The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: Nick_Miller on February 02, 2017, 02:39:42 PM
-
In the hopes of proving some common ground exists...
Let's say you are a Democrat/progressive. On what issue(s) do you typically side with the Republicans/conservatives on? Same question for Republicans/conservatives. What issue(s) do you think the Democrats/progressives are right about? I'm leaving third party folks out of this analysis because you already probably already have some beliefs that are typically held by both parties.
I'm a registered independent but admittedly left of center. Still, I agree with Republicans on a few points.
1) The national debt and balanced budget. It's irresponsible to let it keep growing and growing. Now my suggestion to resolve it would include more taxes on the wealthy (something the GOP would not be on board with), but I still agree that it's a big issue that must be addressed. I don't hear the Dems talking much the national debt.
2) General messages about hard work and meritocracy. I know it's not an even playing field, and I understand that some of us are much more privileged than others, but I still think the Dems sometimes beat on the "it's not fair!" drum a bit too hard. The vast majority of folks work hard every day to support their families. I do understand why those folks get pissed at the idea of (seemingly) abled bodied people taking welfare benefits or otherwise not working hard.
3) "Hard on crime." I support some drug legalization (marijuana at least) but I have NO sympathy for people who steal from others, attack people, etc. I am a former prosecutor and saw more losers in a few years than I can count. Some people just seem determined to make really really crappy choices (and yes heroin does fuel some crimes too, and that's a tricky wicket to solve).
Anyone else?
-
I'm left of center on almost all things, but I flop for:
1. gun control. Cold, dead hands.
2. PC language police. I think everyone's heart is the right place. Everyone wants to be named, and recognized. It's great that we're moving towards it. But implementation is currently running riot, and that dilutes the central message with unproductive eyerolling.
-
Great topic - I lean right
1) Democrats who are for legalizing pot and ending the drug war on pot. Complete waste of time/money.
2) Democrats who are for civil liberties/ending spying on citizens. Not sure if either party cares, but democrats claim to. We should follow the constitution. If you want to look at my phone records, etc; get a warrant.
3) Civil seizure. Creates way too much incentive for bad behavior by the police. If you can convict of a crime, then we can discuss seizure (and who should keep the proceeds).
Again, nice topic.
MW
PS - Sailor thank you for item 2 on your list!
-
I'm right of center.
But i dont care about abortion think its everyones choice not mine to make for you
I think a central payer Healthcare system is the most efficient and should be instituted
I believe we will have to pay a living wage with the rapid advancement of AI
I dont think we should police the world and think we should limit our military.
I think we should make the ganja legal and tax the F out of it to balance our national debt and likely fund healthcare for all.
-
Hmm.
1) I am for increased safety checks around guns.
2) I like infrastructure spending.
3) I hate political correctness.
4) I am for prison reform.
5) I would legalize many drugs.
6) If I want to end my own life, I should be able to do it. it's my life, dammit.
7) I think the best way to minimize abortion is mandatory sex education and free birth control.
8) I am clueless about how to fix health care, but I think anyone should be able to self-insure for the small stuff and buy major medical for the big stuff.
9) I am fine with higher taxes, including those on inheritance. Tax rates are historically low.
10) I have no problem with a VAT tax.
11) I think there should be more "industrial" high schools teaching technical skills and awarding associates degrees. These should be free.
12) I think we are testing our kids so much that they aren't learning how to think for themselves and solve problems, which is what success in life is all about.
13) I believe that providing homeless people with housing and support saves governments money.
14) I think we are too quick to throw money at many problems, though.
15) I think immigration and diversity made this country great, and if we do anything to suppress them, we do ourselves a disservice.
16) Anyone who denies the science behind evolution is an idiot.
I was able to see Michael Bloomberg's tenure in NYC at close range, since I worked there at the time. Although his administration was certainly not perfect, I was and am a big fan of his cerebral, data-driven approach to problems.
When I take tests on the internet for political affiliation, I usually get ranked as a moderate with libertarian leanings. This past year has definitely pushed me to the left though. If you're a moderate, where you vote depends on who frightens you more - the crazy people on the left or the crazy people on the right. As things now stand, I find the crazy people on the right to be absolutely terrifying.
-
Pretty far right, but socially lean left. Basically, I have no interest telling people what to do if they pay me the same courtesy.
Abortion - why is this still a debate? it's legal. I'm with Billy Clinton: safe, legal, rare
Birth control/sex ed: How do abortions become safe/legal/rare? Sex ed and BC.
Gay marriage: what interest does anyone have in the government telling us who we can marry (amongst legal consenting adults)?
Pot: legalize it
-
I've never been able to comfortably put myself on 'the political spectrum' - in part because I share positions held by either end.
(in no particualr order)
1) marriage - it's none of the government's business who's boinking who as long as it's consensual. Ergo, yay gay marriage, yay straight marriage, yay no marriage (which is important when it comes to adoption, survivors rights, etc. Your life partner should get the same hospital/tax/legal rights whether you're married or not)
2) gun control. Law abiding citizens should be able to buy and carry guns, but we ought to have background checks and close gun-show loopholes
3) Abortion - personally against it but I won't prevent another from having one in the 1st trimester or when her life is at stake. Regarding the latter, that should be between her and her licensed physician, not government. In other words, "safe, legal, rare"
4) Federal government - smaller overall
5) Military - Much smaller. It's ridiculous how much we spend
6) Immigration - Biggest long-term opportunity with the US is to grab more motivated individuals and keep them here (e.g. H1-B visas).
7) National debt - we need to make reducing it a priority, see deficit (#8).
8) deficit spending - necessary during extreme events (e.g. war) but we've overused it and become addicted to it.
9) Pot - I don't like it and don't want it unrestricted, but our recent legal actions against pot users are just stupid. Regulate like cigarettes/alcohol/etc I suppose.
10) estate tax - definitely, and set closer to the $2MM mark. Anything over should be taxed at income-tax levels
11) income tax - progressive and near current levels
12) tax deductions - get rid of every single one.
13) VAT tax - no.
14) SS - keep but means-test recipients. For every $100k you have in savings you get 2% less.
15) IRAs - increase limit to $10k and index to inflation.
16) health care - basic services and prevention for everyone provided by the government. Comprehensive care from highly-regulated private companies which are profit-limited.
17) Stop this archane practice of making people file taxes every damn year. You pay taxes out of your paycheck. At the end of the year the IRS mails YOU a summary of what you paid and what it thinks you should have paid. You can agree with their assessment - if not only THEN do you file a tax document. Given the lack of tax-breaks (#12) it shoudn't be hard to do, and free tax software for everyone (not just those making $65k or less...)
18) Everyone gets exactly 1 week to cast a ballot for any federal election, and everyone who is eligible is automatically registered. Results are not announced until all 50 states close their polls.
ETA: more things I thought of.
-
14) SS - keep but means-test recipients. For every $100k you have in savings you get 2% less.
I never thought about that one, but it sounds okay to me. I'll add that to my list.
-
14) SS - keep but means-test recipients. For every $100k you have in savings you get 2% less.
I never thought about that one, but it sounds okay to me. I'll add that to my list.
yeah... I'll admit there are two problems with the idea. The first is logistical - how do you prevent rich(er) people from hiding assets? A better integrated banking system (even global) is a partial solution. The second is philisophicial - people who don't plan would get the most. However, I think that's kinda the whole point of this social safety net. Partial solution; by making investing more attractive (e.g. increasing IRA cap) it will reward the good people more than it will the lazy.
-
I am conservative, very fiscally conservative and I dislike and distrust any political solutions for
The People that just means more government programs giving The People stuff. I want my country to run a balanced budget.
I think the things that made this country great are
1)publicly funded education
2) great natural resources
3) and a well conceived Constitution
All these have supported The People in thriving.
I dont care who sleeps with who, who says prayers when or where, who aborts and how often, who smokes weed or shoots heroin, who has ten children. But I dont want to pay for any of it.
So I agree with the left in hands off in legislating the social stuff. I just dont want to pay for all of the social stuff that seem to be constant pressure from the left.
-
I'm a democrat, but here's where I agree with republicans:
Free trade (remember up until a couple of weeks ago when republicans were for free trade??)
Lean against some gun control laws (I grew up in Texas)
Believe in capital punishment (just wish it was applied without racial bias)
-
I lean pretty far left of center, and not sure I'm addressing the question but here goes:
Personal Responsibility: Yes. Unless you're independently wealthy an able bodied adult should work and take care of themselves. Oh, and equal pay for equal work, gender and color blind.
Education: This should be equal for all. Schools in zip codes with richer people should not be better than those in poorer neighborhoods. Level playing field for all. And if you want private school, Jesus school, or home school, great. Just don't expect the government to kick in. Take what's offered or pay for it yourself.
ChildrenIf you don't want them, no problem. If you want/need an abortion, have one. Even though my personal belief is that the planet already has plenty of people, and not into controlling anyone's right to procreate, if you have 10 children, you need to be responsible for them. Cap off the tax deduction at 2 per couple, and if you still want to have a litter of kids, go for it. Just don't expect government support. Don't have children you can't afford to support.
Government: Yes, we need regulation. In finance, in housing, for automobiles, business and the environment. To think otherwise is folly. Use common sense. Working for the government should be seen as service to the public and should be respected. In return civil servants should treat their constituents well. There should be bonuses for a job well done, and a way to rid the public of workers who act like Twunts. While oversight can seem onerous, don't be an idiot. It's OK to build buildings that don't fall down on people in an earthquake. At the same time, if you have your heart set on a beach house and you live in a hurricane zone, don't expect a FEMA check for your million dollar house if it gets damaged.Not my fault!
Environment: Do we still need this conversation? Guess so. Fracking, REALLY? Can we as a society make infrastructure investments in wind, solar, tides? What is this, 1958? Let's get with the program and create great jobs and stop fucking up the earth.
Churches, Religion: Believe whatever you want, or have no belief at all. Tax the hell out of churches, especially Rick Warren type of money making enterprises. Bitch slap Joel Osteen the next time you see him.
Military: We need defense, sadly. But do we need military bases in peaceful places around the globe? Small cities paid for by US taxpayers? Big questions, few answers. But one thing we need to do is take care of veterans who come back from a war zone with something blown off. Can't we do better?
-
I'll add mandatory service requirements to my list. Two years military, or 3 years civil service. The melting pot effect will be good for everyone. And hopefully skinny us us, as a collective.
-
Great topic.
I'm a left-leaning independent. Off the top of my head, I'd say:
- Favor leaner government, with more oversight for efficiency and efficacy.
