Beyond the discussion; where do you stand politically?

[OHvol40]

Probably true..... but would you rather know he’s a scum bag a**hole or have someone who puts on a front of being a great guy, but in reality is a scum bag a**hole?

That’s a false dichotomy. The whole notion that being conned by a con man that tells you he’s a con man being better is a premise that I reject entirely.

 

[hog88]

I am focused and what is actually passed as law. Or actual changes to reality instead of rhetoric. If we could believe the rhetoric, Rs are still fiscally conservative and wanting smaller government (LOL).

LOL and Dems are for the working man.....

 

[LouderVol]

I ask you to please look at the platforms from the 1980s until now. And please don't try to tell me the evangelicals haven't become far more prominent in the party during the last 40 years

The moral majority has died off. Trump is president. Abortion has always been there, prayer in school is the same. God/10 commandments removed from government buildings.

I havent found a similiar break down for 1980 but I have to imagine there are less Christian's now than back then in Congress. Faith on the Hill: The religious composition of the 116th Congress

There are a grand total of 2 Evangelicals listed in the House.
Evangelical Representatives of the United States Senate

You really are going to have to back up your assertion because it looks like bs.

 

[OHvol40]

I am focused and what is actually passed as law. Or actual changes to reality instead of rhetoric. If we could believe the rhetoric, Rs are still fiscally conservative and wanting smaller government (LOL).

Two additional things that I found interesting. First, the difference from 1980-1992 was stark. Obviously the situations were drastically different, but a lot of positions that are part of the modern platform were not really articulated in 1980, but seemed solidified solidified by ‘92.

Also in both instances, if the authors were forbidden from talking about economic growth, the family unit, or democrats those documents would be blank lol.

 

[Carl Pickens]

That’s a false dichotomy. The whole notion that being conned by a con man that tells you he’s a con man is better is a premise that I reject entirely.

Ok.... let’s come at it from this perspective. Would you rather have a coworker that you know is a back stabbing a-hole or one that acts like they’re your friend, but then throws you under the bus behind your back every chance they get?

 

[OHvol40]

Ok.... let’s come at it from this perspective. Would you rather have a coworker that you know is a back stabbing a-hole or one that acts like they’re your friend, but then throws you under the bus behind your back every chance they get?

False dichotomy again, but nice try lol. I’ll find one that’s not an a**hole most of the time.

 

[Carl Pickens]

False dichotomy again, but nice try lol. I’ll find one that’s not an a**hole most of the time.

We’re being hypothetical here.... I prefer knowing exactly where I stand with someone or knowing how they are. I’d rather know what the devil looks like than having him be some kind of shape shifter

 

[happy-go_vol]

Sadly, it is too late to add that option to the poll.

I think trump did a lot of burning down the gop establishment.

 

[McDad]

Two additional things that I found interesting. First, the difference from 1980-1992 was stark. Obviously the situations were drastically different, but a lot of positions that are part of the modern platform were not really articulated in 1980, but seemed solidified solidified by ‘92.

Also in both instances, if the authors were forbidden from talking about economic growth, the family unit, or democrats those documents would be blank lol.

Again, disagree in the starkness.

One thing that I think is pivotal about 1980 Rs, is that was the decade where the lower taxes/increased spending model came from. One of the older folks can comment on Ford, Nixon, etc if I am wrong. The lower taxes/increased spending model remains to this day. Ds, on the other hand, still appear to me to hold fast to the increased taxes/increased spending model.

 

[McDad]

I think trump did a lot of burning down the gop establishment.

As far as I'm concerned, i hope more establishment types are burned down.

 

[Carl Pickens]

I honestly don’t know how to answer the poll. I’m disgusted with both parties and lack of true leadership. Neither party has the best interest of the country in mind. Most politicians are just greedy, pandering actors more concerned with lining their pockets than actually promoting the country’s best interests.

 

[825VOL]

Completely disagree on backing teachers. Rs have recently imposed standardized education models, made concerted efforts to bust teacher’s unions, and lead PR campaigns disparaging public educators.

Also disagree on labor in general. Rs have, in recent years, lead the charge to bust all unions.

Medicare and SS is more of an inference. If anyone has been flirting with the idea of tanking either it’s the Rs.

You may disagree but imo no public entity or group that gets their funding from government should be allowed to unionize. They are not negotiating directly with the ones that pay their salaries( the tax payers) and therefore any negotiation is never in the best interest of the taxpayers.

 

[OHvol40]

We’re being hypothetical here.... I prefer knowing exactly where I stand with someone or knowing how they are. I’d rather know what the devil looks like than having him be some kind of shape shifter

I’d rather just avoid the a**holes altogether.

