2024 Issues Poll

[vcczar]

These questions are borrow mostly from ISideWith dot com

[Rezi]

Elaborations where I feel it's needed:

5) Yes, but it's a complicated issue and you have to approach it carefully to not fuck anyone over. I say it should be on a case-by-case basis based on hormone levels and other biological issues that I don't really understand.

12) It shouldn't be one or the other. If you fund social and community based programs, then crime should go down and maybe then you can lower police budgets, but you shouldn't specifically take funding away for said programs.

14) No, but they should automatically receive an application for one.

16) Good idea in theory, but no because of voting restrictions' complicated history in this country and the fact that some states and localities would abuse the fuck out of it to suppress voters.

21) Only if there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt and civilian casualties can be kept at little to none, although I don't know if that's truly possible.

28 and 29) If they pay taxes.

30) I say no because I'm generally against it, but idfk. If the consequences would fuck the economy then yes.

33) Only public colleges and universities.

34) Critical Race Theory in K-12 is not and has never been a real thing, just a boogeyman from conservatives to sound scary to suburban parents. It's a college-level political science course.

38) I hate banning things. Perhaps there should be subsidies and tax breaks so that companies are encouraged to make and use biodegradable material, though.

[DakotaHale]

@vcczar, I'm surprised you support a bailout for SVB. Though to be fair bailouts are a Keynesian principle so maybe it's not so surprising.

[DakotaHale]

1. I feel like it's circumstantial, but lean yes.
4. I support universal health insurance, but to say that Obamacare or the Canadian Healthcare systems are good programs is absolute idiocy.
9. No, just better mental health programs and enforcing our current laws would be more than enough.
10. This is one of the worst ideas the right has ever had. Huge liability issue.
15. No, just reformed to be proportional.
 

[MrPotatoTed]

24 asks if we support raised or lowering military spending, and the only possible answers are yes and no.  What does yes mean in that context?  What does No mean? Haha

[Imperator Taco Cat]

42 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

24 asks if we support raised or lowering military spending, and the only possible answers are yes and no.  What does yes mean in that context?  What does No mean? Haha

although probably not the intention it would be changing it, increase or decrease would be yes and states quo would be no.

Edited March 13, 2023 by Imperator Taco Cat

[Cenzonico]

7.)  Personally pro-life, but abortion is a decision of the conscious. It's no one's place to get involved. 

34.)  The CRT thing is just one huge fear-mongering tactic from the right, but as an issue on its own I couldn't give two shits about it. 

[WVProgressive]

1. I wrestled with this for a long time. Homeless shelters are awful places, there's no discussion there, so I can understand why someone would not want to go to one. And when they refuse to go to a homeless shelter, and we refuse to allow them to exist in public spaces... what are they to do? Are we to lock them in jail for the crime of being mentally ill, and impoverished? I could not, with a clear conscious, live in a society which treats its most disadvantaged citizens that way. Homelessness is almost always a societal failing, rather than a lifestyle choice.

9. I support gun rights, but I'm also deeply concerned with protecting all sentient creature's Right to Life, and maintaining Law&Order. Implementing common sense gun control would go a long way to help both. 

11. Getting rid of qualified immunity would needlessly handicap our law enforcement agencies, and do nothing to help the common man. But of course, that doesn't matter to the white, suburban, middle class, college kids that push this policy. The plight of high crime communities is of no concern to them, their interest in police reform stems from a need for purpose, a fear of responsibility, and a desire to feel righteous without meaningfully changing their lifestyles, rather than any genuine concern for nonwhites. 

13. In rare circumstances, arming police with military grade equipment makes sense, but I think it's gone too far presently. There's no reason for a rural sheriff's department to have access to APCs, and automatic rifles, however at the same time I'm reminded of the 1997 North Hollywood Shootout, which could have been ended a lot sooner if only the LAPD had access to better equipment. I think a good compromise would be that only major cities be sold military grade equipment, provided they also have a dedicated team of officers trained in the use of that equipment, to make sure that they are only used when absolutely necessary.

17. As members of a society, we each have a responsibility to act in the best interest of that society. Of course there is such a thing as individual rights, but when the individual, and society clash, oftentimes the individual needs to take a back seat. Child vaccinations are one such clash. Yes, parents have authority over their children, but when that authority is used to harm the child, or society (in this case both) then the authority of the parent is made subservient to the needs of society, and the rights of the child.

