Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Government Ideology Poll


vcczar
 Share

Government Ideology Poll  

21 members have voted

  1. 1. What is closest to your view on the government's relationship to the needy.

    • The Federal Government should be active in helping the truly needy, even if it means going deeper in debt.
    • The Federal Government should have very basic safety nets for the truly needy, but it should cut costs wherever it can.
    • The State Governments should have sole responsibility for helping the needy in their states, even in states that require federal funding to stay afloat (AL, MS, etc)
    • The local governments should have sole responsibility for helping the needy in their locals--state and federal should stay out.
      0
    • No government should be responsible for the needy. They must rely on family, friends, charity, even if it means death and suffering.
  2. 2. Which is closest to your view on government spending?

    • Government spending is often good, and does a lot more to help US citizens than is given credit for.
    • Government spending often leads to good things, but how we spend the money is generally inefficient.
    • Government spending is more wasteful than not--very inefficient.
    • Government spending is almost always wasteful, since spending should only be on necessities to keep the country safe and the government functioning.
  3. 3. Which comes closest to your view on how the US can best maintain influence abroad

    • It is important to have an aggressive foreign policy to maintain US hegemony. That is, the occasional threat and occasional military intervention is important.
    • We can best maintain our influence by being loyal to our allies, benevolent to those in need, and friendly and diplomatic overall. Be aggressive only if a country is aggressive to us.
    • We can best maintain our influence by being peaceful. Diplomacy at all times, except wars in self-defense and for humanitarian reasons. No alliances that could obligate us into unnecessary wars.
    • The best way we can maintain our influence is to mostly avoid affairs in other countries, interacting with them mostly for trade alone.
    • The best way we can maintain our influence is to be totally isolationist. No diplomacy, no war, and no interactions.
      0
  4. 4. Which comes closest to your view on discrimination?

    • Discrimination is mostly the fault of those being discriminated against.
    • Discrimination is mostly the fault of those doing the discriminating.
    • Discrimination is mostly the fault of the media.
    • Discrimination is mostly the fault of our history and culture.
    • Discrimination is mostly just a part of humanity and is no one's specific fault.
  5. 5. Which comes closest to your view on how the federal government should handle discrimination?

    • The Federal Government should maintain or increase protections against people discriminated against and be active in enforcing them.
    • The Federal Government should maintain protections but shouldn't focus on enforcing them.
    • The States should have sole responsibility on Civil Rights matters, even if it means that states allow open discrimination, segregation, etc.
    • The local governments should have sole responsibility on Civil Rights matters, rather than state or federal governments, even if it means open discrimination and segregation.
      0
    • No government should have laws on Civil Rights. All people should treat or mistreat people as they say fit, even if mistreatment is due exclusively on race, religion, or disability.
  6. 6. Which comes closest to your view on government regulations of businesses.

    • The government should regulate all or most businesses for quality control, safety, labor standards, etc. so we can ensure that consumers and workers are not mistreated.
    • The government should maintain basic regulations to ensure basic safety for consumers and workers.
    • State governments should have sole responsibility on regulations, even if it means states reintroduce child labor, 60 hour work weeks, and poisonous material in meats.
      0
    • The businesses should have sole responsibility on quality control, safety, and labor standards. If a people start dying, then the business will fail. They have an incentive to do what is right because of profit.
  7. 7. Which comes closest to your view on LGBTetc

    • The federal government should enforce acceptance of people on the LGBT spectrum.
    • The federal government should only encourage acceptance of people on the LGBT spectrum.
    • State governments should have sole responsibility on matters on acceptance of LGBT matters in their state, even if it means open discrimination
      0
    • Local governments should have sole responsibility on LGBT matters--keeps state and federal out. Let the people decide who they will accept or rebuke.
    • Some demographics of the LGBT spectrum should be accepted but others should be rebuked
    • All government should avoid involvement in LGBT-specific matters.
  8. 8. What is closest to your view on corporate profit?