 

[OHvol40]

Again, disagree in the starkness.

One thing that I think is pivotal about 1980 Rs, is that was the decade where the lower taxes/increased spending model came from. One of the older folks can comment on Ford, Nixon, etc if I am wrong. The lower taxes/increased spending model remains to this day. Ds, on the other hand, still appear to me to hold fast to the increased taxes/increased spending model.

You’d have to consume both document in their entirety to notice the differences. I don’t recommend it unless you’re planning a nap.
One of the main differences was the emphasis on deregulation under Bush (‘92). Also, it’s interesting that in 1980 the platform focuses a lot on black citizens and their plight and hardly any mention in ‘92.

 

[McDad]

I honestly don’t know how to answer the poll. I’m disgusted with both parties and lack of true leadership. Neither party has the best interest of the country in mind. Most politicians are just greedy, pandering actors more concerned with lining their pockets than actually promoting the country’s best interests.

"worst poll ever" is your choice.

 

[McDad]

You’d have to consume both document in their entirety to notice the differences. I don’t recommend it unless you’re planning a nap.
One of the main differences was the emphasis on deregulation under Bush (‘92). Also, it’s interesting that in 1980 the platform focuses a lot on black citizens and their plight and hardly any mention in ‘92.

Do you understand me when I make a distinction between what is said (or stated) and what is actually passed (or done)?

 

[NorthDallas40]

I feel like I'm close to Libertarian, but maybe I want a tiny bit more of government reach than true Libertarianism. For instance, I think the Flint water crisis merits federal intervention. I also think there are people smart enough to use federal resources to a minimal extent while successfully resolving the issue.

To be honest, I'm still trying to figure some things out. It's obvious to me that I'm not squarely fitting in anywhere, and I feel like it would be a concession to endorse a candidate or party I don't 100% believe in.

Hopefully I am corrected if I am off base, but I think many Libertarians (maybe even a vocal sect of libertarians) favor stronger government on water and air cleanliness.

Specifically on Flint I’d agree that government intervention was warranted I’d just suggest it should have been handled at the state level is all.

I’m not against government getting involved in a situation when warranted. But I’m pretty damn well convinced the federal government needs to butt the hell out of most things it sticks it’s nose into including this case.

And this is clearly the worst pole ever.

 

[1972 Grad]

"worst poll ever" is your choice.

And that is why I chose that answer. I couldn't honestly go with any of the others.

 

[hog88]

Specifically on Flint I’d agree that government intervention was warranted I’d just suggest it should have been handled at the state level is all.

I’m not against government getting involved in a situation when warranted. But I’m pretty damn well convinced the federal government needs to butt the hell out of most things it sticks it’s nose into including this case.

And this is clearly the worst pole ever.

The fed .gov had no business in the Flint mess. That was a local/state problem and the voters there should hold their local/state leaders accountable.

 

[NorthDallas40]

The fed .gov had no business in the Flint mess. That was a local/state problem and the voters there should hold their local/state leaders accountable.

Agreed

 

[McDad]

The fed .gov had no business in the Flint mess. That was a local/state problem and the voters there should hold their local/state leaders accountable.

I am not saying Flint is the case, but at what point do those who align with small federal government think it is time for the fed to step in to correct a state problem, if ever?

 

[hog88]

I am not saying Flint is the case, but at what point do those who align with small federal government think it is time for the fed to step in to correct a state problem, if ever?

Maybe in a case of insurrection or extreme natural disaster that is beyond the reasonable capability of a state. People need to quit looking to the fed .gov to solve problems, they usually make things worse.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I am not saying Flint is the case, but at what point do those who align with small federal government think it is time for the fed to step in to correct a state problem, if ever?

I think the bar should be very very high. FEMA disaster response level high. Basically to the point that it would financially destroy a state to not assist. And even then that should be a low/zero interest loan. Regardless of whether the fed provides monetary assistance the responsibility for and leadership on correcting issues within a state should stay with the state.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Maybe in a case of insurrection or extreme natural disaster that is beyond the reasonable capability of a state. People need to quit looking to the fed .gov to solve problems, they usually make things worse.

Copy porcine

 

[happy-go_vol]

I honestly don’t know how to answer the poll. I’m disgusted with both parties and lack of true leadership. Neither party has the best interest of the country in mind. Most politicians are just greedy, pandering actors more concerned with lining their pockets than actually promoting the country’s best interests.

I dont think thats as much as you think. I do know the new communist used to be the dem party but no longer.