19. I have nothing against GMO food as a concept, but natural food, and GMO food are different. People have a right to know what they're putting into their bodies. It's the same principle behind requiring that ingredients be listed clearly on food packaging.

20. Striking swiftly against the enemies of America is one of the reasons the President, and not congress, was put in charge of the armed forces. If we chained the use of our military to the slow deliberations of a parliamentary body then we would putting our national security at risk. Military action requires strong, decisive action, the kind that can only be achieved through vesting power into a qualified leader.

22. If we were invited in by the Mexican government, then I'd be all for this escalation in the War On Drugs. However, as the Mexican government has made it clear they don't want us to do this, then we should respect their wishes.

30. If we allow SVB to fail, then we put every other regional bank at risk. To me, it seems the only reason people oppose a bailout is an impractical love of the free market, or a neurotic hatred of banks, and or wealthy people.

38. Bans like these are the wrong way to tackle climate change. It's a nice thought, but utterly meaningless in reality. If we want to minimize the effects of global warming, then we are goin to have to make massive structural changes to the economy, our politics, and our lifestyles. I'm also reminded that a lot of these bans disproportionately hurt disabled people, which is another reason I oppose them.

I now realize most of this was just me editorializing on why I answered what I did, rather than providing nuance. Oh well, lol!

[Rezi]

14 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

11. Getting rid of qualified immunity would needlessly handicap our law enforcement agencies, and do nothing to help the common man. But of course, that doesn't matter to the white, suburban, middle class, college kids that push this policy. The plight of high crime communities is of no concern to them, their interest in police reform stems from a need for purpose, a fear of responsibility, and a desire to feel righteous without meaningfully changing their lifestyles, rather than any genuine concern for nonwhites. 

[Pringles]

For all questions concerning illegal immigrants being provided healthcare & in-state tuition costs, I selected no, BUT, if they're paying taxes I would say most certainly. Anybody financially contributing to the system should, generally speaking, reap the benefits of the system. 

Concerning Critical Race Theory I don't actually know what it is other than a useless issue to rally up anger. Kids should learn all history. The good and the bad. Teachers shouldn't be teaching you America sucks. They shouldn't be teaching you we're the most morally great nation ever. We've had our challenges throughout history and I believe in a unique, American way, we've overcome them. There is greatness in America and in each and every American. 

For transgender athletes, if I was the head of a sports team or a manager of some kind of sports group, whatever you wanna call it, I probably would not allow it if it's competitive/adult sports. If it's early school stuff it should be irrelevant. This isn't an issue where the federal government should be intervening imo. Dictating who plays in what sports sounds like WAY too much big government and unnecessary intrusion on an irrelevant aspect of an American's life. We should let kids play whatever, but I totally understand and agree with those who want to keep the teams split into biological lines in competitive sports. You just can't tell me that it's 100% fair for a biological man to play in a biological female's sport. I'm no athlete but I took weightlifting throughout most of High School, not hard to see who generally lifted more weight barring special circumstances. It's just a fairness issue. 

I'm not really following this Silicon Valley Bank due to being pretty busy lately, but I don't think we should be bailing out failures, we should monitor it and I think the steps that are being taken now are essentially in the right direction. No federal bailout but depositors will have access to their funds. 

Finally, foreign terrorists shouldn't be given Constitutional Rights. They aren't Americans, they are predators of Americans. Obviously, that doesn't mean you treat them like absolute shit (even though they are indeed, absolute shit), we have to abide by Human Rights and International Law and that goes for everyone. Whether you have Constitutional Rights or not.  

Oh and I just want to add: 

I am all for positive environmentalism and practical steps to keep our planet healthy. However I oppose nearly all of the degenerate activists that have taken over the movement and if that makes me a climate denier to them, or a planet killer, whatever terms they use, so be it. Teddy Roosevelt and Richard Nixon did much more for the environment of our great Earth than these jobless teenagers spilling milk on paintings in Museums. I can't imagine being that pathetic and how embarrassing I would feel if I was a part of that. I have no interest in associating myself with them. I support alternative energy, I also support energy independence, and I also support fracking. We have a multitude of measures at our disposal and it is foolish to discard one so hastily before finding a measured path forward. 

Edited March 13, 2023 by Pringles

[vcczar]

13 hours ago, DakotaHale said:

@vcczar, I'm surprised you support a bailout for SVB. Though to be fair bailouts are a Keynesian principle so maybe it's not so surprising.