    • Corporate profit is always a good thing, even if it might come at the expense of local businesses, workers, or consumers.
    • Corporate profit is generally good, but not if it stifles local businesses, hurts workers or consumers.
    • Corporate profit is generally good, but not if it stifles local businesses.
    • Corporate profit is good only if the company creates economic growth in the community, higher wages and quality of life for workers in the community, and provides better services in the community.
    • Corporate profit is generally bad since the profit almost always comes at the expense of local businesses, wage labor, and the duping of consumers.
      0
    • Corporate profit should be curbed to prevent excessive wealth with much of the profit going back to the community, to the workers, and to local businesses affected by the corporation.
  9. 9. Which comes closest to your view on climate change/global warming?

    • The drastic climate changes over the last few decades are man-made and it should be a top priority to combat it, even if it means strict and inconvenient laws and regulations.
    • The drastic climate changes over the last few decades are man-made, but it isn't the role of the federal government to force people to combat it. Let states or people handle it, even if combating it requires worldwide involvement.
    • The drastic climate changes over the last few decades are man-made, but it is pointless to stop it since the whole world needs to combat it. We can't trust them, so we might as well do next to nothing.
    • The drastic climate changes over the last few decades are man-made, but the end of days is coming soon, so we don't need to worry about it.
    • The drastic climate changes over the last few decades are mostly cyclical. It will reset in a few decades.
    • Even though climate change probably isn't a real thing, it doesn't hurt to have clean air, clean water, and other policies that are environmental.
    • Climate change is a hoax and we should remove all meddlesome laws designed to "save the world"
      0
  10. 10. What is closest to your view on immigrants

    • All immigrants should be allowed to move to the US whenever they want. No restrictions.
    • All immigrants without a dangerous criminal record should be allowed to move to the US whenever they want.
    • All immigrants with a clean record should be allowed to move to the US whenever they want.
    • Immigrants of good repute should be allowed to move to the US but not during times of high unemployment
    • Immigrants of good repute should be allowed to move to the US but only if they pass a merit (education, skills) or are married to US citizen or legal immigrant.
    • Only immigrants from democracies with Judeo-Christian values should be allowed to immigrate here.
      0
    • Immigration should be restrictive and rare. Only allow immigrants in for employment-related issues when an industry is short on workers and US applicants for that job are few.
    • No immigration ever. America only for Americans.
      0
  11. 11. Which is closest to your views on racism?

    • It is not enough to be "not racist," one must be anti-racist. Strive for racial equity.
    • Being "not racist" is enough. Forcing "anti-racism" will just enflame issues further. Uphold racial equality but refrain from racial equity.
    • People should be allowed to be racist if they wish, whenever they wish. It's up to those that dislike racism to avoid the racists or discriminate against them. Keep government out of moral legislations on racism.
  12. 12. Which comes closest to your views on government focus?

    • The Federal Government should focus more on foreign affairs and leave domestic affairs to state and local governments.
    • The Federal Government should focus less on foreign affairs and focus more domestic affairs, working with state and local governments.
  13. 13. Which comes closes to your view on capitalism

    • Capitalism is a flawless system
    • While capitalism isn't flawless, we shouldn't attempt to address its flaws or the system will be less effective.
    • Capitalism is a great system so long as we have some mechanisms in place to address the flaws in the system.
    • Capitalism works best when it is integrated with some Socialism.
    • Socialism works best when it is integrated with some Capitalism.
    • Socialism is a great system so long as we have some mechanism in places to address the flaws in the system.
    • While Socialism isn't flawless, we shouldn't attempt to address its flaws or the system will be less effective.
      0
    • Socialism is a flawless system.
      0
  14. 14. Which party comes closest to your views, even if you don't vote for them because they're a 3rd party

    • Democratic Party (Center-left to Left)
    • Republican Party (center-right to right)
    • Libertarian Party (right to far right, except left or far-left on some issues)
    • Green Party (Left to Far-left)
    • Constitution Party (mostly far-right)
    • Socialist Party of America (mostly far-left)
      0
  15. 15. The US should have a parliamentary system with numerous parties

    • Yes
    • No, our duopoly is preferable.
  16. 16. The US has the best government in the world without question.

    • This is true
    • We are up there and have the potential to be if we make some changes
    • There are clearly some governments that are better than use at representing their citizens and running their governments and etc.
    • More governments are better than our government.
      0
    • We have one of the worst governments without question.


