What Major Platform Issues Interest You the Least?

[vcczar]

Basically what I'm asking is, which parts of your preferred major party's platform matter least to you. As in, which planks are not going to rouse you to action. 

For me, I support the Democratic stance on abortion, but I don't really think about abortion and I'm not roused if nothing changes in regard to it. It's just a very low priority for me. 

The same can be said of guns, except in regards to BLM issues. 

I'm also not that passionate about taxation issues, so long as such issues don't interfere with domestic issues. 

Non-military foreign affairs doesn't really rouse me either. 

In some ways, I might be a single issue voter: I'm most interested in matters of increasing the quality of life for the non-wealthy and non-privileged. Environment is also part of this quality of life. 

I'll define wealthy as anyone that makes double the median income of their county/area as locally wealthy. Nationally wealthy would be double the median income of the average American nation-wide. Super-wealthy is 1% (roughly $500,000 annual income).  

[MrPotatoTed]

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

Basically what I'm asking is, which parts of your preferred major party's platform matter least to you. As in, which planks are not going to rouse you to action. 

For me, I support the Democratic stance on abortion, but I don't really think about abortion and I'm not roused if nothing changes in regard to it. It's just a very low priority for me. 

The same can be said of guns, except in regards to BLM issues. 

I'm also not that passionate about taxation issues, so long as such issues don't interfere with domestic issues. 

Non-military foreign affairs doesn't really rouse me either. 

In some ways, I might be a single issue voter: I'm most interested in matters of increasing the quality of life for the non-wealthy and non-privileged. Environment is also part of this quality of life. 

I'll define wealthy as anyone that makes double the median income of their county/area as locally wealthy. Nationally wealthy would be double the median income of the average American nation-wide. Super-wealthy is 1% (roughly $500,000 annual income).  

For wealth, are you looking at individual income or household income?  

I'm at about 3x the average individual income nationally and 4x the average individual income locally --  but only 2x the average household income, because while I make six figures as a tri-state regional public relations manager, my wife makes much, much less as a part time home hospice nurse.  

Having previously been a homeless person before joining the military and ultimately catching my big break from there, I get a unique perspective on the question of wealth.  There's no denying we live comfortably and without any real financial stress.  Then again, we maintain that comfortable life and lack of debt by still shopping at Walmart.  That doesn't feel or look wealthy.  On the other hand, I can fill the cart with whatever stupid things I want without ever glancing at my bank account while I'm there.  As somebody who used to steal food, that feels very wealthy -- even if I sometimes forget that.  And then there's also the reality that while I might make 5-6x what I did when I was homeless, I've also taken on extra mouths to feed -- not just my underpaid wife and our daughter, but also their passion for fostering every rescue cat in the tristate area.  Ha.

But yes, I certainly agree that even if you're looking at average household income instead of individual, that's still a reasonable line at which people don't usually need a lot of govt help anymore.

As for my own platform issues -- for Democrats, I have no interest in legalizing drug use or giving felons the right to vote.  Some laws are very hard to follow -- again, I was stealing food, I get it.  But other laws are actually extremely easy to follow.  Drug laws, for example.  These are not hard, and so people that break those laws anyway, on purpose, do not have my sympathy for their plight.

My primary interests are national defense, equality, and education -- basically, the things I can't provide to my daughter on my own.  I'm going to need the country's help with those three.

 

Edited June 4, 2021 by MrPotatoTed

[vcczar]

59 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

For wealth, are you looking at individual income or household income?  

I'm at about 3x the average individual income nationally and 4x the average individual income locally --  but only 2x the average household income, because while I make six figures as a tri-state regional public relations manager, my wife makes much, much less as a part time home hospice nurse.  

Having previously been a homeless person before joining the military and ultimately catching my big break from there, I get a unique perspective on the question of wealth.  There's no denying we live comfortably and without any real financial stress.  Then again, we maintain that comfortable life and lack of debt by still shopping at Walmart.  That doesn't feel or look wealthy.  On the other hand, I can fill the cart with whatever stupid things I want without ever glancing at my bank account while I'm there.  As somebody who used to steal food, that feels very wealthy -- even if I sometimes forget that.  And then there's also the reality that while I might make 5-6x what I did when I was homeless, I've also taken on extra mouths to feed -- not just my underpaid wife and our daughter, but also their passion for fostering every rescue cat in the tristate area.  Ha.