It's a reluctant support. I think not bailing out SVB could lead us into another recession. I'll happily bailout people. Perhaps if Congress was more willing to bailout people, then I'd say NO to bailing out a bank. It is interesting that Congress is generally willing to bailout banks and financial institutions, but will often say they haven't the money to bail out people. It's ridiculous. 

[Rezi]

Question to people who answered no for Question 5 (trying to ask this in good faith since I rarely see people mention this):

I understand the idea making trans women compete against other biological men would be seen as fairer, though I personally think that does go away after some years of transitioning (I don't really have the science to back either view and have never really researched it).

But what about making trans men compete against other biological women? Wouldn't that be unfair for biological women to compete against someone taking male hormones? Or would you prefer to just make it so they have to stop their medical transition to play?

[vcczar]

10 minutes ago, Rezi said:

Question to people who answered no for Question 5 (trying to ask this in good faith since I rarely see people mention this):

I understand the idea making trans women compete against other biological men would be seen as fairer, though I personally think that does go away after some years of transitioning (I don't really have the science to back either view and have never really researched it).

But what about making trans men compete against other biological women? Wouldn't that be unfair for biological women to compete against someone taking male hormones? Or would you prefer to just make it so they have to stop their medical transition to play?

I just think we shouldn't segregate sports by sex period, including the olympics. 

[Pringles]

23 minutes ago, Rezi said:

Question to people who answered no for Question 5 (trying to ask this in good faith since I rarely see people mention this):

I understand the idea making trans women compete against other biological men would be seen as fairer, though I personally think that does go away after some years of transitioning (I don't really have the science to back either view and have never really researched it).

But what about making trans men compete against other biological women? Wouldn't that be unfair for biological women to compete against someone taking male hormones? Or would you prefer to just make it so they have to stop their medical transition to play?

I think, from my understanding that you are right when it comes to how long they’ve been undergoing medical treatment which can ultimately affect their entire body and “peak potential” for performance. A person with full treatment to the point that they’re done would likely be better than a person participating in the sport who is still undergoing treatment. 
 

I agree somewhat with V that the Olympics should just include everyone. Other sports are different though, and it should be a decision within that sport agency or wherever the sport is taking place. I don’t think it’s discrimination nor illogical to say that a biological man shouldn’t compete in a biological female only sport for natural differences in female and male bodies. However I’m willing to give consideration to those who have completed their hormone treatments and have already essentially altered their natural body state. 
 

My understanding, specifically of the medical treatments though is limited so I welcome someone to tell me otherwise, but I don’t really think anyone believes it’s fair for a biological men to compete in a female only sport, in the most basic sense. 
 

Concerning Trans Men playing in biological female sports, that’s just something I’m not really sure about. If they’re taking male hormones, imo, that’s a way to gain an advantage. I think they should be allowed if they pause the treatment perhaps. But like I said this is only what I would be doing if I was a sports manager. I don’t really care what they decide to do as long as the government isn’t telling them what to do. Whether it’s forcing them to allow it or forcing them to keep trans people out. 

[ShortKing]

3 hours ago, Rezi said:

Question to people who answered no for Question 5 (trying to ask this in good faith since I rarely see people mention this):

I understand the idea making trans women compete against other biological men would be seen as fairer, though I personally think that does go away after some years of transitioning (I don't really have the science to back either view and have never really researched it).

But what about making trans men compete against other biological women? Wouldn't that be unfair for biological women to compete against someone taking male hormones? Or would you prefer to just make it so they have to stop their medical transition to play?

My understanding is we don't let men take testosterone and play competitive sports, because that of course gives you an advantage. I don't know what the standard should be in general, I know there are some broad guidelines over how long it has to have been since you last took hormone supplements or things to that effect that seem fine to me, but I know that if my daughter were being asked to compete against athletes who had undergone or were undergoing male puberty, or was taking hormone supplements to boost their testosterone levels, that to me seems unfair. 

[jnewt]

11 hours ago, vcczar said:

It's a reluctant support. I think not bailing out SVB could lead us into another recession. I'll happily bailout people. Perhaps if Congress was more willing to bailout people, then I'd say NO to bailing out a bank. It is interesting that Congress is generally willing to bailout banks and financial institutions, but will often say they haven't the money to bail out people. It's ridiculous. 