- Big on privacy, hate the ways gov't (and corporations and foreign gov'ts and creepy guys and tweens from Macedonia) can now spy on private citizens
- Recognize the divisive aspects of affirmative action, as well as its benefits. Part of the answer may lie in giving poor children of all ethnicities a boost so that they have access to equal education; however there will never be enough musical chairs for everyone, and bitterness will result from this zero-sum game, until there is more wage equality/feeling of security in the US.
- Guns. Don't carry, myself, but I can see the appeal of hunting, collecting, etc. On the other hand, don't get why people are so paranoid about any sort of regulation, and I don't feel it's necessary to collect assault weapons. Why not try collecting vintage cars, fine china, Japanese swords, or other shiny things instead?
- Want to reduce abortions, but feel the best route is by shrinking the reasons why unwanted pregnancies happen. This means increasing access to contraception and quality low-cost childcare, sex education for teens, reducing stresses on families, etc.
- I'm all about family, and personal rules, and responsibility.
- Christian and churchgoing, though not a Bible literalist in any way.
-
I think I am in love with this thread.
-
I lean Left but I agree with the Right on:
- The goal of balanced budgets and minimising taxation, allocating welfare to only those who need it.
- The importance of reward for effort, and equality of opportunity, not just entrenching welfare dependency
- The benefits of free markets, free trade and capitalism in general, with the caveat of proper government regulation around competition, fair contracts and strong environmental laws.
- The tiring public discourse on LGBTIAAQQ issues. Leave your sexuality in the bedroom please, where you are entitled to do whatever or whoever you please.
I think I am in love with this thread.
But you didn't answer it!
-
I think I am in love with this thread.
But you didn't answer it!
Well I don't ascribe to either of the listed political parties, so I assumed I was exempt according to the rules laid out in post #1.
And if one has been reading the off-topic section, one can clearly see I don't agree with many fundamentals of either side... :D
-
I lean Left but I agree with the Right on:
- The goal of balanced budgets and minimising taxation, allocating welfare to only those who need it.
- The importance of reward for effort, and equality of opportunity, not just entrenching welfare dependency
- The benefits of free markets, free trade and capitalism in general, with the caveat of proper government regulation around competition, fair contracts and strong environmental laws.
- The tiring public discourse on LGBTIAAQQ issues. Leave your sexuality in the bedroom please, where you are entitled to do whatever or whoever you please.
I think I am in love with this thread.
But you didn't answer it!
This is good, I could sign up for all of this.
-
I think I am in love with this thread.
But you didn't answer it!
Well I don't ascribe to either of the listed political parties, so I assumed I was exempt according to the rules laid out in post #1.
And if one has been reading the off-topic section, one can clearly see I don't agree with many fundamentals of either side... :D
I am with you. I don't ascribe to either side.
-
I lean very much right.
I agree with legalizing many of the drugs that are currently illegal.
I agree with some sort of sliding scale for SS based on means testing.
Unlike many Republicans, I am in favor of much smaller government. The GOP makes noises about smaller government, but somehow it never happens.
Some have mentioned mandatory service. I'm not a fan of mandatory military service. We end up with plenty of folks who decide joining the military was a mistake, they take up much of our time.
-
I am a registered independent but lean pretty left these days:
1) I don't agree with legalizing pot without more research into the long term effects of the drug on brain development. I don't think we have a handle on the legal drugs we do allow.
2) I think we need to reduce the debt.
3) I don't like abortion and would most likely never get one myself unless my life was in jeopardy. I would be happy if there was never another abortion on this planet.
4) I don't like the left's intolerance of other ideas besides their own and the need to create safe spaces. All ideas need open debate and stress testing. For similar reasons, I hate the terms "hate crime" and "hate speech".
-
I am a registered independent but lean pretty left these days:
1) I don't agree with legalizing pot without more research into the long term effects of the drug on brain development. I don't think we have a handle on the legal drugs we do allow.
2) I think we need to reduce the debt.
3) I don't like abortion and would most likely never get one myself unless my life was in jeopardy. I would be happy if there was never another abortion on this planet.
4) I don't like the left's intolerance of other ideas besides their own and the need to create safe spaces. All ideas need open debate and stress testing. For similar reasons, I hate the terms "hate crime" and "hate speech".
1) you realize prohibition doesnt lead to less use of any drug there is actually research that shows it increases it. look at what Spain has done and their drug use has decreased dramatically and they are spending money getting people help who want it.
-
This thread isn't about debate, right?
-
This thread isn't about debate, right?
I think the spirit of this thread should be light on the debate. We are talking about issues where we agree with the other side, not debating which issues are "correct"
just my 2¢...
-
80% of the time I disagree with everyone all the time. ( :
-
I've never been able to comfortably put myself on 'the political spectrum' - in part because I share positions held by either end.
(in no particualr order)
1) marriage - it's none of the government's business who's boinking who as long as it's consensual. Ergo, yay gay marriage, yay straight marriage, yay no marriage (which is important when it comes to adoption, survivors rights, etc. Your life partner should get the same hospital/tax/legal rights whether you're married or not)
2) gun control. Law abiding citizens should be able to buy and carry guns, but we ought to have background checks and close gun-show loopholes. However, I totally agree on a ban on assault weapons, my husband has three hunting rifles/shotguns locked up in a closet, so I get gun owners don't want their guns taken away, but no argument will ever sway me that assault weapons are needed in the hands of private citizens.
3) Abortion - personally against it but I won't prevent another from having one in the 1st trimester or when her life is at stake. Regarding the latter, that should be between her and her licensed physician, not government. In other words, "safe, legal, rare" Birth control and sex education need to be emphasized.
4) Federal government - smaller overall
5) Military - Much smaller. It's ridiculous how much we spend
6) Immigration - Biggest long-term opportunity with the US is to grab more motivated individuals and keep them here (e.g. H1-B visas). Totally agree with H1-B visas, however, I hate the abuse with Indian based quasi-consulting companies. That needs to be outlawed. Issuing them to a US based company for a specific job yes, issuing them to someone that does not have a job except with a consulting company with a phone number in SF, but the phone always rings through to India and the consulting company then expects them to go out and try to secure a contract, hell no.
7) National debt - we need to make reducing it a priority, see deficit (#8).
8) deficit spending - necessary during extreme events (e.g. war) but we've overused it and become addicted to it.
9) Pot - I don't like it and don't want it unrestricted, but our recent legal actions against pot users are just stupid. Regulate like cigarettes/alcohol/etc I suppose.
10) estate tax - definitely, and set closer to the $2MM mark. Anything over should be taxed at income-tax levels
11) income tax - progressive and near current levels
12) tax deductions - get rid of every single one.
13) VAT tax - no.
14) SS - keep but means-test recipients. For every $100k you have in savings you get 2% less.
15) IRAs - increase limit to $10k and index to inflation.
16) health care - basic services and prevention for everyone provided by the government. Comprehensive care from highly-regulated private companies which are profit-limited. This is genius, maybe it could mean that many health issues could be caught BEFORE they become a huge money sucking issue. I do also think that basic prevention meds like diabetes meds should be free, I'd rather pay for someone's diabetes meds then all the issues that come up when they can't afford the damn drugs
17) Stop this archane practice of making people file taxes every damn year. You pay taxes out of your paycheck. At the end of the year the IRS mails YOU a summary of what you paid and what it thinks you should have paid. You can agree with their assessment - if not only THEN do you file a tax document. Given the lack of tax-breaks (#12) it shoudn't be hard to do, and free tax software for everyone (not just those making $65k or less...)
18) Everyone gets exactly 1 week to cast a ballot for any federal election, and everyone who is eligible is automatically registered. Results are not announced until all 50 states close their polls.
ETA: more things I thought of.
I started to type mine up, but realized with a few exceptions I agree completely with nereo. And he has some that I've never thought of, but am agreeing with as I read them. I'm a lifelong Independent that leans left, mostly because the government has no business in personal business. But I truly hate that people believe that Republicans are the party of smaller government and against deficits as they don't seem to follow through on their promises in practice.
-
I'm liberal, an extreme liberal but I think we need to differenciate between females and transwomen (and males and transmen). And we need to do research to determine what the proper medical aid is for this group.
I also think that illegal drugs, like pot, need to be researched prior to being legal for all.
-
Registered as an independent. White, Christian, heterosexual male (idk if this matters, maybe I've had too much exposure to my dear Facebook social progress keyboard warriors). These are my views, and they're a mix of conservative and liberal current ideologies:
1. Planned Parenthood should always be federally funded for everything except abortions (except in rare cases, rape etc). Birth control, gyno exams, etc. should always be funded.
2. Given #1, abortion is a woman's right to choose, but is also responsible for paying for it.
3. Mandate an increase in recycling processing plants, and punish individuals for failing to recycle (increased taxes). Also, institute a plastic bag tax at all supermarkets and put the tax towards clean energy research.
4. Decrease regulations for US oil and gas companies, negotiate a portion of profits to be used for climate change research.
5. Decrease regulations for guns themselves, become more stringent for background checks for gun possession.
6. Increase mental health funding universally.
7. Begin a streamlined program for legalizing illegal immigrants, without deportation.
8. Increase funding for public education.
9. Abolish the IRS (ideally, but would never happen).
10. I'm not informed enough to have an opinion on how the health care system should be. Currently, it is stupid to repeal ACA without a better system in place.
11. Term limits for all high ranking White House government officials.
12. Legalize marijuana and tax it heavily (excise tax). Tax alcohol and cigarettes even more.
13. Marriage equality for all. Complete separation of the church and state.
14. Increase minimum wage, adjusting for inflation. Never increase it dramatically to $15 all at once.
15. Keep the electoral college unless a better system comes into play. Unless a better system is introduced, the electoral college is a brilliant system.
16. Dissolve the Republican and Democratic parties. Fire all White House party officials immediately, including the National Committees. Eliminate the superdelegate system.
-
I just want to say that, having at least skimmed most of the responses, that it's refreshing to see so much common ground, even though the "common ground" shifts from person to person. It still exists.
This is why the "party line" people on either side confuse me. There are soooooo many issues. You would assume a person who rationally analyzes issues would deviate from the party on a few things at least once in a blue moon. We're seeing that in the thread, but I'm not sure we see it from many politicians these days (I think we saw more of it 30 years ago).
-
I just want to say that, having at least skimmed most of the responses, that it's refreshing to see so much common ground, even though the "common ground" shifts from person to person. It still exists.
