Jump to content
Null

Where you are on the issues vs how you vote


Recommended Posts

In another thread there got to be this back and forth over what I am - Republican, conservative, liberal, Democrat, whatever.  I started to answer there but it's in the smack forum where no one really discusses much of anything seriously, but the more I thought about it I thought it might be interesting to talk about for me and other people too.

What I did say over there is that my voting record says one thing, but I don't really call myself a Republican anymore.  I used to, but I'd sort of moved toward using "conservative" for a while because I didn't really believe the GOP was conservative by any rational measure any more.  Then I realized that really didn't always makes sense because what it really comes down to is that it depends on what issue we're talking about.  Sometimes I'm conservative, sometimes more progressive/liberal, and other times it's a mixed bag or somewhere in between.

And then there's how I tend to vote, which doesn't really correlate with the above much at all since we don't have a parliamentary system with multiple parties across the spectrum.  We just have this damned two party thing where the loudmouths and extreme voices on either side disproportionately steer the agenda and viable candidates for each party.

So I'll go first.  I'd love to hear where others fall.  I'll throw out some issues under each heading and you can feel free to use those or you can add some I didn't think of.

Voting Record
99% Republican.  I can probably count on one hand how many times I've voted for a Democrat in anything outside a local election.  Trump was the first GOP presidential candidate I refused to cast a vote for.  I hope to have a viable candidate in 2024 to support but ain't holding my breath.

 

The Issues

Conservative
Abortion
Marriage and sexuality issues
Parental rights re: their children's education


Lean Conservative
2nd Amendment issues
Free Trade


Mixed (by this I mean, I cherry pick good points I think either side makes to form a new position)
Immigration
Energy policy
Environmental issues
Unions


Lean Progressive/Liberal
Legalize marijuana (but not in favor of decriminalizing other harder drugs)



Progressive/Liberal
Paid parental leave after having a baby (3 months minimum, 6 months preferable)
Universal healthcare (healthcare shouldn't be a privilege, open to public/private hybrid systems - just get everyone covered)
Opinions of Trump


Other/Neither
Free speech - it's perhaps our most precious right.  People do not have a constitutional right to not be offended or to not have to encounter ideas they don't like or challenge their own.  Neither side is really getting it right on this.

 

If there were such a thing these days as a socially conservative Democrat, maybe my voting record would be different.  But a lot of the social issues on the conservative side have moral dimensions that I can't compromise on.  I've said ever since Trump gave the GOP a frontal lobotomy that all the Democrats have to do to absolutely dominate politically is not be insane, but they just can't resist on some of this stuff.

Your turn.  Let's hear it - if you dare.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites





33 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

......

I've said ever since Trump gave the GOP a frontal lobotomy that all the Democrats have to do to absolutely dominate politically is not be insane, but they just can't resist on some of this stuff.

Your turn.  Let's hear it - if you dare.

I will spend more time when I get to the house later.  I think this is a very good discussion to have.  I couldn't agree more with the above sentence of yours.  I even said something related after Trump won.  Trump had the opportunity to become one of the greatest Presidents to ever hold the office due to the cult like following he built.  He could have steered that group into following anything he proposed, from universal healthcare to immigration reform.  Unfortunately, he never had the vision to accomplish something for the greater good, instead always opting to place self before anything and everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought of another issue:  Capital punishment. I'm opposed to it.

I'd fit under the progressive/liberal side on this issue.  In all honesty it's not that I don't believe there are some crimes for which capital punishment is a just sentence.  What it comes down to is that given how many people on death row have been exonerated with DNA evidence, or discovery of prosecutorial misconduct that kept exculpatory evidence out of the court, I don't have confidence that our justice system can get it right.  Executing a person who isn't guilty of the crime is morally abhorrent.  At least if I give them life in prison, if we discover exculpatory evidence later we can set them free and even give them some compensation.  It's a correctable mistake.  But death is final.  You can't go back and correct that.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/13/2022 at 3:59 PM, TitanTiger said:

In another thread there got to be this back and forth over what I am - Republican, conservative, liberal, Democrat, whatever.  I started to answer there but it's in the smack forum where no one really discusses much of anything seriously, but the more I thought about it I thought it might be interesting to talk about for me and other people too.

What I did say over there is that my voting record says one thing, but I don't really call myself a Republican anymore.  I used to, but I'd sort of moved toward using "conservative" for a while because I didn't really believe the GOP was conservative by any rational measure any more.  Then I realized that really didn't always makes sense because what it really comes down to is that it depends on what issue we're talking about.  Sometimes I'm conservative, sometimes more progressive/liberal, and other times it's a mixed bag or somewhere in between.

And then there's how I tend to vote, which doesn't really correlate with the above much at all since we don't have a parliamentary system with multiple parties across the spectrum.  We just have this damned two party thing where the loudmouths and extreme voices on either side disproportionately steer the agenda and viable candidates for each party.

So I'll go first.  I'd love to hear where others fall.  I'll throw out some issues under each heading and you can feel free to use those or you can add some I didn't think of.

Voting Record
99% Republican.  I can probably count on one hand how many times I've voted for a Democrat in anything outside a local election.  Trump was the first GOP presidential candidate I refused to cast a vote for.  I hope to have a viable candidate in 2024 to support but ain't holding my breath.

 

The Issues

Conservative
Abortion
Marriage and sexuality issues
Parental rights re: their children's education


Lean Conservative
2nd Amendment issues
Free Trade


Mixed (by this I mean, I cherry pick good points I think either side makes to form a new position)
Immigration
Energy policy
Environmental issues
Unions


Lean Progressive/Liberal
Legalize marijuana (but not in favor of decriminalizing other harder drugs)



Progressive/Liberal
Paid parental leave after having a baby (3 months minimum, 6 months preferable)
Universal healthcare (healthcare shouldn't be a privilege, open to public/private hybrid systems - just get everyone covered)
Opinions of Trump


Other/Neither
Free speech - it's perhaps our most precious right.  People do not have a constitutional right to not be offended or to not have to encounter ideas they don't like or challenge their own.  Neither side is really getting it right on this.