We shouldn't be in the position where we have to decide whether we support a bank bailout or not, because the banks should never be too big to fail. Unfortunately, though, SVB (and Signature) was already at that point, and letting them fail will hurt a lot more than just rich people.

Hopefully people are actually held accountable this time, though.

[Blockmon]

OOOO, now this is exciting for me to write about. I personally like topics like this so I will put my thoughts.

1. I highly debated this one and, but I truly believe that they really don't have any place to go. I mean if we are pushing them to somewhere else but where? To prison? Because they became impoverished, they deserve to be punished?? Ya I just can't agree with that.

3,4. I personally support a universal healthcare system but if congress can't pass anything then I will support any system that saves lives. (Except for a private healthcare.)

5. At early stage, sure but I really believe that they should have their own competitive section. Really, I am not too sure about this, and I don't feel that a governmental action should happen instead the actual hosts of the competitions should decide.

7. I am 100% pro-choice, I seriously believe that government should not decide or withdraw rights of your body. But only warn and protect you from harmful things. But I also believe that if your actions are hurting others then they have complete authority. I also can see how fetus would seem to harm other so I only believe that an abortion should occur when fetus isn't considered alive, or mother is in danger or fetus will have a poor life ahead (Financially or emotionally or physically). But then there are a lot of confusing scenarios that just conflicts with my opinions, so I am not exactly sure, but I still will support the right to a choice to one's body. Where do I draw the line, I am not exactly sure, so I need more time to think about it.

9. I am supporter of gun rights when used for defense in homes, hunting, sports. But anything other than that is just way too much for me. I also don't think mentally unstable people can make good decisions with guns. 

10. I am a current student and the fact that I even have to think that a teacher can bring a gun is unfathomable. I don't feel safe that a teacher will protect me when an attacker is present and I don't think teachers should be burdened by this responsibility. Isn't the reason why we created polices to protect us and the community? This is a policy I just will never ever support.

11. I have a hard time thinking why it should exists but also why we should abolish it. I do think it should be relaxed as I just feel no matter what that it can be abused. So for now I vote no as I don't support the status quo but do want to keep it and relaxe it or at least prevent abusing it.

14,15,16. I just think that mail in ballots are more effective and can be easier to prove as you can just use tax information or other info to confirm identity. I also believe that a direct democracy is way more effective than the electoral college system but if that proves to be impossible then at least include more positions to be electable like supreme justices or add more referendums or direct democracy system in some way the laws are considered or passed.

Most of the military ones I support a more active military that intervenes but with right intentions that have been approved by the Congress and the people. But I do believe that military spending should be decrease but also that we force some military contractors that have increase the prices on military equipment to be lessened or regulated.

I also agree with Pringles in that if you pay with the system then you are in the system (Immigration and welfare). 

30,31,32. While I am not rather fond over the rich, I still think that we should protect our economy and people's investments. But that doesn't mean that these actions shouldn't have consequences. I also think that unregulated monopolies lead to nothing but bad industry and uncompetitive market but a regulated and managed monopiles can exist but with HEAVY enforcement. I also think that rich should pay their taxes, as many people in lower classes do but they don't?! Ya no, you made income and that should be taxed by the government, no matter where and there shouldn't be tax heavens.

the rest is just basic progressive or left-wing ideals that I have. I also hope that if I made any mistakes or misinformation that I have been believeing that please correct me and educate me. Thank you for the poll vcczar!

[Mothwoman]

I can’t bring myself to care over who, or where we’re bombing at any given moment, so my answer to 20 and 21 is really more ‘I guess so why not’ Whatever’s happening in Africa or the Middle East has absolutely no impact on my life so I struggle to see any reason for me to care one way or another.

[Eugene]

1 hour ago, Mothwoman said:

I can’t bring myself to care over who, or where we’re bombing at any given moment, so my answer to 20 and 21 is really more ‘I guess so why not’ Whatever’s happening in Africa or the Middle East has absolutely no impact on my life so I struggle to see any reason for me to care one way or another.

Populism moment 

[Mothwoman]

 

3 hours ago, Rezi said:

Interesting trying to distract from the "disagreements with trans ideology" at the end lmfao. No need worrying about offending anyone, this is a haven of free speech.