This is why the "party line" people on either side confuse me. There are soooooo many issues. You would assume a person who rationally analyzes issues would deviate from the party on a few things at least once in a blue moon. We're seeing that in the thread, but I'm not sure we see it from many politicians these days (I think we saw more of it 30 years ago).
This is the problem with the current political party system, and I'm now adding to my list of things to abolish it.
-
I just want to say that, having at least skimmed most of the responses, that it's refreshing to see so much common ground, even though the "common ground" shifts from person to person. It still exists.
This is why the "party line" people on either side confuse me. There are soooooo many issues. You would assume a person who rationally analyzes issues would deviate from the party on a few things at least once in a blue moon. We're seeing that in the thread, but I'm not sure we see it from many politicians these days (I think we saw more of it 30 years ago).
Yes - that was my impression reading through these! The "middle ground" is way bigger than most people realize, and so much less painful than the extremes.
-
I just want to say that, having at least skimmed most of the responses, that it's refreshing to see so much common ground, even though the "common ground" shifts from person to person. It still exists.
This is why the "party line" people on either side confuse me. There are soooooo many issues. You would assume a person who rationally analyzes issues would deviate from the party on a few things at least once in a blue moon. We're seeing that in the thread, but I'm not sure we see it from many politicians these days (I think we saw more of it 30 years ago).
This.
I'm having trouble finding things I disagree with anywhere in this thread. I mean, I might have a different opinion on the details, or implementation, but it's really small potatoes.
-
I just want to say that, having at least skimmed most of the responses, that it's refreshing to see so much common ground, even though the "common ground" shifts from person to person. It still exists.
This is why the "party line" people on either side confuse me. There are soooooo many issues. You would assume a person who rationally analyzes issues would deviate from the party on a few things at least once in a blue moon. We're seeing that in the thread, but I'm not sure we see it from many politicians these days (I think we saw more of it 30 years ago).
This is the problem with the current political party system, and I'm now adding to my list of things to abolish it.
correct and the best way to eliminate this issue is to drop first past the post voting b/c it will always and forever trend to a two party system. But this won't happen
-
I lean pretty far left on most issues.
I agree with the Right that we need to balance the budget and get the debt under control. How we do that, we disagree significantly.
I also agree with the Right on the need for a strong military, but I think we disagree on the level and what should or should not be cut.
-
I'm beginning to think that one reason why we got such crap candidates this year is that so many people consider themselves independents, and thus did not/could not vote in the major party primaries.
-
I'm beginning to think that one reason why we got such crap candidates this year is that so many people consider themselves independents, and thus did not/could not vote in the major party primaries.
As long as superdelegates exist, this will always be a problem.
-
I just want to say that, having at least skimmed most of the responses, that it's refreshing to see so much common ground, even though the "common ground" shifts from person to person. It still exists.
This is why the "party line" people on either side confuse me. There are soooooo many issues. You would assume a person who rationally analyzes issues would deviate from the party on a few things at least once in a blue moon. We're seeing that in the thread, but I'm not sure we see it from many politicians these days (I think we saw more of it 30 years ago).
I think that most people have a handful of issues that are really important to them, and then the rest is a bunch of noise. The issues I listed for myself are all things I would change in my party's platform, but they're not issues that I personally place that much weight on so I wouldn't cross sides to vote for them. For several of them, I really don't care that much, I just think if "my side" gave them up they would have an easier time winning and then they'd be more effective on the issues I DO care about.
-
Not to deviate too much off course, but I'd love to see a multi-party system where parties more narrowly focus on sets of issues that actually go together.
Instead of a GOP, you might have
1) a small business party
2) a military/veterans party
3) a social conservative party
4) a balance the budget party
Dems might break into...
5) an environmental party
6) a civil rights party
7) a healthcare party
8) a wall street regulation party
These are poorly thought out, but you get the idea. A voter could be like, "Okay I'll most aggressively support 1 and 7, with also some focus on 4." Like picking from a fast food menu. It makes more sense than our current system. And then the smaller parties would have to form coalitions to get shit done.
-
I'm beginning to think that one reason why we got such crap candidates this year is that so many people consider themselves independents, and thus did not/could not vote in the major party primaries.
Nah, it varies state by state. In my home state of CT, you have to be (or did when I last voted there 10 years ago) a registered member of that party to vote in that party's primary, but in my current state of IL, you can request whichever party's ballot you want. I usually vote GOP, but I requested a Dem ballot this year in the primary solely so I could vote against Hillary twice, once in the primary and once in the general :)
-
Not to deviate too much off course, but I'd love to see a multi-party system where parties more narrowly focus on sets of issues that actually go together.
Instead of a GOP, you might have
1) a small business party
2) a military/veterans party
3) a social conservative party
4) a balance the budget party
Dems might break into...
5) an environmental party
6) a civil rights party
7) a healthcare party
8) a wall street regulation party
These are poorly thought out, but you get the idea. A voter could be like, "Okay I'll most aggressively support 1 and 7, with also some focus on 4." Like picking from a fast food menu. It makes more sense than our current system. And then the smaller parties would have to form coalitions to get shit done.
Definitely agree! The current parties are logically flawed lol. Why does someone HAVE to be conservative both fiscally and socially? And why does one HAVE to be liberal both fiscally and socially? It makes no sense. Explains why there's no middle ground and nothing gets done.
-
Wouldn't it make sense to just get rid of all the damn labels? I mean sometimes I think folks argue purely based on political affiliations/labels instead of actual issues which they probably share some common ground. I understand as humans labeling is a way to identify and help understand. But it seems to have the opposite affect in politics.
I considered myself a Republican, voted Republican and took on Republican views many years ago. Now I represent myself with no real labels. I vote for who I believe to be the best candidate. Don't care what his/her political affiliation is. I am sure my views would align more with liberals, but I don't really care to call myself a liberal. I represent myself and not apolitical party.
Can't we all just get along? You know pot helps with that. Just sayin....
-
I'm beginning to think that one reason why we got such crap candidates this year is that so many people consider themselves independents, and thus did not/could not vote in the major party primaries.
As long as superdelegates exist, this will always be a problem.
Superdelegates did not change the primary results. Ignorance is a problem.
-
I'm beginning to think that one reason why we got such crap candidates this year is that so many people consider themselves independents, and thus did not/could not vote in the major party primaries.
As long as superdelegates exist, this will always be a problem.
Superdelegates did not change the primary results. Ignorance is a problem.
I'm not saying they did for this election, I just vehemently disagree with the concept that party elites should have even the slightest chance at overriding the wishes of primary voters.
-
Great thread!
I’m pretty far right/Constitutionalist/libertarian/‘pragmatic anarchist’; but my views intersect with 'far left' in some areas.
I agree with anyone who agrees with the principle of a government limited to protecting (narrowly defined) rights, providing for common defense; and nothing else. Want to screw something up, waste resources, abrogate rights, further inequality, divide the citizens, cause problems? Get government involved.
Fed Gov’t (not an exhaustive list)
-balanced budget; required GAAP accounting
-enormously simplified tax code: elimination of tax on production (punishing productivity); tax instead consumption (encouraging efficiency & savings)
-elimination of Fed Reserve; regulation of money as described in the Constitution instead of via a private bank
-elimination of all laws pertaining to race, sex, age etc etc. Equal protection of rights for all, equal justice for all. No special classes. Justice is blind.
-elimination of federal influence in health, housing, education, social security, welfare etc
-extremely strong military (want peace? Prepare for war) with a very narrow, targeted mandate. No more ‘world police’. Modernize! Why the hell are we paying billions for planes with a weak sack-o-meat human in them? Modernize! Drones! Etc.
-Free but Fair trade. Would you buy veggies from a farmer, knowing he uses slave labor? Nor should we as a country.
-Drugs: Fed has no jurisdiction here.
-Marriage: fed has no jurisdiction here.
-Guns: armed citizens are an asset. Strict 2nd amendment; no limitations.
-Voter Restriction: ability to survive to age 18 and having a pulse does not qualify as fit to vote. Maybe a poll tax. Show some skin in the game.
-Borders/immigration: Borders must be controlled, otherwise it is not a border. No limits on number of immigrants. Strict screening of immigrants (no criminals). Strict and demanding Citizenship process; ensure it is valued.
-Abortion: a person is a person, no matter how young.
-
On the conservative side: I think government should be minimized, especially where it overlaps with state. There needs to be an emphasis on downsizing, efficiency, and minimizing costs. The obvious corruption sickens me. I think a lot of gun control measures people want, are feel good measures and wouldn't help. The PC culture sickens me and bending over backwards or debating something that only impacts .003% of the population I see as a waste of time when there are bigger issues on the table. I also think that there needs to be stricter regulations on entitlement programs.
On my more liberal side: I tend to look the other way on how others want to live their life when it doesn't impact me. I have my own life to worry about. I think our current healthcare system is far enough gone that we need to go single payer (although the conservative in me says everyone needs skin in the game). I think weed should be legalized.
-
Quote from: golden1 on Today at 06:18:01 AM
I am a registered independent but lean pretty left these days:
In the interests of preserving the original thread intent, could you update these from "don't like" (aka disagree) to "like" (aka agree) with the other party? that might help prevent "debate" responses.
OK:
1) I agree with people who are against legalizing pot without more research into the long term effects of the drug on brain development. I don't think we have a handle on the legal drugs we do allow.
2) I think we need to reduce the debt. I just would rather cut military spending over entitlements, but both will need to go on the chopping block somewhat unless we raise taxes.
3) I agree that abortion should be rare, and would most likely never get one myself unless my life was in jeopardy. I would be happy if there was never another abortion on this planet.
4) I agree that liberals can be intolerant of other ideas besides their own and I agree that safe spaces are a bad idea. All ideas need open debate and stress testing. For similar reasons, I hate the terms "hate crime" and "hate speech".
Better?
-
Outside of gun control, capital punishment, and free trade, I can think of two other areas where I disagree with the far left:
I believe transgender people should be treated with respect and not be discriminated against, have the right to use the bathrooms of their choosing, but I also believe that any surgical or pharmaceutical intervention is entirely elective and we should not expect insurance or taxpayers to fund it. I suspect that if we lived in a world where gender rules were not so strictly proscribed, we would see fewer transgender people.
I also believe that abortion should be rare, that it is ethically problematic after a certain point in a pregnancy, absent complicating life/health factors of either fetus or woman. I believe we have laws that reflect this, but am open to discussion on where to draw the line. However, I believe the best way to address this is to make contraception freely available and to make access to abortion more available as well, so that we are terminating embryos in the earliest stages of development rather than later stage fetuses. Actually I'm not sure that this belief differs much from the vast majority of pro-choice people. I'm fine with not federally funding abortions, but don't believe we should not fund planned parenthood.
