of a larger National Guard and Reserve force, and focus on increased technology. Use the military to break enemy nations, not fix them. Audit the Department of Defense and cut redundant spending and programs (I have been active duty Army for 7 years, and I assure you there is a lot of redundancy and waste). End baseline budgeting for the military. Have individual units prepare budgets a year in advance and be able to provide a reason for every requested penny (this should actually apply to every cabinet level department). Leave Afghanistan. Close unnecessary bases worldwide, and bring troops home. If we’re going to police the world, we should do it from space and with missiles and aircraft carriers, not tens of thousands of soldiers just hanging out in Europe and Asia.  Increase the size of the Navy, and control the oceans. Also, get rid of all the contractors. I could go on all day, but there is some serious reform necessary in the DOD. Most importantly, make sure our technology is 10 times better than anyone elses, and never stop improving it.

Foreign Policy
War: Only if a matter of national security.
Israel-Palestine: Let the Israelis and Palestinians sort it out. Recognize Israel’s sovereignty and borders and fully support them militarily if they are attacked.
Draft: An emphatic No.
UN: Should have no say whatsoever on U.S. domestic policy, or control of the internet. Increase our influence in the UN, or stop providing over 20% of its budget.
Nukes: Keep every single one of ours, and prevent as many other countries as possible from getting them.
Foreign Aid: Cancel debt owed to the US by the poorest nations. Stop automatic foreign aid. Allow countries to ask for aid on a case by case basis. Provide American made products, rather than cash. Provide training and aid to build infrastructure in impoverished nations, rather than feeding a money pit.
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,039
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #974 on: March 27, 2014, 12:18:08 AM »

Wait, Vlad was banned for his political views? I don't buy it.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... 63  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.087 seconds with 9 queries.