Recommended Posts

Here's a new ideology poll. 

First, due to time, I had to type these questions and answers quickly. As such, there are likely flaws in my phrasing and in my answer choices and in my tone. I typed this up quickly. Feel free to elaborate or explain yourself below if an answer doesn't quite fit your views. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of how the local and state governments are the ones that might permit like poisonous chemicals in our meat, that could be any government. To say only state and local might discriminate or make poor choices makes the poll slighted and bias and responses to the poll might not be what they should be otherwise.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SilentLiberty said:

I'm not a fan of how the local and state governments are the ones that might permit like poisonous chemicals in our meat, that could be any government. To say only state and local might discriminate or make poor choices makes the poll slighted and bias and responses to the poll might not be what they should be otherwise.

The federal government tends to overregulate. Giving regulation powers to local and state governments likely will mean less regulation, either because of smaller budget or because of ideology. Read my first comment in regards to the phrasing. I suggest posting to clarify your answers if a response doesn't accurately represent you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that one must be actively anti-racist is one of the most ridiculous out there. For one, it is used as an excuse to implement racist ideologies such as Critical Race Theory. For two, it allows goal posts to be constantly shifted based upon whoever comes up with the new "anti-racist" thing. And three, it reinforces cancel culture, which actually does more to reinforce racist thoughts/actions than anything else.

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

The idea that one must be actively anti-racist is one of the most ridiculous out there. For one, it is used as an excuse to implement racist ideologies such as Critical Race Theory. For two, it allows goal posts to be constantly shifted based upon whoever comes up with the new "anti-racist" thing. And three, it reinforces cancel culture, which actually does more to reinforce racist thoughts/actions than anything else.

Let's redefine it then. 

Should one be opposed to racism or is being personally not racist enough? Consider this statements independent of policy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I may have misunderstood or misinterpreted the racism question myself. Maybe not though. 

I think people should be allowed and permitted to believe whatever they want. Even if its hate speech or racism.

I personally am opposed to racism and people should combat against it. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Pringles said:

I think I may have misunderstood or misinterpreted the racism question myself. Maybe not though. 

I think people should be allowed and permitted to believe whatever they want. Even if its hate speech or racism.

I personally am opposed to racism and people should combat against it. 

I am curious at what point you think the government should be involved in hate speech or hate action. For instance, what is your stance on lynching, genocide, or any violence targeting a group? What about when there is no action, but language and literature advocating violence? What if there is no violence or advocation of violence but hate speech, racism, and discrimination is drastically increasing? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, vcczar said:

I am curious at what point you think the government should be involved in hate speech or hate action. For instance, what is your stance on lynching, genocide, or any violence targeting a group? What about when there is no action, but language and literature advocating violence? What if there is no violence or advocation of violence but hate speech, racism, and discrimination is drastically increasing? 

At any time that hate speech actively encourages violence and violence is produced as a result is when the government needs to step in and out it down. Lynching, genocide, all of that being actively encouraged and pursued by a group of people should be put down. 

However, if you got some old Confederate wannabe standing in the corner of the road shouting bring lynching back to people going by, he seems pretty stupid and I don't think he needs to be taken care of like an active threat.

Language and literature advocating violence, let's just take Mein Kampf for example. A terrible book about a terrible person, I dont think the government should actively censor all of that though. People who go out and try to do the things said in Mein Kampf deserve to be put down. Nobody is committing a crime by reading Mein Kampf, and to crack down on this, and even heinous messages on say, Twitter, is way too far. 

Trump deserved this treatment because he actively encouraged an insurrection.

The Qanon idiot saying Jews deserve to die on twitter or the far left "Hamas did nothing wrong" can be taken down by the platform since its against their TOS, but it's not something the government should be cracking down on.

Crack down on the actual violence, essentially. 

  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pringles said:

At any time that hate speech actively encourages violence and violence is produced as a result is when the government needs to step in and out it down. Lynching, genocide, all of that being actively encouraged and pursued by a group of people should be put down. 

However, if you got some old Confederate wannabe standing in the corner of the road shouting bring lynching back to people going by, he seems pretty stupid and I don't think he needs to be taken care of like an active threat.