I do not believe that sex work "empowers" women, but I would like to see prostitutes selling sex decriminalized, while prosecutors and law enforcement target instead pimps and johns. This differs from some on the far left who would like to make prostitution legal entirely.
-
3. Mandate an increase in recycling processing plants, and punish individuals for failing to recycle (increased taxes). Also, institute a plastic bag tax at all supermarkets and put the tax towards clean energy research.
I'm not a fan of increased govt. mandates but I agree that people need to focus more on caring for the environment in general. If we have to tax plastic bags to get people to care then so be it. Styrofoam should be permanently phased out of packaging materials...
For the record, I generally agree with and vote Republican but environmental issues is one area where I vehemently disagree.
-
Some have mentioned mandatory service. I'm not a fan of mandatory military service. We end up with plenty of folks who decide joining the military was a mistake, they take up much of our time.
80% of my leadership & management time was spent on the 20% who neither wanted to be led nor managed...
-
Interesting thread. Kudos to all for remaining relatively non argumentative, though plenty of you felt the need to insert preemptive "arguments" into your posts, but that's hard to resist! ;)
I agree in general that there is far more common ground (in the US anyway) than not. This is largely what people mean when they say demographics are against the Republican party. But then core issues are separate from "if my party exactly fit the totality of my values" issues. Add in how divisive our two party rhetoric has become and it remains unsurprising, though disheartening, that our common ground has not led to productive advances as a country.
Anyway, I have a hard time categorizing myself today but it's fair to say that I used to be a far-leftist. So here is how I differ from most who have taken that mantel(though tbh it doesn't really apply to me any more):
1) I feel gun control as leftists envision it is not going to help anything and it's a waste of effort to crusade for it.
2) Open borders/free trade (I think I diverge from both sides on this, especially in the Trump era)
3) Federal government should be WAY smaller (though in certain areas should have socialistic levels of control). Still down with powerful local governments.
4) Our military should remain relatively powerful. There are historical/geopolitical reasons I feel this way, although I believe much of the military/industrial complex is super evil. Spending should still be cut though.
5) Social programs are important but need to be massively simplified. Ideally, through UBI.
6) PC police are super annoying (though "don't be a dick" still applies and I will call a racist a racist all day long. Looking at you Bannon/Yiannopoulos)
-
I think this thread is fantastic!
Honestly, I'm pretty fed up with politicians of almost every stripe at this point! I think both sides are guilty of ratcheting up the political rhetoric for some time now. They've all been crying "FIRE" in the crowded theater and can't understand why people are starting to get trampled.
But I digress. When I was younger I was fairly conservative because I believed in things like:
1) personal responsibility
2) fiscal responsibility
3) The right to own a gun. Maybe not if a criminal or mentally ill, or just passing thru a gun show. But in most cases, yes.
I still believe in those things, but now I also care about:
4) common resources (air, water, food, climate, transportation)
5) health care - our system is so messed up and the only way to really fix it is to go single payer
6) a woman's right to decide what to do with her own body, limit abortions thru family planning and education
7) marriage equality
8) Minding our own business internationally as much as possible
9) caring for our Vets (here I probably agree with right except method - I oppose privatization of VA)
10) COMPLETE separation of church and state.
11) decriminalization of marijuana
12) SCIENCE!
13) campaign finance, lobbying, and conflict of interest reform, term limits
So I answered the question backwards. I'm now a left-leaning independent, but have some areas of agreement with the right. I feel that there is a major disconnect between the two parties and the actual views of their constituents. Both sides seem more concerned with keeping themselves in power than in actually serving the people they purport to represent. It's so encouraging though to look through the previous posts and not feel like my head will explode. There IS common ground. There COULD be discussions about how to approach problems if the people working for them genuinely want to work together to resolve issues.
-
Some have mentioned mandatory service. I'm not a fan of mandatory military service. We end up with plenty of folks who decide joining the military was a mistake, they take up much of our time.
80% of my leadership & management time was spent on the 20% who neither wanted to be led nor managed...
Interesting. I'd say the same is true in higher education - 80% of my time is spent dealing with students who don't have a clear reason for being there, nor a firm direction about where they are headed.
-
I go back and forth on such a range of issues I'm not sure if I can say I "lean" either direction. A large part of this is because I don't consider the terms "conservative" and "Republican" interchangeable anymore.
Where I agree with the Democrats:
1. Folks can marry whomever they want. It doesn't cost me anything and doesn't affect me. In Chris Rock's words "Gay people deserve to be miserable like the rest of us!"
2. Legalize marijuana, tax it, and subject it to FDA regs.
3. Figure out how to make college affordable even if it requires government money, but means test its use. As a citizen I want everyone as smart as possible, but as a taxpayer I don't want to subsidize someone whose heart isn't in it. I also don't want a system that encourages reckless loan issuing because the government will cover the bank and the university knows the tuition will keep coming.
4. Energy production should emphasize renewable sources. I'm not convinced that it should be federally funded, but through regulations and policies it needs to be strongly supported.
5. National infrastructure must be maintained, and raise taxes to do it (fuel taxes at least)
6. A health care system where everyone can be treated. I don't have the right answer to build/fund it, but the ACA had glaring flaws that made it unsustainable.
7. Free trade. It benefits consumers with competition, forces inefficient businesses and industries to be environmentally friendly, and gives developing nations a chance to be economically viable.
8. Free speech is critical to our way of life; however, I don't tolerate violence or repressing the speech of someone else because you don't like their position and claiming you're just using your own free speech.
9. Keep the environment clean. I have no problem paying a little more for my water if I know it isn't full of industrial runoff.
Where I agree with Republicans:
1. Simplify regulations for owning/operating a business. The smaller the business, the heavier the burden of regulatory compliance.
2. Fair trade. If we're going to have free trade, ensure it's a level playing field and participating nations obey the same labor/environmental laws. There should be exceptions for a few industries that feed national security matters like rare raw materials.
3. Free speech. A big chunk of the media leans left and isn't shy about; however, that doesn't excuse making shit up just to have something to argue about. Agree that blocking an entire interstate and calling it a lawful protest is not free speech.
4. Energy independence is a national security matter; however, that doesn't mean just pumping oil regardless of the damage done in the process.
5. Personal responsibility and having a thick skin are critical parts of life. Don't complain that the government should fix all of your problems, especially if it's because someone said something that made you unhappy.
6. You shouldn't be treated like a criminal for being financially successful. I'm not saying we couldn't afford higher income taxes at certain brackets, but acting like my net worth is a resource to be pilfered on a whim for something questionable isn't cool.
Things where I think both parties get it wrong and I can't pick a side:
1. You can't cherry pick science. Democrats believe GMOs are the devil while Republicans won't accept evolution or climate change despite significant evidence.
2. Federal budget. They both like to spend, just on different things. When they talk about balancing the budget, they mean cutting whatever the other party likes.
3. Federal subsidies. This includes protectionism to keep inefficient businesses afloat.
4. Gun ownership. I'm allowed to own a gun. Owning a belt-fed machine gun is dangerous to everyone around me. "Assault weapon" is a term used by legislatures with varying definitions to the point of it being meaningless because it rarely describes the function of the weapon and only the look. This definition gets changed by left-leaning legislatures annually to chip away at ownership rights and those who do often show themselves to be woefully underqualified to make those distinctions. On the other hand, people who sling AR-15s across their chest to go to Starbucks for the purpose of rubbing it in my face are idiots and are the reason liberals are scared of some lawful gun owners.
5. Governance. Both can't help but spend most of their time in office doing victory laps and passing laws just to piss off the party. Harry Reid shot down countless Republican budget proposals out of hand while Mitch McConnell flat out said on the day he became majority leader his job was to make Obama's second term as painful as possible. As soon as the majority changes hands the only thing on their minds is revenge and making the extremes of their party's platforms into law.
-
I just want to comment that this is the best "political" thread I've ever read on this site. Well done to all for well thought out responses that highlight what we have in common rather than our differences.
-
I'm a liberal Dem but I agree with the right that it really is better to have two parents to raise a child. They can be parents of same sex.
-
Hmm.
1) I am for increased safety checks around guns.
2) I like infrastructure spending.
3) I hate political correctness.
4) I am for prison reform.
5) I would legalize many drugs.
6) If I want to end my own life, I should be able to do it. it's my life, dammit.
7) I think the best way to minimize abortion is mandatory sex education and free birth control.
8) I am clueless about how to fix health care, but I think anyone should be able to self-insure for the small stuff and buy major medical for the big stuff.
9) I am fine with higher taxes, including those on inheritance. Tax rates are historically low.
10) I have no problem with a VAT tax.
11) I think there should be more "industrial" high schools teaching technical skills and awarding associates degrees. These should be free.
12) I think we are testing our kids so much that they aren't learning how to think for themselves and solve problems, which is what success in life is all about.
13) I believe that providing homeless people with housing and support saves governments money.
14) I think we are too quick to throw money at many problems, though.
15) I think immigration and diversity made this country great, and if we do anything to suppress them, we do ourselves a disservice.
16) Anyone who denies the science behind evolution is an idiot.
I suppose I lean right but (my democrat friends say so, though I've never voted for a republican for president.
I agree with all your points and more.
1) Gay marriage
2) Any well written laws that promote social equality (the equal pay for equal work act was written by idiots)
3) The role of the EPA, in general, though I do not like their unchecked power.
4) Keeping state and religion separate
-
I am with the left/democrats on most things except for:
Balancing the budget should be a higher priority than either major party gives it
Quit subsidizing soda and junk food. i am for making sure people have enough food, and also healthcare. The healthcare will cost less if we give them healthier food. Part of this is the result of farm subsidies that make staple crops incredibly cheap.
I am usually against regressive taxes but I would be for a sugar tax if it funded dental care for poor kids. I also think that gasoline should be more expensive in order to encourage people to drive less.
TPP: it contained wording that would give corporations more power than governments
-
I keep seeing statements here like:
3) I hate political correctness.
I honestly aren't quite certain what they mean. Are people saying political correctness sometimes goes too far (which I can sympathize with), or that we shouldn't have any standards for political correctness.
for example, should I be able to call my technician (who is gay) a fag? refer to my boss as "the big nig__r"? tell our lab assistant she's got a 'smokin' hot ass' and is 'much nicer to look at than our last assistant, who was a real porker?"
i'm serious here, because I hear this a lot. When people talk about how political correctness is a big problem, what do they mean?
-
I'm far right, hard core conservative but think the war on drugs is largely just a waste of time, effort and money.