 

If there were such a thing these days as a socially conservative Democrat, maybe my voting record would be different.  But a lot of the social issues on the conservative side have moral dimensions that I can't compromise on.  I've said ever since Trump gave the GOP a frontal lobotomy that all the Democrats have to do to absolutely dominate politically is not be insane, but they just can't resist on some of this stuff.

Your turn.  Let's hear it - if you dare.

How I vote.  I believe that one of the greatest dangers to this country is tribalism that results in voting for the letter next to the name instead of the person on the ballot.  That is how the Communist Party has maintained control in other places, party first and country second.  I consider myself to be a voting realist.  I don't have to agree with everything a candidate says or does for that candidate to be the better choice.

I was once a Young Republican.  I worked for the Paul Coverdell Senate campaign in Georgia.  While at Auburn, I decided to ride with a friend over to Columbus, Georgia, were the governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton, was speaking at the Sheraton Hotel.  I have never met someone that was as charismatic and knowledgeable as he was that day. Within a couple of weeks I was walking door to door with hundreds of other students handing out information about his campaign.

I am socially liberal in my views, much like a Libertarian.  I am economically a conservative and believe that not addressing the debt is the country's ticking time bomb.  What I dislike most is being being lied to in a way that insults someone's intelligence.  I believe that universal healthcare is a matter of when and not if it will be the defining element of our health care system.  I don't believe that it will cost as much as some fear, being that we currently spend an amount that, applied in any other country on the planet, would provide the care needed.

I believe that it is sad that Christian leaders have opted to support candidates that offer them a possible win on one issue, while forgetting what makes them men and women of faith. That decision will result in serious damage to the church in this country.

 

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/14/2022 at 11:46 AM, TitanTiger said:

Thought of another issue:  Capital punishment. I'm opposed to it.

I'd fit under the progressive/liberal side on this issue.  In all honesty it's not that I don't believe there are some crimes for which capital punishment is a just sentence.  What it comes down to is that given how many people on death row have been exonerated with DNA evidence, or discovery of prosecutorial misconduct that kept exculpatory evidence out of the court, I don't have confidence that our justice system can get it right.  Executing a person who isn't guilty of the crime is morally abhorrent.  At least if I give them life in prison, if we discover exculpatory evidence later we can set them free and even give them some compensation.  It's a correctable mistake.  But death is final.  You can't go back and correct that.

I with you on most issues but I firmly  support the death penalty, plus a quicker path to execution, and for a planned  and restrictive immigration policy. Be selective on who we let in this country, we need more assets and few liabilities.

I am pretty anti-union even though I was born and raised in the 2nd most unionized area of Alabama.

I don’t support regular citizens having access to guns of mass destruction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, AU9377 said:

How I vote.  I believe that one of the greatest dangers to this country is tribalism that results in voting for the letter next to the name instead of the person on the ballot.  That is how the Communist Party has maintained control in other places, party first and country second.  I consider myself to be a voting realist.  I don't have to agree with everything a candidate says or does for that candidate to be the better choice.

I was once a Young Republican.  I worked for the Paul Coverdell Senate campaign in Georgia.  While at Auburn, I decided to ride with a friend over to Columbus, Georgia, were the governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton, was speaking at the Sheraton Hotel.  I have never met someone that was as charismatic and knowledgeable as he was that day. Within a couple of weeks I was walking door to door with hundreds of other students handing out information about his campaign.

I am socially liberal in my views, much like a Libertarian.  I am economically a conservative and believe that not addressing the debt is the country's ticking time bomb.  What I dislike most is being being lied to in a way that insults someone's intelligence.  I believe that universal healthcare is a matter of when and not if it will be the defining element of our health care system.  I don't believe that it will cost as much as some fear, being that we currently spend an amount that, applied in any other country on the planet, would provide the care needed.

I believe that it is sad that Christian leaders have opted to support candidates that offer them a possible win on one issue, while forgetting what makes them men and women of faith. That decision will result in serious damage to the church in this country.

Ditto. Was a YR while at AU. Campaigned for Jeremiah Denton. We lost to Shelby. Very Socially Liberal, Gay Marriage, Legalize Weed, Raising the minimum wage, M4A, Some reform on Student Loans/Trade School Support. I too am a very strict Financial Conservative. We are spending ourselves into oblivion at some point. I was a Republican 1980 to 2005. I cant hardly listen to a Republican now. They make my skin crawl. My lie detector goes off on the buzzwords. They do not mean a word of support for Pro-Life Issues. DONT MEAN A ******* WORD OF IT. They just dont. Been there first hand to see them trot it out every election cycle and not say or do anything while in office. 

Democrats? After Clinton, they became DINOS. They are Republican Lite. They spend like sailors in a whore house. No rhyme nor reason at all. They also tell BS about being "liberals." Excuse me, the only Progressive issues they even talk about are the bat crap crazy ones. M4A, Raising the MW, etc, we didnt even a get a damn vote, forget getting it passed. Stabbed in the back, AS USUAL.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, PUB78 said:

I with you on most issues but I firmly  support the death penalty, plus a quicker path to execution,

So, what do you do with the death row cases where people are later exonerated?  Is this troubling to you?

And wouldn't accelerating the time to execution make the problem even worse?

 

18 hours ago, PUB78 said:

and for a planned  and restrictive immigration policy. Be selective on who we let in this country, we need more assets and few liabilities.

This is why I'm in the middle on this issue.  I don't think everyone should be let in willy nilly.  And we should have a grasp on who is actually coming in.  Get them documented and paying taxes.  But I also feel like we need to be compassionate about this.  People are fleeing real hardship, real violence and danger, and every single one of us would do the same if we had wives and children to take care of and protect.