I’m old enough to remember the original gay ‘rights’ movement of the seventies, eighties, and nineties. Back then homosexuals, they told us that, were just like normal people, and deserved the same respect, rights, and privileges, nowadays homosexuals and their so called families are glorified in the media, and homosexuality is forced onto children as young as five years old. First it was forcing employers to hire homosexuals regardless of their beliefs, then it was demanding the government foot the bill for a disease which was caused almost exclusively by homosexual sex, until finally the homosexuals, and their liberal allies engaged in a concerted effort to tear up the holy teather-pole of western civilization: the sacred institution of marriage. In 2015 a court dominated by liberals, and so-called conservatives trampled over the average American, and the constitution in order to force a crown of thorns onto the states.

I say all this, because the exact same process - tolerate, accept, normalize, and glorify - is happening right now with regards to transvestites. In the media, in the halls of Washington, and even in our schools, we are being forced to accept the idea that men can turn themselves into women, and vice-versa. That is why I disagree with trans ideology, what some freak wants to do in their own house is their own business, but the moment it starts affecting my life, and the life of my family, then it becomes my business. Hey, I’m not saying that men should be banned from dressing like women, but I shouldn’t have to accept their mental delusion that this somehow makes them a woman, the government shouldn’t treat them as if they were women, and children shouldn’t be indoctrinated into being transvestites.

[Pringles]

24 minutes ago, Mothwoman said:

 

I’m old enough to remember the original gay ‘rights’ movement of the seventies, eighties, and nineties. Back then homosexuals, they told us that, were just like normal people, and deserved the same respect, rights, and privileges, nowadays homosexuals and their so called families are glorified in the media, and homosexuality is forced onto children as young as five years old. First it was forcing employers to hire homosexuals regardless of their beliefs, then it was demanding the government foot the bill for a disease which was caused almost exclusively by homosexual sex, until finally the homosexuals, and their liberal allies engaged in a concerted effort to tear up the holy teather-pole of western civilization: the sacred institution of marriage. In 2015 a court dominated by liberals, and so-called conservatives trampled over the average American, and the constitution in order to force a crown of thorns onto the states.

I say all this, because the exact same process - tolerate, accept, normalize, and glorify - is happening right now with regards to transvestites. In the media, in the halls of Washington, and even in our schools, we are being forced to accept the idea that men can turn themselves into women, and vice-versa. That is why I disagree with trans ideology, what some freak wants to do in their own house is their own business, but the moment it starts affecting my life, and the life of my family, then it becomes my business. Hey, I’m not saying that men should be banned from dressing like women, but I shouldn’t have to accept their mental delusion that this somehow makes them a woman, the government shouldn’t treat them as if they were women, and children shouldn’t be indoctrinated into being transvestites.

I agree with some and disagree with other aspects of what you're saying but I must say, this really sounds like I'm listening to a Richard Nixon phone recording right now and I love it 

[Imperator Taco Cat]

8 hours ago, Mothwoman said:

Also, I was notified of you quoting me in this thread, yet I don’t see the message. All I see is one from Eugene, and a reaction from ITC (I’m sorry but I’m not going to write out your full name). It might be a problem on my end but I just thought I’d ask if you deleted your post or something? Unless… you are Eugene? Lmao

Rezi is Eugene 8 confirmed?!?!?1? 

Edited March 16, 2023 by Imperator Taco Cat

[Pringles]

3 minutes ago, Imperator Taco Cat said:

Rezi is Eugene 8 confirmed?!?!?1? 

Eugene is one. Eugene is all. 

[Mothwoman]

3 minutes ago, Pringles said:

I agree with some and disagree with other aspects of what you're saying but I must say, this really sounds like I'm listening to a Richard Nixon phone recording right now and I love it 

I wish I had the chance to vote for that man once in my life. Despite what the Liberal media tells us he truly was one of the best Presidents that this country had. Watergate (most of which was fabricated by WaPo with help from the CIA) really pales in comparison to all of his successes. The media loves to paint him as an evil guy, but fawns over rapists like Clinton, and Biden. They did the same thing to Agnew, and tried to do it to Reagan too.

[Pringles]

2 minutes ago, Mothwoman said:

I wish I had the chance to vote for that man once in my life. Despite what the Liberal media tells us he truly was one of the best Presidents that this country had. Watergate (most of which was fabricated by WaPo with help from the CIA) really pales in comparison to all of his successes. The media loves to paint him as an evil guy, but fawns over rapists like Clinton, and Biden. They did the same thing to Agnew, and tried to do it to Reagan too.

So based