I still vote D, but ...

[AJG]

As a matter of law I believe businesses should be able to refuse to conduct private transactions.

So you think a business should be able to refuse a customer for any reason at all? You do realize without the anti-discrimination laws that prevent businesses from doing exactly that, we wouldn't have the civil rights act, and segregation based on race (or anything really) would still be legal?

 

[gbg3]

why does someone's existence create a just claim on the wealth or industry of someone else?

I absolutely LOVE this comment!

 

[Cameron]

I still vote D, but I generally DISagree with the D party on the issue of _____________

I picked police tactics and immigration. I think that a significant portion of the Dem party has gone extreme on those issues, with the defund the police and open borders movements. Luckily on immigration I can't imagine Congress ever going along with the far-left proposals, and on police reform even here in NYC local Dems have stood up to the more extremist elements of the party, including in many of the neighborhoods most affected by stop and frisk and similar policies.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

So you think a business should be able to refuse a customer for any reason at all? You do realize without the anti-discrimination laws that prevent businesses from doing exactly that, we wouldn't have the civil rights act, and segregation based on race (or anything really) would still be legal?

I would make a distinction between small businesses and corporate businesses. Small businesses I think should be able to.

the civil rights act can apply to government and large corporations without applying to small operators, I think too a distinction can be made between issues like having black skin (which is a component of genetics and cannot be changed nor hidden) and celebrating sexual perversion (which is a choice, people might say they don’t choose to be gay, fair enough, but it is certainly a choice to get a marriage license and have a ceremony, and definitely a choice to look for the providers most likely to have objections and then file complaints)

 

[Phys251]

I am Independent and have no commitment to any Party anymore. I've voted Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, depending on the election.

That's funny, because every single post I've ever read from you puts you in the Republican camp.

 

[AJG]

I would make a distinction between small businesses and corporate businesses. Small businesses I think should be able to.

This sounds like an arbitrary distinction to me, and I don't really understand the reason for it. And I still think it would be problematic, especially in rural areas where corporate businesses are harder to find.

the civil rights act can apply to government and large corporations without applying to small operators, I think too a distinction can be made between issues like having black skin (which is a component of genetics and cannot be changed nor hidden) and celebrating sexual perversion (which is a choice, people might say they don’t choose to be gay, fair enough, but it is certainly a choice to get a marriage license and have a ceremony, and definitely a choice to look for the providers most likely to have objections and then file complaints)

Those are your personal beliefs, and you're entitled to them. Still, I see no reason why discrimination based on sexual orientation should be allowed anymore than discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin or disability should be allowed, and it is in fact not allowed in 20 states, and probably will be prohibit on the federal level some day. If the distinction is that getting married is a choice, I don't buy it because religion is a choice, too.

I also object to your post here:

So in fact you do not support religious liberty. So you are now an admitted liar.

If objecting to discrimination based on sexual orientation for religion reasons means you do not support religious liberty, it means that objecting to other types of discrimination based on race, sex, religion, etc for religious reasons means you do not support religious liberty as well.

 

[Spakian]

Personally, I picked immigration, police tactics, and taxing. Here are my reasons:

Immigration: I know this might seem odd considering that I am an immigrant, but my problem lies within the undocumented immigrants. Normally, they are fine, but a lot of people have been abusing the system to try to get their 8 kids in there. I feel that shouldn't happen, and that the US Government should be a little more strict on undocumented immigration, but not as strict as the levels that Republicans want.

Police tactics: I live in Minnesota and I have seen representatives (specifically Omar) calling to defund the police. Now a lot of people who live there say that she doesn't actually want to do it, but I think that she does. Defunding the police will have severe reprecussions throughout the community, and will lead to a massive increase in crime. I think that police funding should be kept the same, but reorganized within the police to make sure the police are a lot less dangerous.

Tax spending: Normally I am a Libertarian-Right on the political compass, but I still vote blue because I feel it is a much better option than voting red. I feel that taxes should be as low as possible for the poor and middle income and higher for the upper income such that the total amount taxed stays the same, but it is more equal for each economic group. Taxing should be something where the richer people have to "carry" the poorer people, so the society gets more balanced out.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I still vote D, but I generally DISagree with the D party on the issue of _____________

I consider myself classical liberal, which means I tend to vote D even though I generally disagree with today's "modern liberalism" (my term) in control of the Party and that also means I disagree with them on just about everything on the list but Abortion and Education.