 

18 hours ago, PUB78 said:

I am pretty anti-union even though I was born and raised in the 2nd most unionized area of Alabama.

I don’t support regular citizens having access to guns of mass destruction.

I think the pendulum of power has swung too far back toward business owners and corporations.  Unions can bring it back into balance some.

I agree on those types of guns.  I also think we people should be required to take gun safety courses and put in a certain number of hours per year in target practice/firearms training. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Issues:

 

I own guns and believe I have that right, but can’t stand gun fetishists who can’t get enough guns or enough fire power or believe they can throw an AR15 or similar over the shoulder and troll the public. I think they have a particular form of anti-social depravity.

 

I believe some (not all)liberals minimize the moral dimension of abortion. It’s a complex issue. But I don’t see a pragmatic way for governments to force women to carry pregnancies to term. I think the Christian position should be to minister to and support such women, not condemn them. Unfortunately, legislation and state power has become the primary focus of most abortion opponents, instead of supporting women and making carrying the child to term and then either keeping him/her with support or offering him/her for adoption more feasible. I don’t think most abortion opponents truly care about the life of the child after it’s born or the person having the child- their alignment on other policy positions tends to support this view.

 

I believe gay people should be free to marry and not face job discrimination. 

 

I think teachers should be able to answer basic questions about their own families (e.g. if they have a partner or kids) if asked, but leave it at that. If a male teacher isn’t allowed to mention the sex of a male partner, they shouldn’t be able to mention the sex of a female partner. Yes, students tend to be curious about their teachers. Either keep the information shared very basic, or keep private lives private— equally.

 

At least decriminalize small amounts of marijuana. Perhaps legalize well regulated production/distribution of it. Study Colorado and others to see how it goes first.

 

We need a sane immigration policy. Our economy depends on it. We also need a sane asylum policy— it can’t be open to anyone in a worse situation, but we must be able to also balance compassion. Nuance is essential. 

 

I believe in a market based economy. I believe we must have the profit incentive for investors to fund the means of production. True socialism doesn’t work particularly well. But a strong safety net is essential. I believe in basic healthcare for all. Elective procedures (including almost all cosmetic surgery except after disfiguring accidents or attacks and a few other situations with physical health impacts) can be handled privately. 

 

While I don’t believe in collective ownership of the means of production, there’s something wrong with countries that are wealthy in natural resources having broad swaths of impoverished people while a handful reap all that wealth. If there’s oil flowing beneath our two properties and you invest in the means to extract what’s under mine as well as yours, you should be rewarded sufficiently to justify your risk of investment and efforts. But the society I live in should get a reasonable benefit from that wealth. Through taxes or some similar mechanisms, countries rich in natural resources should more broadly benefit from those resources.

 

Education should not break the bank, but folks shouldn’t be able to pursue expensive private tuition or costly living standards while in school and expect society to pick up the tab. Good, solid tax-supported education should be available at low tuition rates. High schools and community colleges should provide strong training for trades, e.g. plumbing, electrical, medical, etc. and it should not be presented as a fall back or less than. Nor should it be seen as the default for folks of a lower SES.

 

I believe in the current S.Ct. rulings on free speech, except that money equals speech and can’t be meaningfully regulated. That ruling diminishes the leveling impact of free expression.

 

While I’m an independent who’s voted R, D and I, in recent years I’ve voted almost exclusively D because of the rapid devolution of the Republican Party into one that resulted in a guy like Trump as an exalted leader. That said, I’m not pleased with Democrats lately and could be persuaded to vote for a guy like Larry Hogan. If a Republican can get a 77% approval rating in MD, he’s probably pretty reasonable. If Republicans could somehow nominate a guy those in the middle can feel good about, he likely wins a Reagan-like landslide. And hopefully tempers both the Republican Party & Democratic Party in the process.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Issues:

 

I own guns and believe I have that right, but can’t stand gun fetishists who can’t get enough guns or enough fire power or believe they can throw an AR15 or similar over the shoulder and troll the public. I think they have a particular form of anti-social depravity.

 

I believe some (not all)liberals minimize the moral dimension of abortion. It’s a complex issue. But I don’t see a pragmatic way for governments to force women to carry pregnancies to term. I think the Christian position should be to minister to and support such women, not condemn them. Unfortunately, legislation and state power has become the primary focus of most abortion opponents, instead of supporting women and making carrying the child to term and then either keeping him/her with support or offering him/her for adoption more feasible. I don’t think most abortion opponents truly care about the life of the child after it’s born or the person having the child- their alignment on other policy positions tends to support this view.

 

I believe gay people should be free to marry and not face job discrimination. 

 

I think teachers should be able to answer basic questions about their own families (e.g. if they have a partner or kids) if asked, but leave it at that. If a male teacher isn’t allowed to mention the sex of a male partner, they shouldn’t be able to mention the sex of a female partner. Yes, students tend to be curious about their teachers. Either keep the information shared very basic, or keep private lives private— equally.

 

At least decriminalize small amounts of marijuana. Perhaps legalize well regulated production/distribution of it. Study Colorado and others to see how it goes first.

 

We need a sane immigration policy. Our economy depends on it. We also need a sane asylum policy— it can’t be open to anyone in a worse situation, but we must be able to also balance compassion. Nuance is essential. 

 

I believe in a market based economy. I believe we must have the profit incentive for investors to fund the means of production. True socialism doesn’t work particularly well. But a strong safety net is essential. I believe in basic healthcare for all. Elective procedures (including almost all cosmetic surgery except after disfiguring accidents or attacks and a few other situations with physical health impacts) can be handled privately. 

 

While I don’t believe in collective ownership of the means of production, there’s something wrong with countries that are wealthy in natural resources having broad swaths of impoverished people while a handful reap all that wealth. If there’s oil flowing beneath our two properties and you invest in the means to extract what’s under mine as well as yours, you should be rewarded sufficiently to justify your risk of investment and efforts. But the society I live in should get a reasonable benefit from that wealth. Through taxes or some similar mechanisms, countries rich in natural resources should more broadly benefit from those resources.