Decriminalize most of this stuff or make it legal and get some tax revenue from it.
-
I keep seeing statements here like:
3) I hate political correctness.
I honestly aren't quite certain what they mean. Are people saying political correctness sometimes goes too far (which I can sympathize with), or that we shouldn't have any standards for political correctness.
for example, should I be able to call my technician (who is gay) a fag? refer to my boss as "the big nig__r"? tell our lab assistant she's got a 'smokin' hot ass' and is 'much nicer to look at than our last assistant, who was a real porker?"
i'm serious here, because I hear this a lot. When people talk about how political correctness is a big problem, what do they mean?
I'll only speak for myself, but it's the creeping standard that pisses me off. Obviously the blatant racial slurs and sexual harassment are inexcusable, but now it's the "cultural appropriation" police. And we have outcries over football players wearing sombreros (http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/09/22/cornell-football-coached-slammed-cultural-appropriation-tweet/) and wearing Moana costumes (http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/stevens/ct-disney-moana-costume-controversy-balancing-1004-20161004-column.html). Plus the whole transvestite thing. It feels like the line is ever-moving, and always over more and more trivial "offenses."
-
This is what I mean by political correctness:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/what-it-looks-like-when-political-correctness-chills-speech-on-campus/497387/
-
I keep seeing statements here like:
3) I hate political correctness.
I honestly aren't quite certain what they mean. Are people saying political correctness sometimes goes too far (which I can sympathize with), or that we shouldn't have any standards for political correctness.
for example, should I be able to call my technician (who is gay) a fag? refer to my boss as "the big nig__r"? tell our lab assistant she's got a 'smokin' hot ass' and is 'much nicer to look at than our last assistant, who was a real porker?"
i'm serious here, because I hear this a lot. When people talk about how political correctness is a big problem, what do they mean?
I'll only speak for myself, but it's the creeping standard that pisses me off. Obviously the blatant racial slurs and sexual harassment are inexcusable, but now it's the "cultural appropriation" police. And we have outcries over football players wearing sombreros (http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/09/22/cornell-football-coached-slammed-cultural-appropriation-tweet/) and wearing Moana costumes (http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/stevens/ct-disney-moana-costume-controversy-balancing-1004-20161004-column.html). Plus the whole transvestite thing. It feels like the line is ever-moving, and always over more and more trivial "offenses."
I had a tour guide that corrected himself on saying "hey guys" because 'guys' is gender-specific.
-
I think if people who are somehow morally offended by the term "political correctness" substituted it with the word "respect", it would have the desired effect. Is respect such a difficult construct? I'd much rather live in a world that occasionally tilted toward the absurd in choosing words carefully than one where people toss insults and slurs around.
-
I think if people who are somehow morally offended by the term "political correctness" substituted it with the word "respect", it would have the desired effect. Is respect such a difficult construct? I'd much rather live in a world that occasionally tilted toward the absurd in choosing words carefully than one where people toss insults and slurs around.
But look at the examples I pointed out; do any of those really suggest that the "offenders" were really setting out to disrespect people?
-
I'll only speak for myself, but it's the creeping standard that pisses me off.
This just means you are old. Really.
I am thrilled that standards are changing. That means society is evolving and including more people as "us" and worthy of respect. I mean, if the majority of members of an ethnic group say something is offensive, why is it a problem that we say "Oh, my bad. Sorry." I don't understand why you would WANT to make jokes that you know make people feel uncomfortable.
Now that being said, what upsets me from the left is that they view people making statements that are politically incorrect as a sign that they have some sort of irredeemable moral failing and should be shunned. It goes too far when people aren't allowed to apologize and aren't given chances to improve. That is just leftist bullying and never acceptable IMO.
-
I'll only speak for myself, but it's the creeping standard that pisses me off.
This just means you are old. Really.
I am thrilled that standards are changing. That means society is evolving and including more people as "us" and worthy of respect. I mean, if the majority of members of an ethnic group say something is offensive, why is it a problem that we say "Oh, my bad. Sorry." I don't understand why you would WANT to make jokes that you know make people feel uncomfortable.
Now that being said, what upsets me from the left is that they view people making statements that are politically incorrect as a sign that they have some sort of irredeemable moral failing and should be shunned. It goes too far when people aren't allowed to apologize and aren't given chances to improve. That is just leftist bullying and never acceptable IMO.
Well said.
-
ok, and thanks for the responses. I'd agree that we often go to absurd lengths to come up with neutral terms.
I'm also not certain how we could or even if we should regulate these things (which seems to be the basis of this thread).
As much as I hate hearing it, I think words like "nig__" shouldn't be banned (free speech and all), yet workplace discrimination laws definitely ARE needed.
So where's the line here?
regarding the 'respect' issue; what comes to mind is that it's never whether the speaker meant to offend, but whether the audience was offended. Sometimes that's because people are too sensitive, but I've heard plenty of people say "he's a fag - but I don't mean that in a bad way, so it's ok for me to say that." No it isn't (to me).
-
I'm a liberal Dem but I agree with the right that it really is better to have two parents to raise a child. They can be parents of same sex.
I've actually become partial to the idea of three or more adults. Because sometimes you've pissed off the first two so badly that you need to appeal to the good graces of the uncle next door, and everyone needs some breathing room.
Actual genders irrelevant here, for sure.
-
I'll only speak for myself, but it's the creeping standard that pisses me off.
This just means you are old. Really.
I'm 34. I doubt it.
I am thrilled that standards are changing. That means society is evolving and including more people as "us" and worthy of respect. I mean, if the majority of members of an ethnic group say something is offensive, why is it a problem that we say "Oh, my bad. Sorry." I don't understand why you would WANT to make jokes that you know make people feel uncomfortable.
Do Mexicans, as a group, really get upset about people wearing sombreros? Are Samoan people really upset about Moana? That's the other thing that pisses me off, it seems as though there are groups of Perpetually Offended out there who just grasp as stuff to be offended by *on behalf of other groups*. How many times has there been an outcry over sports teams with Native American names, only to have the actual tribe they're named for come back and say "Uh, yeah, it doesn't bother us?" Look at this assclown; "I know the Seminoles gave them permission to use the likeness but I still think it's wrong." (http://nativeappropriations.com/2013/01/interest-convergence-fsu-and-the-seminole-tribe-of-florida.html) Well, sorry, who the fuck is he to say that? THAT is the kind of political correctness I object to.
-
I'll only speak for myself, but it's the creeping standard that pisses me off.
This just means you are old. Really.
I'm 34. I doubt it.
In historical terms you'd be almost dead (so would I, now that I think about it)
:-P
-
I'm 34. I doubt it.
That's old enough to count for the purposes of this discussion. You were an adult when most people still thought gay marriage should be illegal. Your neural pathways are less flexible, and you are old enough to experience nostalgia.
It isn't that I am ageist (and I think I see where you are going here....). I just have noticed an impulse in myself to rebel when younger people tell me that something I say isn't politically correct. But I guess I just think the burden should be on me to attempt to be more flexible whenever I can. I mean, it doesn't hurt me to be more sensitive, so why are my feelings more important than someone else's?
A story: I remember being 10 years old and walking with my grandma down the street (she was about 70). A black man came walking towards me, and I stepped out of the way to let him by. My grandma was aghast because according to her, he should have stepped out of my way in deference because he was black. It wasn't obscenely racist, but it reflected a worldview that was common when she grew up. She was appalled when I said that wasn't fair to expect him to do that because of his race.
-
I'm 34. I doubt it.
But I guess I just think the burden should be on me to attempt to be more flexible whenever I can. I mean, it doesn't hurt me to be more sensitive, so why are my feelings more important than someone else's?
Because at some point we stop being respectful and we start tripping over each other to not offend, and everything becomes so bland and meaningful dialogue ceases.
Someone made the comment in one of the threads (maybe "what's happening in the country?") about how vast swaths of the country has been labeled racist for just asking about certain things, or for not understanding where the current political winds are blowing, and it has just gotten to the point where those people shut down now because they're so tired of being accused of being racist everytime they turn around, while most of them feel no ill will at all towards their fellow (wo)man.
Which leads me to the other point, calling out people as racist is supposed to something of a Big Deal, reserved for actual, you know, racism. Nowadays we use it for something like when Biden called Obama "articulate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/01/AR2007020101495.html)." You can only play that card so many times before it stops being worth anything.
-
I'll agree that it's a good thing that we change and (hopefully) become more respectful of people as time goes on.
I'll tell a story about myself that I think of quite often these days. I've known my husband for a little over ten years. When I first met him, his daughter was 13 or so. I am an educated, left-of-center white woman who has been for gay rights and for legalizing gay marriage since the early eighties, when I was a teenager. So, pretty "progressive," I suppose, as far as it goes.
Well, I remember about eight years ago, somehow my husband or I stumbled across a website called "Tranny or Granny." It basically was an online quiz with a really goofy theme song, where it would put up two pictures side by side. One was of a "masculine"-looking older woman, the other was (ostensibly) of a trans woman who was not particularly attractive. You had to guess which was the "tranny" and which was the "granny."
I remember laughing a lot about that site. And even playing it with my stepdaughter, who would have been about fifteen or sixteen at the time.
I share this because I look back on this now in absolute horror that I would have been so willing to laugh at either of these "groups" that the site was making fun of. And at the time it felt... I don't know, off-color, but not that big a deal. The thought that eight years ago, I could laugh at the pain of individuals who have likely suffered publicly and privately for most of their lives because they aren't what people see as attractive and "normal" -- I am filled with shame every time I remember it. It reminds me that I still have enormous blind spots, and that respect is something that all people deserve. And if it were not for the increased visibility of activism for trans people, I probably would still be blind to my callousness.
-
Because at some point we stop being respectful and we start tripping over each other to not offend, and everything becomes so bland and meaningful dialogue ceases.
Someone made the comment in one of the threads (maybe "what's happening in the country?") about how vast swaths of the country has been labeled racist for just asking about certain things, or for not understanding where the current political winds are blowing, and it has just gotten to the point where those people shut down now because they're so tired of being accused of being racist everytime they turn around, while most of them feel no ill will at all towards their fellow (wo)man.
If someone from the demographic in question says "Hey knock it off." it is just plain rude to insist on your own way because you fear being "bland". I have never felt limited in conversation or dialogue due to political correctness. If anything, it forces me to think through my positions a little deeper.
I will reiterate. The problem isn't that we are being too respectful. The problem is that we view being politically incorrect as a fate worse than death, not just an oops moment. People need to take the whole thing less seriously - if someone says something you don't like, they aren't evil. They just don't know.