 

[Antiwar]

You seem to be suggesting that some are poor because others are not (".... hold others down"). This is a massive leap that does not withstand scrutiny.

You've never heard of US hegemony and militarism?! How about chattel slavery and all that followed?

 

[Antiwar]

You don't consider the top ten percent of the earth's population owning ninety percent of the money already toasted? I do. Money, it's all about money. You can't spend political power and you can't spend religious power but you can spend money power and the money power owns almost all the money on earth. The other side hasn't stood a chance since the country started. Remember our founding fathers were all white wealthy land owners and it's continued ever since.

White wealthy stolen-landowners, white wealthy African-American slave owners, and elitist power grabbers. Or do we have to make nice so as to not offend the offensive people that whitewash these things?

 

[Antiwar]

Nobody is holding anyone down.

Dood was in the Navy for decades and had the nerve to say that.

 

[Antiwar]

It's not about individual pols' "fault" though, it's about casting a vote that matters vs a protest vote. I remember the regrets of people I knew who threw their votes away on Nader. That was before Rs became the party of Trump, but even then it laid bare how imprecise/juvenile the "both parties are the same" line of illogic was. The stakes are that much higher now. IMO, any argument fails if, in an election between Stalin and bland D, it would lead you to vote for SpongeBob SquarePants instead of one of the two actual options.

I'll choose another place to eat if a poo sandwich and a turd taco are the only menu options on the roach coach.

 

[Antiwar]

...

You, on the other hand, are precisely the kind of voter that appears to be content to gift us with Trump again, and if he could have a third term, possibly again.

That means that your life is not negatively affected by anything he does.
And I have to be curious about what kind of life that must be.
It must be very sheltered and insulated, because here I am, on the cusp of being a senior citizen, with a disabled son and a disabled veteran wife, in declining health myself, and another Trump term will probably wind up killing all three of us.
...

You rightfully admitted that Hillary and the D Team blew it. Add to that: the R Team cheated like hell (Interstate Crosscheck voter roll purges in key states) and the Electoral College giving them ~30% total voting-power advantage. The latter is the actual mechanical way that Trump "won." The former is the 'sociological guessing' way that might explain Hillary's loss.


I live in a solidly "blue" state. My Green vote didn't count for nor against anything, no thanks to the Electoral College and winner-take-all.

I'm not a "brocialist," whatever that supposedly is. I am not a socialist, nor a communist. I'm an environmentalist and probably a humanist. Does the D/R Team represent my excellent political positions? Well, basically the strong progressives that are changing the D Team do. They'd be in the Green Party if third parties weren't essentially locked out. So, there's hope for the D Team after all.

I wish you well. Well-being for all beings.

 

[The Mark]

well you can write your treatise on health care but it’s not relevant to any point I made.

Which is totally irrelevant to forcing religious organizations to buy it.

The point I'm trying to make is that I want the system changed so that no employer is forced to buy care, because everyone by default has care.

Health care should not rely on the decisions, or the religion, of your employer.

So now you’re admitting you actually don’t know if your own argument for fairness is accurate?

I suppose you could say that, but I like to think it was more a case of you helping me realize I didn't know.

 

[pamak]

why does someone's existence create a just claim on the wealth or industry of someone else?

This is not exactly the claim. The claim is that the distribution of the generated wealth is wrong and thus redistribution of it through policies like taxes is the proper remedy. For example, the mere idea that the state always support the collective bargaining power of capitalists (when they form corporations) but not always protects the collective bargaining power of workers, creates an imbalance that favors agreements that overvalue the capitalist contributions and undervalue the labor's which in turn is also reflected in the agreements about the distribution of profits. Thus, it is proper to levy higher taxes on corporations for social programs that help workers by redistributing wealth

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

You rightfully admitted that Hillary and the D Team blew it. Add to that: the R Team cheated like hell (Interstate Crosscheck voter roll purges in key states) and the Electoral College giving them ~30% total voting-power advantage. The latter is the actual mechanical way that Trump "won." The former is the 'sociological guessing' way that might explain Hillary's loss.