 

Education should not break the bank, but folks shouldn’t be able to pursue expensive private tuition or costly living standards while in school and expect society to pick up the tab. Good, solid tax-supported education should be available at low tuition rates. High schools and community colleges should provide strong training for trades, e.g. plumbing, electrical, medical, etc. and it should not be presented as a fall back or less than. Nor should it be seen as the default for folks of a lower SES.

 

I believe in the current S.Ct. rulings on free speech, except that money equals speech and can’t be meaningfully regulated. That ruling diminishes the leveling impact of free expression.

 

While I’m an independent who’s voted R, D and I, in recent years I’ve voted almost exclusively D because of the rapid devolution of the Republican Party into one that resulted in a guy like Trump as an exalted leader. That said, I’m not pleased with Democrats lately and could be persuaded to vote for a guy like Larry Hogan. If a Republican can get a 77% approval rating in MD, he’s probably pretty reasonable. If Republicans could somehow nominate a guy those in the middle can feel good about, he likely wins a Reagan-like landslide. And hopefully tempers both the Republican Party & Democratic Party in the process.

In alignment with what you say other than recent years voting…..good stuff Tex. Take on guns, astounded to see the numbers of young educated and well employed 30 somethings feeling the need of multiple guns, AR15s, more ammo than available. Coached many any youth baseball through the years. Know of only 2 or 3 that where brought up knowing anything about a gun.

Abortion, have always supported groups Save a Life…… messy problem 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/16/2022 at 12:29 PM, TexasTiger said:

Issues:I don’t think most abortion opponents truly care about the life of the child after it’s born or the person having the child- their alignment on other policy positions tends to support this view.

 

Such as what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shoney, this isn’t the thread or the forum for drive by swipes. If you want to have some serious engagement of your or others’ various political stances, great. But keep that other stuff in the smack forum. Let’s try to have an intelligent discussion here. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Shoney, this isn’t the thread or the forum for drive by swipes. If you want to have some serious engagement of your or others’ various political stances, great. But keep that other stuff in the smack forum. Let’s try to have an intelligent discussion here. 

Not being resistant to your directive, but what makes those questions non-serious or not intelligent? I genuinely don't understand.

You asked for clarification about someone's stance regarding the death penalty and commented on someone's stance on immigration above.  What makes that different than the questions I asked?

My questions were brief, yes, but I'm trying to understand more about the thought process before potentially proceeding.

Edited by Shoney'sPonyBoy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Not being resistant to your directive, but what makes those questions non-serious or not intelligent? I genuinely don't understand.

You asked for clarification about someone's stance regarding the death penalty and commented on someone's stance on immigration above.  What makes that different than the questions I asked?

My questions were brief, yes, but I'm trying to understand more about the thought process before potentially proceeding.

I’ll be honest, it’s hard for me to believe this is a genuine question. But against my better judgement, I’ll respond.
 

Your question to Tex doesn’t in any way appear to be a real attempt to understand or offer more insight. You just saw him give an example of something on gun regulation that you didn’t like or dinged one “side” of the culture war and felt the need to chime in with a shot at the other side. It’s tangential at best. 

Just join in the discussion like a normal person that doesn’t have to assume some defensive posture about everything.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/13/2022 at 2:59 PM, TitanTiger said:

In another thread there got to be this back and forth over what I am - Republican, conservative, liberal, Democrat, whatever.  I started to answer there but it's in the smack forum where no one really discusses much of anything seriously, but the more I thought about it I thought it might be interesting to talk about for me and other people too.

What I did say over there is that my voting record says one thing, but I don't really call myself a Republican anymore.  I used to, but I'd sort of moved toward using "conservative" for a while because I didn't really believe the GOP was conservative by any rational measure any more.  Then I realized that really didn't always makes sense because what it really comes down to is that it depends on what issue we're talking about.  Sometimes I'm conservative, sometimes more progressive/liberal, and other times it's a mixed bag or somewhere in between.

And then there's how I tend to vote, which doesn't really correlate with the above much at all since we don't have a parliamentary system with multiple parties across the spectrum.  We just have this damned two party thing where the loudmouths and extreme voices on either side disproportionately steer the agenda and viable candidates for each party.

So I'll go first.  I'd love to hear where others fall.  I'll throw out some issues under each heading and you can feel free to use those or you can add some I didn't think of.

Voting Record
99% Republican.  I can probably count on one hand how many times I've voted for a Democrat in anything outside a local election.  Trump was the first GOP presidential candidate I refused to cast a vote for.  I hope to have a viable candidate in 2024 to support but ain't holding my breath.

 

The Issues

Conservative
Abortion
Marriage and sexuality issues
Parental rights re: their children's education


Lean Conservative
2nd Amendment issues
Free Trade


Mixed (by this I mean, I cherry pick good points I think either side makes to form a new position)
Immigration
Energy policy
Environmental issues
Unions


Lean Progressive/Liberal
Legalize marijuana (but not in favor of decriminalizing other harder drugs)



Progressive/Liberal
Paid parental leave after having a baby (3 months minimum, 6 months preferable)
Universal healthcare (healthcare shouldn't be a privilege, open to public/private hybrid systems - just get everyone covered)
Opinions of Trump


Other/Neither
Free speech - it's perhaps our most precious right.  People do not have a constitutional right to not be offended or to not have to encounter ideas they don't like or challenge their own.  Neither side is really getting it right on this.

 

If there were such a thing these days as a socially conservative Democrat, maybe my voting record would be different.  But a lot of the social issues on the conservative side have moral dimensions that I can't compromise on.  I've said ever since Trump gave the GOP a frontal lobotomy that all the Democrats have to do to absolutely dominate politically is not be insane, but they just can't resist on some of this stuff.