-
I agree with a lot of what golden1 and nereo are saying, but also fall on the side of being bothered by the very real political correctness creep that is trending towards looking for things to be offended by in some circles (although I think this trend is not as widespread as many conservatives think and is in the process of reversing in some ways). Some of you seem to be arguing that it is impossible to be too politically correct, similar to how it's impossible to be too compassionate, but those are not really comparable, imo.
That said, when I referenced the topic, I was referring to the most annoying offenders:
That's the other thing that pisses me off, it seems as though there are groups of Perpetually Offended out there who just grasp as stuff to be offended by *on behalf of other groups*.
And I think this is the crux of my own issue with the topic. Is it a slippery slope? Yes. And nereo's point about someone saying "they didn't mean it that way" is a good example of that slope. But manufactured outrage by white people on behalf of other cultures who by all appearances are not themselves offended? Somewhere in there the line gets more than a little fuzzy.
To rephrase, what I personally find annoying about the PC police is the same thing I find annoying about people who "mansplain" or "whitesplain." But if someone tells me they are offended by something I said, even if I think they are being too sensitive, agree 100% that the only correct response on my part is to apologize sincerely.
I will reiterate. The problem isn't that we are being too respectful. The problem is that we view being politically incorrect as a fate worse than death, not just an oops moment. People need to take the whole thing less seriously - if someone says something you don't like, they aren't evil. They just don't know.
This is right on.
-
I'm a liberal, but I am very against the follow types of local/state/federal overreach:
1. Eminent domain abuse
2. Asset forfeiture abuse
As usual, I'm so confused in Trump's America, because I thought that these were typically right-leaning concerns?
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-sheriff-asset-forfeiture-texas-234740
-
As usual, I'm so confused in Trump's America, because I thought that these were typically right-leaning concerns?
I share this sentiment. I've considered myself somewhat of a centrist, and have believed for a long time that 'traditional' republican positions have a lot of merit. Lately though I keep asking myself "what do Republican Trumpests believe in?"
Near as I can figure Trump and traditional GOPers are at odds over:
Free Trade
The size of the federal government
The power of the executive branch
Our military alliances (prime example: NATO)
Health Care "for everyone"
SSI and Medicare
Deficit spending
States rights
Russia
-
I am generally center left so Ill just list a few areas off the top of my head where I think Republicans are on the right track. I often find that though I agree with a party platform, I rarely agree with the approach they take. Both the parties are just awful at separating good ideological goals and being corporate shills.
- Cut regulations. There is likely a lot of dead weight regs that need to go, but I am pro environmental protection so I think Repubs sometimes abuse this sentiment to kill good regulations. But in general we are over regulated.
- Tax reform.
- Immigration reform, I think it is smaller problem than the base makes it out to be, but they way we handle illegal immigration is long overdue for some improvement to be as fair as possible to tax payers and immigrants competing for entry to the US.
I am sure there are a few more. Policy wise I tend to agree with about half of what Republicans say and maybe 80-90% of what Democrats say. I think that number would shift dramatically if Republicans actually fought for smaller government and less spending across the board as opposed to just diverting social funds and regulatory funds to defense and tax cuts for the wealthy.
Also that 80-90% number doesn't really translate to what Democrats do in office since often there actions don't fully align with their rhetoric.
-
As I read through this thread, I'm reminded of something Gary Johnson said. To paraphrase, the majority of Americans are libertarian, they just don't know it.
I lean pretty far right, but I say legalize pot and gay marriage.
Also, I hate the idea of an abortion, but it's not my business. With that said, I do respect the idea that the dividing line for abortion is when you believe that thing growing inside of a woman's body is a life. People who only posit that the woman's body is the only concern are not respecting that. But I just think this needs to stay out of the political mainstream. There's no changing people's mind, either way.
-
I agree with a lot of what golden1 and nereo are saying, but also fall on the side of being bothered by the very real political correctness creep that is trending towards looking for things to be offended by in some circles (although I think this trend is not as widespread as many conservatives think and is in the process of reversing in some ways). Some of you seem to be arguing that it is impossible to be too politically correct, similar to how it's impossible to be too compassionate, but those are not really comparable, imo.
That said, when I referenced the topic, I was referring to the most annoying offenders:
That's the other thing that pisses me off, it seems as though there are groups of Perpetually Offended out there who just grasp as stuff to be offended by *on behalf of other groups*.
And I think this is the crux of my own issue with the topic. Is it a slippery slope? Yes. And nereo's point about someone saying "they didn't mean it that way" is a good example of that slope. But manufactured outrage by white people on behalf of other cultures who by all appearances are not themselves offended? Somewhere in there the line gets more than a little fuzzy.
To rephrase, what I personally find annoying about the PC police is the same thing I find annoying about people who "mansplain" or "whitesplain." But if someone tells me they are offended by something I said, even if I think they are being too sensitive, agree 100% that the only correct response on my part is to apologize sincerely.
I will reiterate. The problem isn't that we are being too respectful. The problem is that we view being politically incorrect as a fate worse than death, not just an oops moment. People need to take the whole thing less seriously - if someone says something you don't like, they aren't evil. They just don't know.
This is right on.
Lagom, Chris22, and golden1, ya'll hit the nail on the head! Thank you for putting into words exactly what was thinking.
-
As I read through this thread, I'm reminded of something Gary Johnson said. To paraphrase, the majority of Americans are libertarian, they just don't know it.
I lean pretty far right, but I say legalize pot and gay marriage.
Also, I hate the idea of an abortion, but it's not my business. With that said, I do respect the idea that the dividing line for abortion is when you believe that thing growing inside of a woman's body is a life. People who only posit that the woman's body is the only concern are not respecting that. But I just think this needs to stay out of the political mainstream. There's no changing people's mind, either way.
So you are ok with your bodily autonomy being ignored to keep other people alive, or is just women who lose bodily autonomy to save another? In this attitude you say, fetuses have more right to life than born humans and pregnant women have less rights than a corpse. I do respect it is a life, I just realize I still (should) have bodily autonomy.
-
As I read through this thread, I'm reminded of something Gary Johnson said. To paraphrase, the majority of Americans are libertarian, they just don't know it.
I lean pretty far right, but I say legalize pot and gay marriage.
Also, I hate the idea of an abortion, but it's not my business. With that said, I do respect the idea that the dividing line for abortion is when you believe that thing growing inside of a woman's body is a life. People who only posit that the woman's body is the only concern are not respecting that. But I just think this needs to stay out of the political mainstream. There's no changing people's mind, either way.
So you are ok with your bodily autonomy being ignored to keep other people alive, or is just women who lose bodily autonomy to save another? In this attitude you say, fetuses have more right to life than born humans and pregnant women have less rights than a corpse. I do respect it is a life, I just realize I still (should) have bodily autonomy.
I think this thread is about unexpected agreement versus debate.
-
As I read through this thread, I'm reminded of something Gary Johnson said. To paraphrase, the majority of Americans are libertarian, they just don't know it.
I lean pretty far right, but I say legalize pot and gay marriage.
Also, I hate the idea of an abortion, but it's not my business. With that said, I do respect the idea that the dividing line for abortion is when you believe that thing growing inside of a woman's body is a life. People who only posit that the woman's body is the only concern are not respecting that. But I just think this needs to stay out of the political mainstream. There's no changing people's mind, either way.
So you are ok with your bodily autonomy being ignored to keep other people alive, or is just women who lose bodily autonomy to save another? In this attitude you say, fetuses have more right to life than born humans and pregnant women have less rights than a corpse. I do respect it is a life, I just realize I still (should) have bodily autonomy.
I think this thread is about unexpected agreement versus debate.
+1.
-
As I read through this thread, I'm reminded of something Gary Johnson said. To paraphrase, the majority of Americans are libertarian, they just don't know it.
I lean pretty far right, but I say legalize pot and gay marriage.
Also, I hate the idea of an abortion, but it's not my business. With that said, I do respect the idea that the dividing line for abortion is when you believe that thing growing inside of a woman's body is a life. People who only posit that the woman's body is the only concern are not respecting that. But I just think this needs to stay out of the political mainstream. There's no changing people's mind, either way.
So you are ok with your bodily autonomy being ignored to keep other people alive, or is just women who lose bodily autonomy to save another? In this attitude you say, fetuses have more right to life than born humans and pregnant women have less rights than a corpse. I do respect it is a life, I just realize I still (should) have bodily autonomy.
I think this thread is about unexpected agreement versus debate.
Well, it was nice while it lasted...
-
There's no changing people's mind, either way.
Therefore - don't debate it.
-
On most issues I'm pretty liberal, but I think raising the minimum wage is misguided and a bad idea. I think nowadays everything is moving towards automation, and raising the minimum wage would only accelerate that process and eliminate more jobs. However, I support UBI in place of minimum wage laws, and I think most conservatives would strongly oppose UBI.
-
I'll bite, since I was interested enough (or bored enough) to read through all responses so far.
I'm pretty progressive socially, however I agree that identity politics is getting ridiculous. As much as people on the right claim it's purely a lefty issue, so many of them have also formed their identities around aspects of their identity that define them. I'm a gun owner. I'm a Christian. They're just as bad as people on the left who reduce their identities to one defining characteristic and fight on behalf of that group. It shuts down all discussion on such topics and allows people to glom onto it even harder, which is not a good thing. Fundamentalism in most things is not a good idea.
Being respectful and polite is not "political correctness", in my mind. It's being a decent human.
I agree that guns are not inherently evil. That would be silly, as we have two (for hunting). However, I think there do need to be some regulations surrounding them. People who abuse their families should not be able to go buy a gun, they're already unstable and violent. Same with other people who are unstable and have a history of violence. The risk is too high. Also, I'm not sure how to address this appropriately, but there needs to be some way to keep kids from getting guns. There are far too many instances of kids getting ahold of their parents' guns and shooting someone else or themselves. That shouldn't happen.
I disagree with the people on the right who get absolutely rabid about guns. Tone it down, dude.
I think there needs to be some sort of welfare system but think our current one is ridiculous. I'd much rather go with UBI.
Can agree that some regulations are total shit. But, the most onerous ones are put in place to benefit Congress's corporate overlords (both sides are guilty) and keep small businesses down. The ones that don't do that? The environmental regulations that are always on the chopping block. Oy. So short-sighted and, frankly, stupid to destroy the environment we depend on for everything.
Agree that most subsidies should be taken away, particularly those for factory farming and fossil fuels. There's no fucking way they need subsidies.