I live in a solidly "blue" state. My Green vote didn't count for nor against anything, no thanks to the Electoral College and winner-take-all.

I'm not a "brocialist," whatever that supposedly is. I am not a socialist, nor a communist. I'm an environmentalist and probably a humanist. Does the D/R Team represent my excellent political positions? Well, basically the strong progressives that are changing the D Team do. They'd be in the Green Party if third parties weren't essentially locked out. So, there's hope for the D Team after all.

I wish you well. Well-being for all beings.

Come on and come in for the win. That way more people can CHANGE the Democratic Party.
These parties respond to what they perceive is the main demographic.
If they see a ton of independents coming in who are more left, eventually it forces them to rejigger the platform.
I am not saying that the Tea Party and the Trump Party did a GOOD thing to the GOP, but looking solely at the nuts and bolts of how they did it, it was a textbook example to follow.

Imagine if they had committed to doing GOOD.

 

[Moi621]

There was a period of time employers paid me my gross salary
and I had to pay all the usually with held money out of that check.

I use to put 50% in a special bank account to cover those taxes.
When I filed my returns, I usually had some of that 50% left over.
Over the years the left overs got smaller and smaller.

Then 50% was not enough.
I came to realize the cost of Democratic social programs were unfairly
put on working people. Just like ObamaCare. And I voted Reagan
for President although I detested him as Governor of California.

I didn't leave the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party left me.
White. Straight. Male. Working Person.


Moi
Independent
Anti Neocon

Don't ize
​

 

[pamak]

There was a period of time employers paid me my gross salary
and I had to pay all the usually with held money out of that check.

I use to put 50% in a special bank account to cover those taxes.
When I filed my returns, I usually had some of that 50% left over.
Over the years the left overs got smaller and smaller.

Then 50% was not enough.
I came to realize the cost of Democratic social programs were unfairly
put on working people. Just like ObamaCare. And I voted Reagan
for President although I detested him as Governor of California.

I didn't leave the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party left me.
White. Straight. Male. Working Person.


Moi
Independent
Anti Neocon

Don't ize
​

This is a result of having Democrats buying into the idea that govenment should leave big business free to make decisions that will eventually benefit everybody. The arrogance of capitalists immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union affected everybody too recall Clinton and the bipartisan support for NAFTA. It worked in the beginning as Wall Street and big business were optimistic about their expansion and secure of future profits in emerging markets. And that optimism led also to higher wages for common Americans. But at that time, the "socialists" could still see thw writing on the wall and protested against the freedom that the big capital acquire to shift from one country to another

World Trade Organization Protests in Seattle - CityArchives | seattle.gov

The World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial Conference began in November 1999 and inspired one of the largest political protests ever seen in Seattle. This digital document library includes links to primary sources about the event as well as a bibliography of other resources.

www.seattle.gov

World Trade Organization Protests in Seattle

In January 1999, the City of Seattle was selected to host the World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial Conference in November-December 1999. The WTO is a global international organization dealing with the rules of trade between nations. In March, multi-agency planning began through the City of Seattle Public Safety Committee with goals of ensuring safety for participants and freedom of expression for protestors.
The conference began in November 1999 and inspired one of the largest political protests ever seen in Seattle.

And I bet that the impressive developments in artificial intelligence and automation create even bigger challenges for the near feature which no government can tackle without radical change of the economic, political and social structure of our society. Just the automation of driving (which approaches the final stage of impelmentation) will eliminate many jobs, And it will not be easy for all these truck drivers to find new jobs. Unlike the industrial revolution which eliminated but also offered new jobs to low-skilled workers, the modern economy is becoming increasingly unforgiving to workers with no high (and expensive) education.