Your turn.  Let's hear it - if you dare.

i beg to differ. most of my stuff is dead serious i am just not gifted like some of you guys.and to be dead honest i feel like i have less of a chance of getting banned or a time out if you will on smackdown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I’ll be honest, it’s hard for me to believe this is a genuine question. But against my better judgement, I’ll respond.
 

Your question to Tex doesn’t in any way appear to be a real attempt to understand or offer more insight. You just saw him give an example of something on gun regulation that you didn’t like or dinged one “side” of the culture war and felt the need to chime in with a shot at the other side. It’s tangential at best. 

Just join in the discussion like a normal person that doesn’t have to assume some defensive posture about everything.  

That's quite arrogant.

This is exactly why I almost never post here.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

That's quite arrogant.

This is exactly why I almost never post here.

Ok.  I'm sorry you feel that way.  You're still welcome to engage the subject of the thread in a serious way.  But what you did earlier wasn't that.

For instance, PUB replied to me and he agreed with a good bit but differed greatly on capital punishment - like a polar opposite take.  I then replied to him here, asking him how he reconciled that with the issue of death row people being later exonerated:

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/181783-where-you-are-on-the-issues-vs-how-you-vote/?do=findComment&comment=3562224

That's roughly how a normal back and forth where people have diametrically different views ought to look.  That's all I'm asking here.  I really didn't think it was a big ask.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You're still welcome to engage the subject of the thread in a serious way.  But what you did earlier wasn't that.

 

 

So what if I had said, "Your characterization of people carrying AR-15s in public seems to be a bit narrow, as groups such as the Black Panthers or the people who took over part of Seattle during the George Floyd protests carried them as well.  What—if any—characteristics differentiate those people carrying AR-15s in public from the people you were talking about?  Or in your opinion, does your characterization apply to anyone who carries an AR-15 in public for any reason?"

What then?  Because I got to exactly the same place with a lot fewer words with my original post.

And if you're still going to claim that the above isn't a serious inquiry, in order to have any credibility whatsoever you're going to have to explain why.  I already asked what the big difference between the clarifying questions you asked above and what I asked, and you didn't answer.  You posted a link to your question, but I already knew that (I'm the one who brought it up, remember?). So we could start with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's look again at what @TexasTiger.  If he wishes to expound, he can feel free to do so.  

I own guns and believe I have that right, but can’t stand gun fetishists who can’t get enough guns or enough fire power or believe they can throw an AR15 or similar over the shoulder and troll the public. I think they have a particular form of anti-social depravity.

So my thoughts are:

1.  Even though he gave a particular example of the kind of misuse of high powered weaponry to promote 2A rights, it's not like he said that was the only manner in which he thinks gun ownership rights are misused or abused.  So it's a bit of an odd question to me that assumes too much.

2.  Even so, yes, I think to have reasonable discussion it helps to engage with less assumption and less snark in our approach.  Your response seems less about having real discussion and more about taking a jab at someone you assume is likely applying their views on the matter inconsistently.

Is it really that hard to just approach it a little differently than the typical message board a-hole manner?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For instance, when PUB put up his capital punishment thing, I suppose using your logic of "one way of saying it is just as good as another," I could have shortened it to:

So basically you just say, "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out?"  Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet.

Instead, I treated him like a normal person:

So, what do you do with the death row cases where people are later exonerated?  Is this troubling to you?

And wouldn't accelerating the time to execution make the problem even worse?

 

Again, just not that hard to at least try the latter approach.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

So what if I had said, "Your characterization of people carrying AR-15s in public seems to be a bit narrow, as groups such as the Black Panthers or the people who took over part of Seattle during the George Floyd protests carried them as well.  What—if any—characteristics differentiate those people carrying AR-15s in public from the people you were talking about?  Or in your opinion, does your characterization apply to anyone who carries an AR-15 in public for any reason?"

What then?  Because I got to exactly the same place with a lot fewer words with my original post.

And if you're still going to claim that the above isn't a serious inquiry, in order to have any credibility whatsoever you're going to have to explain why.  I already asked what the big difference between the clarifying questions you asked above and what I asked, and you didn't answer.  You posted a link to your question, but I already knew that (I'm the one who brought it up, remember?). So we could start with that.

I agree with Titan. And you didn’t get to the same place with more words. Your first effort was barely concealed snark and not worthy of a response. This effort, although it still reveals your assumptions that I likely differentiate even though my words didn’t suggest I did, at least appears like you’re participating in a discussion.

But to address your question, I made no distinction based on the politics or agenda of Americans walking around in public with AR-15s. I think they’re all obnoxious people who are detrimental to a civilized society. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

For instance, when PUB put up his capital punishment thing, I suppose using your logic of "one way of saying it is just as good as another," I could have shortened it to:

So basically you just say, "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out?"  Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet.

Instead, I treated him like a normal person:

So, what do you do with the death row cases where people are later exonerated?  Is this troubling to you?

And wouldn't accelerating the time to execution make the problem even worse?

 

Again, just not that hard to at least try the latter approach.

 

Nobody said it was hard, but your original criticism isn't what you're really after here.  Nothing about those two approaches is any different in terms of being "serious" or "Intelligent," which is what you said was the problem, as they communicate the same ideas.  Thus my confusion.

What you want is for people to be more polite.  (Ostensibly, anyway.  I haven't found this forum to be very polite up to now, but maybe you're trying to influence a change.)

O.k., now that we've accurately communicated the expectation and I know what you really want, thanks for the clarification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sometimes have time to write long posts, but not always.  So I may have to participate in this thread in pieces.

I have voted mostly Republican in most representative elections.  POTUS: two Democrats, three Republicans, the rest 3rd party.

To me the Republican Party is useful mainly because they don't do anything.  They are a space-holder.  So when the Democratic Party wants to to something that would IMO end up being detrimental to the country, the Republican Party generally stops it from happening.  But they have no offense, only defense.  I honestly think they have become more comfortable as the minority party so that their constituents won't expect them to accomplish anything.  Don't get me wrong.  I think the individual players want to keep their jobs, but I think they like it when they are the minority party overall.  Then they are only expected to play defense.