Yes, tax code should be simplified and progressive. Also, HUGE disincentives for offshoring/hiding money. Fuck that, it helps build dynasties, corruption, and dishonesty.
Yes to more technical trade schools and whatnot. Not everyone needs or wants a college degree, and I don't see plumbers having their jobs taken away by automation very soon.
Yes, the federal government should be smaller. We're such a huge and diverse nation that if the feds try to control everything then everyone's going to be unhappy. However, human rights (marrying who you want, healthcare, etc.) belong everywhere and environment crosses state lines, so those are things that should be legislated in. In addition, I think some things like worker safety standards should also be kept nationally.
Where I will never agree with the right:
Abortion. No, that parasite's right to live ends at my right to bodily autonomy. If a woman can't or just doesn't want to carry it, so be it. It doesn't matter the reason. And despite what people hysterically claim, no one gets an abortion just for fun. Those much-maligned third trimester abortions are already solely for severe birth defects or when the mother's life is in danger. As a woman who's been pregnant, no one makes it that far and goes, "Nah, I'm done with this." And if she did, I really wouldn't want to force her into parenthood.
Science. This ridiculous anti-science, anti-intellectual bullshit. When did it become okay to be proud of being kind of dumb and uneducated? When did your "belief" in a 6,000 year old Earth become more important than facts and reality? Yeah, believe whatever the hell you want. That's religion and has no place in our federal government per the Constitution you claim to love. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. Your right to your beliefs ends at yourself. You do not get to make or influence policy due to "belief". Have some actual facts and science to back it up or GTFO.
The idea that other people should be left entirely to their own devices and that everyone is responsible only to his/herself. That ignores that there are huge discrepancies in everything from intelligence to upbringing and resources. A kid who grew up eating McDonald's and Mac 'n Cheese when she got a meal, indifferent or absent parents, is going to grow up very differently from me with my three squares and supportive parents. I don't think those people should be looked down upon. But, this also goes back to my idea of UBI.
That being said...I'm so sick of people whining that "their" region is in decline. There are often historical and even ecological reasons why. Yep, the coal industry is dying. That's proving to be a good thing for human health. If your small town is dying, maybe it should? Maybe try moving to find a better job? Turning back the clock is not going to happen, so stop trying to force it. The world moves on. Industries change. Deal with it. Find something better to do than whining about "the good old days" and blaming others for your problems. I roll my eyes every time I see someone talking about "personal responsibility" who then turns around and blames others (immigrants, The Man, whatever) for keeping them down. Uh, no. You're doing a fine job of that yourself by looking backwards instead of forward.
There are others, but this is too long already and skews more toward "what don't you agree with the other side about". :)
-
I agree with just about every word of this ^^
-
Things I think "the left" takes too far:
- seeing systemic issues everywhere
- the inability to admit that some cultures promote shit habits
- some of the whiny rhetoric around inequality
-
Abortion - why is this still a debate? it's legal. I'm with Billy Clinton: safe, legal, rare
I guess you've missed a few things in the news...
-
I'm going to go out on a limb and point out something that I *disagree* with both sides on.
Evidence. And using it to make decisions.
Yes, vaccines are safe. No amount of organic food and meditation will prevent measles, you twits. No amount of hand waving or appeals to Jebus will make evolution or climate change go away. And you're not going solve climate change by driving a Prius or eating more vegetables - the math says it was too late for that about 50 years ago. Nuclear power would help but radiation is just so scary!
Everyone on the right and on the left wants to be an expert on stuff they know nothing about. I'm a statistician, but I'm not a biochemist or a medical doctor or an agronomist, so I generally take those people's recommendations seriously even if I don't agree for political or practical reasons with them. Experts are experts for a reason. It doesn't mean they're always right - but it means they're much more likely to be right than you, or your friends on Facebook, or some random person/bot on Twitter. But you found something on the internet that says otherwise? Guess what, you can find *anything* on the internet, no matter how nonsensical. If it's not from a long-established source (let's say, 50 years or more) with a history of credibility, it's garbage.
What's that? That article in Nature was wrong/retracted? Well whoop-de-doo. Yes, even the best make mistakes. That doesn't mean you abandon the folks that literally built the world you live in and go live in your internet alternate universe. It means you shrug and say, "shit happens, good thing those guys get it right most of the time and are doing their best" and you keep reading JAMA or the NYT or Science and you vow to punch Andrew Wakefield in the nuts if you ever see him on the street. Same for Al Gore.
Using evidence and science is why we're able to have this conversation on our computers. You're living at the best possible time to be alive as a human because of all those people who did their best and made mistakes but fixed them and kept looking at the evidence and letting it guide them.
Longevity is up. Poverty is down. Progress continues, and you can see it clearly if you look at the evidence. The world is a better place than it's ever been, as long as we don't screw it up by letting the noise drown out the signal. Want to keep that progress going? Fund the crap out of the folks that make it happen and let the chips fall where they may, because reality doesn't care about your hangups.
-W
-
^+1
The strange thing is I once found that exact statement in a fortune cookie!
-
^+1
The strange thing is I once found that exact statement in a fortune cookie!
One thing I think everyone can agree with - shab tra is amazing, especially when served with fortune cookies.
-
Abortion - why is this still a debate? it's legal. I'm with Billy Clinton: safe, legal, rare
I guess you've missed a few things in the news...
Not sure what you mean by this?
-
I thought of one more that's neither right nor left but...some sort of test for voter eligibility. You should be able to understand the basic structure of our government to vote. There should be an even more stringent one for anyone running for office, tailored to that office. Education boards should understand a few basic principles of education, president should be able to understand the basic concepts of checks and balances.... You get the idea. I want a smart populace and I want the smart people to be the ones running things, even if I disagree with them on a fundamental level. People in this country, all people, should understand the basics of government. If you can't be bothered to learn it, don't bother voting. You're doing everyone a disservice.
Military and civil service could also be a good stand-in for taking such a test, although I've known plenty of stupid military people. (Hey, I used to live in a military town.) But if you're willing to fight and die and kill for your country, fine. Vote even if you're less intelligent than one would hope.
How many people did I just piss off with this post?
-
I thought of one more that's neither right nor left but...some sort of test for voter eligibility. You should be able to understand the basic structure of our government to vote. There should be an even more stringent one for anyone running for office, tailored to that office. Education boards should understand a few basic principles of education, president should be able to understand the basic concepts of checks and balances.... You get the idea. I want a smart populace and I want the smart people to be the ones running things, even if I disagree with them on a fundamental level. People in this country, all people, should understand the basics of government. If you can't be bothered to learn it, don't bother voting. You're doing everyone a disservice.
Military and civil service could also be a good stand-in for taking such a test, although I've known plenty of stupid military people. (Hey, I used to live in a military town.) But if you're willing to fight and die and kill for your country, fine. Vote even if you're less intelligent than one would hope.
How many people did I just piss off with this post?
I agree with all the points you highlighted. I just have no earthly idea how to keep any sort of voter restriction from instantly becoming based on income. I'm not that smart.
-
I thought of one more that's neither right nor left but...some sort of test for voter eligibility. You should be able to understand the basic structure of our government to vote. There should be an even more stringent one for anyone running for office, tailored to that office. Education boards should understand a few basic principles of education, president should be able to understand the basic concepts of checks and balances.... You get the idea. I want a smart populace and I want the smart people to be the ones running things, even if I disagree with them on a fundamental level. People in this country, all people, should understand the basics of government. If you can't be bothered to learn it, don't bother voting. You're doing everyone a disservice.
Military and civil service could also be a good stand-in for taking such a test, although I've known plenty of stupid military people. (Hey, I used to live in a military town.) But if you're willing to fight and die and kill for your country, fine. Vote even if you're less intelligent than one would hope.
How many people did I just piss off with this post?
I agree with all the points you highlighted. I just have no earthly idea how to keep any sort of voter restriction from instantly becoming based on income. I'm not that smart.
Wouldn't those sort of voter restrictions require an ID?
-
I thought of one more that's neither right nor left but...some sort of test for voter eligibility. You should be able to understand the basic structure of our government to vote. There should be an even more stringent one for anyone running for office, tailored to that office. Education boards should understand a few basic principles of education, president should be able to understand the basic concepts of checks and balances.... You get the idea. I want a smart populace and I want the smart people to be the ones running things, even if I disagree with them on a fundamental level. People in this country, all people, should understand the basics of government. If you can't be bothered to learn it, don't bother voting. You're doing everyone a disservice.
Military and civil service could also be a good stand-in for taking such a test, although I've known plenty of stupid military people. (Hey, I used to live in a military town.) But if you're willing to fight and die and kill for your country, fine. Vote even if you're less intelligent than one would hope.
How many people did I just piss off with this post?
On the voting thing, I understand where you're coming from. Reading about how many Trump voters hate Obamacare but like the ACA is enough to make me want a basic test of some sort to be able to vote.
Unfortunately, in practice, there's no way to do it fairly or have it not devolve into some way to disenfranchise voters. So, I'm just left shaking my head and wishing people actually cared enough about voting knowledgeably.
-
I suppose if I had to pick one I'd say I lean right, I tend left on the following (not so small) points:
- Single payer healthcare is where we should be going
- The environment needs to be protected
- Gay marriage is fine
- Legalize it already
- I'll call you whatever pronoun you want to be called, but I get a few mulligans
- A wall between here and Mexico is ridiculous
- Separation of church and state is very important
- I wouldn't say I'm "pro abortion" (not many people are I don't think), but I don't think it should be illegal or inaccessible, and birth control and sex education should be easily available.
-
I thought of one more that's neither right nor left but...some sort of test for voter eligibility. You should be able to understand the basic structure of our government to vote. There should be an even more stringent one for anyone running for office, tailored to that office. Education boards should understand a few basic principles of education, president should be able to understand the basic concepts of checks and balances.... You get the idea. I want a smart populace and I want the smart people to be the ones running things, even if I disagree with them on a fundamental level. People in this country, all people, should understand the basics of government. If you can't be bothered to learn it, don't bother voting. You're doing everyone a disservice.
Military and civil service could also be a good stand-in for taking such a test, although I've known plenty of stupid military people. (Hey, I used to live in a military town.) But if you're willing to fight and die and kill for your country, fine. Vote even if you're less intelligent than one would hope.
How many people did I just piss off with this post?
On the voting thing, I understand where you're coming from. Reading about how many Trump voters hate Obamacare but like the ACA is enough to make me want a basic test of some sort to be able to vote.