But yes, I certainly agree that even if you're looking at average household income instead of individual, that's still a reasonable line at which people don't usually need a lot of govt help anymore.

As for my own platform issues -- for Democrats, I have no interest in legalizing drug use or giving felons the right to vote.  Some laws are very hard to follow -- again, I was stealing food, I get it.  But other laws are actually extremely easy to follow.  Drug laws, for example.  These are not hard, and so people that break those laws anyway, on purpose, do not have my sympathy for their plight.

My primary interests are national defense, equality, and education -- basically, the things I can't provide to my daughter on my own.  I'm going to need the country's help with those three.

 

I guess I mean median household income. Someone could make below the poverty line but then live with a millionaire, so they aren't really struggling. 

[vcczar]

28 minutes ago, Patine said:

Also, the same income in a rural area, a small city/large town, a suburb, and a large city generally mean a different living standard from each other, as well.

I note this in my longer post.

[Zenobiyl]

Anything to do with transgender people and sports. I don’t care about sports and I don’t have any strong opinions on transgender issues one way or the other.

[WVProgressive]

I probably couldn't name you the issue that interests me the least, since if it is so unimportant to me, to be at the bottom of my policy priorities list, I'd likely forget it. Of the issues I can remember, I probably care the least about a candidates position on funding America's arts, and culture, sure it would be nice if a candidate cared enough about ensuring American culture remained hegemonic, and that America's creative minds had the financial means to produce their craft, to institute such a subsidy, but it will NEVER be the deciding issue in an election for me.

[WVProgressive]

Just now, Patine said:

"Remains?" American culture, media, and creative output have turned to a cesspool and recycling dairy farm of the last decade or two with little true quality. It may rake in large amounts of money, but it's utter trash, nowadays, with a few exceptions here and there.

Yes, remains. Mickey Mouse, Captain America, Superman, these things are known worldwide. Like it or not America remains the culture capital of the world, and I want that to remain true.

I also challenge your view that American culture has substantially worsened in the past years. Is it different from the culture of the 80s that you grew up in? Yes, of course it is. Is it worse? Not especially, no. It just seems worse, because we have access to pretty much 100% of all culture produced these days, and as Sturgeon's Law states "90% of everything is crap"

We remember the 80s, 90s, and even 00s as better because we have a natural bias for the type of culture we grew up with, and also because only the top 10% of culture even survives the great filter of time. In other words, we only remember the best of the past, but we can experience all of the present culture, meaning that the present culture will always seem worse in comparison.

There's still a fantastic amount of original, creative works being produced these days, and with the internet it 1000x easier to find the type of culture that suits you. On a second note, I also have to disagree with your opinion that remakes, and reboots are always negative, in my opinion, if done right, a reboot, or remake can add to, and improve upon the original story.

For every Teen Titans Go there's also a She Ra: The Princess of Power, and for every Robocop (2014) there's a Mad Max: Fury Road. Or, more accurately, for every nine 2014 Robocops, there's one Mad Max: Fury Road.

[Pringles]

32 minutes ago, Patine said:

"Remains?" American culture, media, and creative output have turned to a cesspool and recycling dairy farm of the last decade or two with little true quality. It may rake in large amounts of money, but it's utter trash, nowadays, with a few exceptions here and there.

At least our culture isnt as trash as your Prime Minister. Who has no culture himself.

Gonna have to agree with WVP on this one. 

And dont rebut with, we had Trump... we have Biden now, and your country has had plenty of bad apples as well.

With respect to Canada, it's full of diversity and culture, just like America. A lot of good things too. 

Like Quebec! And French Canadians. 

And Bloc Quebecois!

[Pringles]

Just now, Patine said:

Well, if you're judging culture by POLITICAL culture, the U.S. is FAR below Canada in standards and quality. That example was rhetorically shooting yourself in the foot, there. And Biden's not that much of a prize - he's just passed to modern audiences that have forgotten the high crimes and treason-by-the-state he was a big cheerleader, advocate, and even co-author of in his long-time in the Senate.

K.