The Democratic Party just keeps wanting to enact policies to move the country into being a European style social democracy, which I don't think would work well in this country.  They also want to enact legislation and manipulate regulation regarding environmental concerns that they don't understand and that will end up being a real problem.  Actually, they want to enact legislation and manipulate regulation about a lot of things they don't understand and that will have negative unintended consequences.

So it's apparently not the desire of the board to boil things down to simple terms, but IMO the Republicans don't do enough and the Democrats try to do way too much, specifically way too much that they don't understand or haven't thought through.

IMO the latter is more destructive than the former, so if the Republicans can get rid of Trump and nominate someone else, I'll probably vote Republican again.  I won't vote for Trump if he's the nominee.

One specific issue I have time to make what I hope will be an appropriately "serious" post about this morning is the gun issue.  We'll find out if the expectations communicated above apply equally here or only to the opinions the board agrees with, because my opinion isn't shared by many that I have met so far.

But IMO, the mainstream opinion regarding guns is not based on any sort of logic.  It's 100% primitive emotion and non-understanding on par with showing a child a nickel and a dime and the child picks the nickel because it's bigger without realizing that the dime is more valuable.

AR-15-style guns kill roughly 200 people per year in the United States despite there being tens of millions in circulation.

Handguns kill roughly 33,000.  There are more in circulation, yes, but not so many more that the numbers even out.  AR-15s are still less deadly than handguns.

They aren't potentially less deadly than handguns.  In terms of potential for damage, they win, of course.  But the fact is that they kill significantly fewer people each year—both in terms of raw numbers and per capita—than handguns.

Yet for some reason (I actually think I know why), people are only willing to consider the issue in terms of potential danger while ignoring the actuality of what happens. 

I think the first reason is simple human nature, which has many people ignoring that a few hundred children die every year in swimming pools every year, but being afraid for them to swim in the ocean because they are afraid of sharks, which kill 1-2 people per year.  Sharks are simply scarier than swimming pools.  AR-15s are scarier than .38 revolvers.  They are.  They're bigger, look like military weapons, louder.  But they don't kill anywhere near as many people as the .38 revolver.  That's the fact.

I also think there's an element of white privilege involved.  Handguns overwhelmingly kill minorities, and white people don't give that a second thought.  Facebook doesn't light up like a pinball machine every Monday after 15 minorities have been shot and killed in Chicago and Detroit in individual incidents, but let 15 white people get shot in a mall at the same time and see what Facebook looks like in the aftermath.  White people get shot like that with AR-15s (actually, that's not even true...last I checked, handguns were still the number one weapon of choice even in mass shootings, but that's the mainstream media fueled perception, so we'll go with it here).  I think we white people identify with the people getting shot in the mall in a mass shooting and we do not identify with the minorities getting shot on 8 Mile.  Therefore, despite the facts, we are outraged by the weapon involved in the former and barely notice the latter.

Also, to people who actually do believe in the 2nd Amendment, IMO if you view it in the historical context in which it was written I don't think you can escape the conclusion that it was not written to protect the right to hunt, or target practice, or even for personal protection.  The reason for the amendment is to protect the citizenry against government—both foreign and domestic.  Right now is when those of you who 60 days or more ago would be rolling your eyes and ridiculing the idea of the citizenry successfully resisting an army, but that's largely what is happening in Ukraine right now.

So there was a reason for my challenge regarding the AR-15 style weapon comment above.  Which—not to make this the central issue of the post, but both the original comment and the fact that my challenge was originally arrogantly dismissed as being non-serious and non-intelligent were IMO just as snarky as anything I had to say in the matter.  Go back and read the original comment regarding people who would carry an AR-15 in public and tell me it wasn't dripping with contempt for anyone who would do such a thing.

Anyway, I think society would be better off by banning handguns while keeping long guns—including AR-style weapons—legal.  Fewer people would have guns, that's for sure.  They are a lot more expensive, as is the ammo.  Fewer people would have dozens of guns...how many ARs do you think one person would choose to buy?  You'd have lots fewer people carrying firearms in public.  It's a lot harder to commit suicide with one—someone would have to be familiar with the weapon just to chamber a round, which is not true of a revolver.  Since they are legal now and there are only tens of millions in circulation rather than hundreds, you probably wouldn't see overall ownership go up much.

But I expect some ridicule for suggesting that we do something that could potentially reduce gun deaths by a huge percentage.  Because, you know, AR-15s are scary.

 

 

 

Edited by Shoney'sPonyBoy
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I sometimes have time to write long posts, but not always.  So I may have to participate in this thread in pieces.

I have voted mostly Republican in most representative elections.  POTUS: two Democrats, three Republicans, the rest 3rd party.

To me the Republican Party is useful mainly because they don't do anything.  They are a space-holder.  So when the Democratic Party wants to to something that would IMO end up being detrimental to the country, the Republican Party generally stops it from happening.  But they have no offense, only defense.  I honestly think they have become more comfortable as the minority party so that their constituents won't expect them to accomplish anything.  Don't get me wrong.  I think the individual players want to keep their jobs, but I think they like it when they are the minority party overall.  Then they are only expected to play defense.

The Democratic Party just keeps wanting to enact policies to move the country into being a European style social democracy, which I don't think would work well in this country.  They also want to enact legislation and manipulate regulation regarding environmental concerns that they don't understand and that will end up being a real problem.  Actually, they want to enact legislation and manipulate regulation about a lot of things they don't understand and that will have negative unintended consequences.

So it's apparently not the desire of the board to boil things down to simple terms, but IMO the Republicans don't do enough and the Democrats try to do way too much, specifically way too much that they don't understand or haven't thought through.

IMO the latter is more destructive than the former, so if the Republicans can get rid of Trump and nominate someone else, I'll probably vote Republican again.  I won't vote for Trump if he's the nominee.