Language and literature advocating violence, let's just take Mein Kampf for example. A terrible book about a terrible person, I dont think the government should actively censor all of that though. People who go out and try to do the things said in Mein Kampf deserve to be put down. Nobody is committing a crime by reading Mein Kampf, and to crack down on this, and even heinous messages on say, Twitter, is way too far. 

Trump deserved this treatment because he actively encouraged an insurrection.

The Qanon idiot saying Jews deserve to die on twitter or the far left "Hamas did nothing wrong" can be taken down by the platform since its against their TOS, but it's not something the government should be cracking down on.

Crack down on the actual violence, essentially. 

So you don't think there should be any pre-emptive action on the part of law enforcement or justice department to prevent violence before it starts. That is, someone or many people need to be wounded or killed first? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, vcczar said:

So you don't think there should be any pre-emptive action on the part of law enforcement or justice department to prevent violence before it starts. That is, someone or many people need to be wounded or killed first? 

What? Well sure, if we know theres going to be an attack? Just because racist idiots are shouting nonsense on the street though doesnt mean we need police to immediately contain the situation. 

People can go out on the street and shout whatever the hell they want. It's when they threaten others, and actively pursue their agenda of violence is when it needs to be put down. Police are always monitoring this sort of behavior anyways. 

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, vcczar said:

So you don't think there should be any pre-emptive action on the part of law enforcement or justice department to prevent violence before it starts. That is, someone or many people need to be wounded or killed first? 

There's a difference between shouting randomly and an active plan that's proveable imo.

  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I chose mostly at fault (for discrimination) of our history and culture because of well, the history and culture of more racist, and discriminatory areas. You can compare to other countries for example that have different history and culture, there is far less discrimination. I come from a small rural town, that is well, discriminatory in many ways, are these people going to be raised the same compared to somebody who is in the city and has tons of diversity and diversified education? No. I was lucky to have a discriminatory family, whose values is based off of strong women and community. To be clear- it is the person that is discriminating fault, but depending on their culture and upbringing, how they where raised, results vary. So I'm kinda half culture/half the persons fault. I have been lucky coming from the family I came from, though we where in poverty, we embraced community, and I did grow up in a small rural "city" in a way. That was quite diverse. It's without a doubt a tricky question, and the fact that my kids are going to be bi-racial, it's something I continue to educate myself on, and always have.

What is the root cause of discrimination? Is it inherit? A product of the environment a person grows up around?

@vcczar

Edited by themiddlepolitical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Patine said:

Now that I've looked over the other choices more clearly, I think the poll choices would benefit from a thorough redoing with more time. A lot of them seem arbitrary, sledge hammer-like, a bit odd, and on many questions, there is no choice for a rational, sensible approach - they're all, within many of these questions (not all, but quite a few) a strange mix with no good answers that would help anyone at all. You pointing out being rushed is appreciated, and it's obviously showing. Not to excoriate or condemn, but give some constructive criticism - another go-over and re-doing of this poll might well be very helpful.

I don't ever have more than 30 min at a time to put a poll together. It's either I don't do it or I do what I can work with as time allows. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, vcczar said:

Let's redefine it then. 

Should one be opposed to racism or is being personally not racist enough? Consider this statements independent of policy. 

That still involves interpretation.

Would I say that one needs to make public statements about racism being bad if it is not a serious problem? No, that is unnecessary (and could even fall into the virtue signaling category). But does that mean you would fall in the former or the latter?

The whole anti-racist thing will always be subjective because people will assert that you have to do certain things to satisfy the requirement of being anti-racist. Not being racist is much easier to measure (though even that has been muddied because of the overuse and misuse of the racist accusation/label).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Whoops -- I accidentally selected the most racist response possible for question two.  Ha.  Obviously  a mistake, I meant the racists are the ones to blame, not the victims of the racism.

Actinguy exposed! 😛

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Pringles said:

However, if you got some old Confederate wannabe standing in the corner of the road shouting bring lynching back to people going by, he seems pretty stupid and I don't think he needs to be taken care of like an active threat.

He's not an active threat to you, or to me.

That doesn't mean he's not an active threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...