Unfortunately, in practice, there's no way to do it fairly or have it not devolve into some way to disenfranchise voters. So, I'm just left shaking my head and wishing people actually cared enough about voting knowledgeably.
Oh, I definitely agree. My suggestion is incredibly flawed and problematic. If there was a better way then I'd be working on actually getting support for it. As it is, it's got as many problems as voting based on wealth.
If we were going to do something like this, it would have to be publicly funded and things like time off for voting, taking the test, civic engagement, blah blah, would have to be supported as well. I don't see things like that happening any time soon, especially not since it wouldn't benefit those already in power. It's like term limits. You need to start that shit at the beginning of the revolution, not partway into your project.
-
Alright, I'll bite. As a political outlier, I can't honestly subscribe to either party. My apparently fall into the open end of the horseshoe - far left of far left and far right of far right.
Things I agree with (on the left)
Many people need assistance to survive in America. The government is a great vehicle to do this.
More people should have sovereignty over their bodies and over their reproductive rights.
People of different skin tones are not the enemy.
Poor people are not the enemy.
Climate change is a bad deal.
War is bad.
On the right:
Many people need to take more responsibility for their actions and the consequences those actions have.
Killing babies is bad. Sometimes it still should be done.
Rich people are not the enemy.
Guns are not the enemy.
Punishing people for driving cars or shutting down fossil fuel energy generation only in America will not solve climate change, and doing so may cause many other problems.
The United States military, particularly the Navy, has brought amazing peace to the developed world at large, at a level that was unthinkable prior to the end of WWII. This has improved the lives of peoples in many nations, and scaling it down too much could cause problems for many nations.
-
Poor people are the enemy.
Is this a typo? I don't think people on the left consider poor people the enemy....
-
Poor people are the enemy.
Is this a typo? I don't think people on the left consider poor people the enemy....
OH. Yes, clearly a typo. Thank you. - Fixed.
-
Does any party call for a reduction in military spending? Not tepid stuff like cutting a unit or a submarine here and there, I mean real reduction as in 50% reduction of personnel in the next decade.
-
Does any party call for a reduction in military spending? Not tepid stuff like cutting a unit or a submarine here and there, I mean real reduction as in 50% reduction of personnel in the next decade.
Only outliers in their party. The DoD directly employs 3 million people and supports the jobs of countless others throughout the country through building weapons or supporting the economies near bases. Even for Democrats who are supposedly all anti-military, I doubt you'll see a politician volunteer his or her base for closure when the next survey comes around.
-
I think the only talking point I agree with from the Conservative side of politics is about fiscal responsibility. But I feel like it ends with the talking point and they're no more fiscally responsible than anyone else. I feel it's really about not wanting to pay taxes. I think paying taxes is a pretty good deal in America most of the time. YMMV.
I'll add mandatory service requirements to my list. Two years military, or 3 years civil service. The melting pot effect will be good for everyone. And hopefully skinny us us, as a collective.
1
I disagree with mandatory service. I think there's enough people who get in the military voluntarily who hate it. I can't imagine how dysfunctional it could get with people forced to be there.
-
But this thread is about what we agree on.
-
Does any party call for a reduction in military spending? Not tepid stuff like cutting a unit or a submarine here and there, I mean real reduction as in 50% reduction of personnel in the next decade.
There are members of both parties, but as Travis said, it's often seen a political suicide to cut spending because so many voters and industries count on defense spending.
Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders both pushed for the extensive kind of cuts you were talking about. Others, like John Kasiach proposed more modest cuts.
To be fair the US has been relatively constant over the last few 3 decades on military spending (as a % of its GDP). Given that our economy and population are still expanding we could see 'real' reductions simply by freezing the current size and cost for a decade or so. Doubt it will happen, but on paper it works (just not politically).
-
My biggest objection to requiring government service in the US (even if there is a non-military option) is that it would be a dramatic increase in the federal labor pool. With ~320MM people, we're talking about millions of annual (temporary) workers. I'm not sure that's good for the country year-after-year.
Compounding this is what do you do with several million mostly-20-somethings that come in each year for their required service. The majority will be assigned non-career track positions, and since they are required to be there there's no pressure to pay them competitive wages. This is good for keeping the cost of government programs down (cheap labor!) but it gives them a huge advantage over private sector jobs and could create downward pressure on hourly wages and salaries.
Dont get me wrong, I think it would be great if more people worked at least a few years for state and federal governments. I have, nad I"m tired of people who have never been in the federal workforce talking about how 'wasteful' it is. Perhaps this would stoke civic pride and make more people realize that feds are roughly equal to their private industry counterparts.
-
Doesn't need to be military. Most countries that have a mandatory service requirement (and if we had it here in the US should be tor men and women imho) have a civilian option for those who don't agree with military service. Could be 2 years feeding the homeless or doing some other kind of community service. Even if we didn't have "mandatory" paid military/community service here, I think an option of doing either voluntarily in exchange for a paid college education (one year service = one year paid college etc...) would be a nice option.
I should clarify that I disagree with mandatory military or civilian service. Have a civilian option and college tuition as a carrot, but I don't think mandatory service military or civilian is the way to go.
-
Doesn't need to be military. Most countries that have a mandatory service requirement (and if we had it here in the US should be tor men and women imho) have a civilian option for those who don't agree with military service. Could be 2 years feeding the homeless or doing some other kind of community service. Even if we didn't have "mandatory" paid military/community service here, I think an option of doing either voluntarily in exchange for a paid college education (one year service = one year paid college etc...) would be a nice option.
I should clarify that I disagree with mandatory military or civilian service. Have a civilian option and college tuition as a carrot, but I don't think mandatory service military or civilian is the way to go.
I kinda feel the same way here. Carrot is good, but no stick (see above).
-
Thank you very much for this thread.
I'm basically like a super liberal and couldn't think of a single thing I agreed with the current "other" political party on. So inspired by this thread - I went looking for something and I found something!
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2017/02/the_republican_plan_to_kill_fema_might_have_an_upside.html
While I don't agree with the proposal in it's entirety, I don't like that people can just build and build in threatened areas and then get bailed out when disaster inevitably strikes.
I will keep looking for things I agree with!
-
I'm liberal but agree with a lot of things conservatives ostensibly believe in, but hate it when people subconsciously (or consciously) ignore how it applies to them also:
1. The government often tries to over-reach in regulating people economically and morally. The federal government spends too much on a lot of things with minimal benefit to anyone. This includes spending on dying rural towns that provide no economic benefit to anyone. They also try to regulate things like what marriage is and other nonsense that's not the government's business.
2. Gun bans don't work well due to specifics unique to the US and the logistics of controlling the flow of guns around the country, and I should be allowed to have one if criminals de facto are also allowed.
3. Adults should be more responsible for themselves and shouldn't get social services just for being incompetent or lazy. However, there are some good reasons why an adult needs monetary assistance in the short term that save us money in the long run, and anyone not living in the wilderness on a subsistence diet who says they are uniquely self-sufficient is a fool.
4.Immigration should be regulated, and you don't get to selectively ignore immigration laws because of your beliefs. That's part of being in a functioning society: you have to follow laws enacted by your representatives, or otherwise get them to change them. That being said, I don't think that just because someone's great-grandparents legally showed up here before my parents legally did, that they're somehow special or more entitled to things in the country. No one is special just because of their ancestry.
5. Going with #4, no one should get an advantage in applications to jobs or higher education because of their ancestry. However, I do think there is a long-term societal benefit to helping poor people (regardless of ancestry) who are otherwise qualified pay for higher education.
-
I'm pretty much a bleeding heart liberal in most things, but there's some conservative ideas and concepts I can definitely get behind. I won't say I agree with the Republican party for shit, because plenty of their... ah, shall we say, major platforms aren't conservative in the slightest either, but hey.
- Less spying & government intervention in people's personal lives. I'm more moderate about government regulation of businesses. Between the Patriot Act and cameras on every corner of everything, I'm decidedly uncomfortable with the USA becoming a major surveillance country. I don't want the government (or the church, or old white men, my mom's dog, or indeed anyone) peeking into anyone's bedrooms and deciding who they should be banging, how they should be worshipping, and how they should be living. I think government regulations on businesses should be in the interest of protection of employees and the businesses themselves (to prevent sexual harassment and incidents like the Triangle Factory Fire, for example), not so they can nickel and dime and tax small businesses to death, or make the hurtles to starting a new business prohibitively expensive and/or complicated.
- Gun control. I don't like guns, and grit my teeth every time there's YET ANOTHER mass shooting in the US, and all the gun nuts come rushing out in droves to point fingers at other things and assert that it has nothing to do with the massive proliferation of firearms in the country. That said, I also don't live in la-la land where a ban is feasible or even possible-- the US loves its guns, there are tons of guns everywhere, and it's a whole cultural thing. I think gun purchases should be regulated thoroughly to provide maximum gun education and maximum gun accountability-- to be able to trace guns to their owners, and to ensure that every owner goes through a course to educate them on proper gun ownership, usage, and safekeeping. If we're going to have people toting firearms everywhere they go, I'll be happy knowing that any shots fired can be attributed to the correct owner, and all the gun-toters have been rigorously educated on the use of their stuff.
- Personal responsibility. Why else be on the MMM forums? When it comes to general populations, social structures, and government programs and assistance, I'm all for people getting help when they need it. But when it comes to living your own damn life, ain't nobody going to do that for you, and no complaint about privilege, blame, your shitty childhood, them immigrants, or anything else will change that.
And let me be clear, the whining comes from all sides, across all lines. I feel like there's a lot of attribution to "whiny sjws who can't do anything but blame other people for their shit lots in life" and sure, there's plenty of that, but I've also had the dubious pleasure of watching old white rich folks complaining about not being able to call folks "chinks" and how sad and hard their lives are faced with the specter of racism and how "nobody cared before" (spoiler: they did, they just didn't have the power to say anything to you.) Or a male boss talking about how much money he's losing and how his financial woes have women and immigrants to blame, because you can't pay them less (than men and white people, presumably), and how is his business supposed to stay afloat?
-
Very gay, very liberal.
However, I recognize that illegal immigration is a problem (all be it a small problem). I just think that addressing the problem is being done in a very poor way (walls are dumb and deporting forces are dumb). We should first revise the quota system set up almost 100 years ago (the world has changed since then) and go to a point merit-based system. Further, enforcing laws dealing with hiring illegal workers should be the top priority as it should be easier to police/detur (business owners have assets to protect). If an illegal immigrant cannot make money in the USA the immigrant will self-deport saving us all money.
I am hopelessly lost as to any other issue that the right either considers a problem or has a decent idea at fixing a problem.