One specific issue I have time to make what I hope will be an appropriately "serious" post about this morning is the gun issue.  We'll find out if the expectations communicated above apply equally here or only to the opinions the board agrees with, because my opinion isn't shared by many that I have met so far.

But IMO, the mainstream opinion regarding guns is not based on any sort of logic.  It's 100% primitive emotion and non-understanding on par with showing a child a nickel and a dime and the child picks the nickel because it's bigger without realizing that the dime is more valuable.

AR-15-style guns kill roughly 200 people per year in the United States despite there being tens of millions in circulation.

Handguns kill roughly 33,000.  There are more in circulation, yes, but not so many more that the numbers even out.  AR-15s are still less deadly than handguns.

They aren't potentially less deadly than handguns.  In terms of potential for damage, they win, of course.  But the fact is that they kill significantly fewer people each year—both in terms of raw numbers and per capita—than handguns.

Yet for some reason (I actually think I know why), people are only willing to consider the issue in terms of potential danger while ignoring the actuality of what happens. 

I think the first reason is simple human nature, which has many people ignoring that a few hundred children die every year in swimming pools every year, but being afraid for them to swim in the ocean because they are afraid of sharks, which kill 1-2 people per year.  Sharks are simply scarier than swimming pools.  AR-15s are scarier than .38 revolvers.  They are.  They're bigger, look like military weapons, louder.  But they don't kill anywhere near as many people as the .38 revolver.  That's the fact.

I also think there's an element of white privilege involved.  Handguns overwhelmingly kill minorities, and white people don't give that a second thought.  Facebook doesn't light up like a pinball machine every Monday after 15 minorities have been shot and killed in Chicago and Detroit in individual incidents, but let 15 white people get shot in a mall at the same time and see what Facebook looks like in the aftermath.  White people get shot like that with AR-15s (actually, that's not even true...last I checked, handguns were still the number one weapon of choice even in mass shootings, but that's the mainstream media fueled perception, so we'll go with it here).  I think we white people identify with the people getting shot in the mall in a mass shooting and we do not identify with the minorities getting shot on 8 Mile.  Therefore, despite the facts, we are outraged by the weapon involved in the former and barely notice the latter.

Also, to people who actually do believe in the 2nd Amendment, IMO if you view it in the historical context in which it was written I don't think you can escape the conclusion that it was not written to protect the right to hunt, or target practice, or even for personal protection.  The reason for the amendment is to protect the citizenry against government—both foreign and domestic.  Right now is when those of you who 60 days or more ago would be rolling your eyes and ridiculing the idea of the citizenry successfully resisting an army, but that's largely what is happening in Ukraine right now.

So there was a reason for my challenge regarding the AR-15 style weapon comment above.  Which—not to make this the central issue of the post, but both the original comment and the fact that my challenge was originally arrogantly dismissed as being non-serious and non-intelligent were IMO just as snarky as anything I had to say in the matter.  Go back and read the original comment regarding people who would carry an AR-15 in public and tell me it wasn't dripping with contempt for anyone who would do such a thing.

Anyway, I think society would be better off by banning handguns while keeping long guns—including AR-style weapons—legal.  Fewer people would have guns, that's for sure.  They are a lot more expensive, as is the ammo.  Fewer people would have dozens of guns...how many ARs do you think one person would choose to buy?  You'd have lots fewer people carrying firearms in public.  It's a lot harder to commit suicide with one—someone would have to be familiar with the weapon just to chamber a round, which is not true of a revolver.  Since they are legal now and there are only tens of millions in circulation rather than hundreds, you probably wouldn't see overall ownership go up much.

But I expect some ridicule for suggesting that we do something that could potentially reduce gun deaths by a huge percentage.  Because, you know, AR-15s are scary.

This is a good and very interesting, thought-provoking post and I appreciate the effort.

Not really addressing your points in order here, but just as they come to mind:

I think Tex wasn't so much showing contempt for owning an AR-15 per se as he was this performative wearing of one in public for reasons that seem less to do with real practical need or personal safety and more to "piss off the libs" or virtue signal that you're a 2A rights evangelist.  The types that walk about going to mundane places like Target, Starbucks or the local park with an AR slung over their shoulder seem to just get some kind of jollies out of the stares and nervousness it produces in those around them.

All that said, you make some interesting points about how many people are killed with handguns vs military style guns such as an AR-15.  I don't know that I could dispute the numbers you cite other than to say the vast majority of that is gang violence - and I don't think taking away this or that gun will necessarily change that.  After all, Mexico has some extremely restrictive gun policies but at least in some regions is basically ruled by well armed drug cartels who don't give a s*** about the government's gun laws.  And as many have said before, I wonder whether outlawing handguns just ends up signaling to criminals that any regular citizen they see without an AR strapped to them is an easy, unarmed target.  It's like when a building or college campus declares that it's a "gun-free zone."  All that tells the mass murderer is that they've got several minutes of shooting fish in a barrel before the cops will arrive to stop them, because all the law-abiding folks will comply and not be armed.

Then again, industrialized countries around the world that do have more restrictions on personal firearms have far fewer shootings and gun deaths.  So there's something to the notion that at least some gun control would help.  I like having a handgun personally.  It mostly stays in a biometric pistol safe in my bedroom where I can reach it quickly in the middle of the night.  But I have the option if I felt I needed it to conceal carry and I like having that option.  I don't really have any desire to own much more than that.  Maybe a shotgun for another home protection option but that would be it.  I don't hunt and while it might be cool to fire an AR or something like that once in a while at a range, there's just other stuff I'd rather spend my money and time on.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am probably very close to you. I will do my response in red if Different then what I copied from you.

 

The Issues

Conservative - Pretty much agree with you
Abortion
Marriage and sexuality issues
Parental rights re: their children's education


Lean Conservative - Agree on 2nd Amendment probably a little more conservative
2nd Amendment issues
Free Trade  - So many countries subsidize either directly or indirectly it is hard to take a stand on Free trade. Each case must be looked at individually.



Mixed (by this I mean, I cherry pick good points I think either side makes to form a new position)
Immigration - I am for more and fairer legal immigration - I have sponsored people who followed rules and waited 10 years to come.  I do believe we need to protect the border as illegal immigration puts the immigrants at risk from Coyotes and Cartel and also is used for Drug trade and human trafficking. 
Energy policy - Green energy should be supported but it can't happen overnight. It is very complicated if we don't produce our own carbon energy it gets produced in a less green way in other countries creating a worse environmental impact.. How do we pay for infrastructure as we move to electric and less gas use taxes generated for infrastructure. Government should support research on energy storage both for vehicles and for green energy like wind and solar. 
Environmental issues - Mixed bag would take to long to discuss here. 
Unions - A necessary evil as need some balance from complete capitalism. Sadly Unions are sometimes more about Politics then protecting their workers especially in a competitive world when jobs go overseas if they are two onerous. 


Lean Progressive/Liberal- Basically the same.
Legalize marijuana (but not in favor of decriminalizing other harder drugs)



Progressive/Liberal
Paid parental leave after having a baby (3 months minimum, 6 months preferable) -
agree with 3 months but depends on company size some small companies can't afford 
Universal healthcare (healthcare shouldn't be a privilege, open to public/private hybrid systems - just get everyone covered) - tough one I would like everybody covered but my real problem is inflated cost of medical care. Every time government tries to get involved it gets more expensive  
Opinions of Trump - Mixed I think he is not a very nice person but I think a lot of what he did from a policy perspective I agreed with. He lost election and should have just excepted it, but I also think because of the travesty of the Steele Dossier and the punitive way he was attacked with no real bases it is one of the reasons he believes he was cheated. 


Other/Neither
Free speech - it's perhaps our most precious right.  People do not have a constitutional right to not be offended or to not have to encounter ideas they don't like or challenge their own.  Neither side is really getting it right on this. - I tend to believe Free speech is essential and cancel culture is wrong.  Hate speech can and should be  be allowed but I will counter that hate speech with reason and love. I remember when ACLU defended Nazis for a parade in a Jewish communities while making it very clear that they thought the Nazis and what they stood for was abhorrent. Free speech is why the Civil Rights movement made big changes even though initially a lot of the country disagreed with what they said.  When one group decides what is allowed and what is not allowed we are no longer a free nation. Most rights are taken away because they say they are trying to protect us. 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abortion- The idea of an abortion of convenience is abhorrent to me, but as someone who believes to have participated in terminating a pregnancy out of compassion and who has heard countless women advocate for keeping abortion legal, I believe that it needs to remain legal. I also believe that we should do everything possible to discourage abortions of convenience, to prevent unwanted pregnancies- enhanced sex education and free, readily available contraceptives for all- and support any legislation that actually demonstrates concern for human *life* and not just human *birth*.
Marriage and sexuality issues- I don't have any issues with marriage or sexuality, as long as it's between consenting adults. I lean very liberal on gender identity issues, but my natural inclination is to agree that any irreversible gender assignment procedures should be held off on until a certain age. But I need to get a better understanding of what the medical community has to say.
Parental rights re: their children's education- That my first grader's teacher answers her damn emails!

2nd Amendment issues- A hunting rifle for every family! Got no problem with it. Anything beyond that is stupid and clearly not in keeping with the spirit of 2A.
Free Trade- Out of my depth here. All I know about the economy is that there is value to corporate profit motive but the fact that the Musks and Bezoses of the world stacking billions on billions during the pandemic is obscene and wrong and we really are accelerating towards several versions of the dystopias imagined on screen. Luxury, apocalypse-proof bunkers are already a thing for the ultra rich. 

Immigration- As someone said above, "neither side has it right". The Right isn't entirely wrong, but the way they tend to frame the conversation as borderline hate speech is counterproductive. And we on the Left need to be much more pragmatic about it. There are real consequences for a truly open border. Then again, we're going to need the labor in a few years. 
Energy policy- Is being dictated by fossil lobbies, it seems. We clearly have to move to clean energy. 
Environmental issues- Would be nice to see the future of the planet prioritized over corporate profits, maybe?
Unions- The ultimate double edged sword. I dunno.

Legalize marijuana (but not in favor of decriminalizing other harder drugs)- Agreed


Paid parental leave after having a baby (3 months minimum, 6 months preferable)- Yup. Government subsidies if necessary. 
Universal healthcare (healthcare shouldn't be a privilege, open to public/private hybrid systems - just get everyone covered)- Yup. Feel free to pay more for "better" health care if you want. Just like education.
Opinions of Trump- He represents the single greatest threat our country faces, other than the whole expiration date on the planet thing. I say "represents" because he isn't the reason that so many in the country are so openly embracing fascism. He's just the fat, ugly face of it. Certainly, it takes a particularly reptilian piece of s*** to actually see it through, but we've seen that there are many, many more like him just dying to assume the mantle. And there will be one much less clumsy about it. Look at the guy in Hungary. He's actually charming.

Free speech- Say what you want but, short of arrest and prosecution, be prepared to deal with the consequences. The incessant whining about "cancel culture" is almost funny, when in fact it is merely "accountability culture" whereas the myriad forms of discrimination committed upon historically disenfranchised groups- based not on their behavior but on how they were born- has always been the ultimate "cancel culture". Yeah, it goes too far sometimes, but we haven't come close to reaching whatever crisis point would actually justify the hysterics. So yeah, hate the gays or whatever all you want, but I'm also going to call you an a**hole and decide for myself how much your product is actually worth. Oh, and if you're a sitting elected government official openly fomenting treason, then you yourself are a traitor and should be imprisoned.

 

Thanks for coming to my TED Talk. I know, I think it sucked, too. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...