 

[Moi621]

This is a result of having Democrats buying into the idea that govenment should leave big business free to make decisions that will eventually benefit everybody. The arrogance of capitalists immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union affected everybody too recall Clinton and the bipartisan support for NAFTA. It worked in the beginning as Wall Street and big business were optimistic about their expansion and secure of future profits in emerging markets. And that optimism led also to higher wages for common Americans. But at that time, the "socialists" could still see thw writing on the wall and protested against the freedom that the big capital acquire to shift from one country to another

World Trade Organization Protests in Seattle - CityArchives | seattle.gov

The World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial Conference began in November 1999 and inspired one of the largest political protests ever seen in Seattle. This digital document library includes links to primary sources about the event as well as a bibliography of other resources.

www.seattle.gov

World Trade Organization Protests in Seattle

In January 1999, the City of Seattle was selected to host the World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial Conference in November-December 1999. The WTO is a global international organization dealing with the rules of trade between nations. In March, multi-agency planning began through the City of Seattle Public Safety Committee with goals of ensuring safety for participants and freedom of expression for protestors.
The conference began in November 1999 and inspired one of the largest political protests ever seen in Seattle.

And I bet that the impressive developments in artificial intelligence and automation create even bigger challenges for the near feature which no government can tackle without radical change of the economic, political and social structure of our society. Just the automation of driving (which approaches the final stage of impelmentation) will eliminate many jobs, And it will not be easy for all these truck drivers to find new jobs. Unlike the industrial revolution which eliminated but also offered new jobs to low-skilled workers, the modern economy is becoming increasingly unforgiving to workers with no high (and expensive) education.

The Eisenhower Tax Code
would fix the problem.
Just adapt 1950's dollar amounts to 2020 values.


Moi

Make pay its' fair share! ​

 

[Chomsky]

Yeah realize the very idea of socialism (Bernie) cannot tolerate the existence of any conservative principle right? Any conservative principle or tradition are stumbling blocks to true socialism, they only hold back true socialism.

there is no examples of socialist regimes respecting personal conservative beliefs that contradict their dogma. At very best they will tolerate such things to the minimum they have to to stay in power.

Bernie, despite his self proclaiming, has a platform that's non-Socialist. Yeah, he is promoting social programs, but not 'Socialism'.

I don't see why Dems can't be more open-minded towards some more conservative sub-groups. Catholicism is an example. Catholics are conservative in some things like marriage & abortion, but are fairly liberal in others like healthcare & social safety nets. Blue collar working-class Catholics were once the life-blood of the Democratic Party. I don't see why they wouldn't be tolerated better, and understood better, by today's Democrats. There's a lot to agree upon, while still respectfully disagreeing about other things. No one ever agrees about everything.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Bernie, despite his self proclaiming, has a platform that's non-Socialist. Yeah, he is promoting social programs, but not 'Socialism'.

Like when he refuses to condemn Fidel Castro and whenever he does speak honestly it's about the positives of his regime? Sanders has openly praised at least three communist dictators, has praised the Soviet Union, he literally honeymooned in the Soviet Union. I don't call Bernie a socialist because of taxpayer safety net policies, I call him one because he has a long history of at least appearing friendly to socialist ideology and hanging out in those circles. Socialism is NOT about tax rates, health insurance, and government regulation. It's about creating a classless philosophically egalitarian society with state ownership of the means of production. He seems to actually believe this. He claims now to support Scandinavian style "social democracy" but he doesn't seem to know anything politically about these states. I do, my family heritage is largely Norwegian, I've been to Norway, I speak the language somewhat, Norway is a far different country then what Bernie seems to support. He mouths Norway and really mean Nicaragua of the Sandinistas.

I don't see why Dems can't be more open-minded towards some more conservative sub-groups.

The Democratic Party could because a party can change platforms, but the democrats right now are bringing in people who thing they want socialism. Remember the Catholic Church has condemned socialism as a moral evil

Catholicism is an example. Catholics are conservative in some things like marriage & abortion, but are fairly liberal in others like healthcare & social safety nets.

The Church defines marriage and abortion as fundemental issues of faith and morals, there is no command to support any specific healthcare policy

Blue collar working-class Catholics were once the life-blood of the Democratic Party.

So were segregationists. Parties change with time, at least in this country. In other countries parties just disappear and new ones come up. here the parties shift every generation

I don't see why they wouldn't be tolerated better, and understood better, by today's Democrats. There's a lot to agree upon, while still respectfully disagreeing about other things. No one ever agrees about everything.

Because the main drivers of the democratic party are big dollar corporatists and progressives who use the imagery and language of late19th century revolutionary socialism. Why would either of these groups want to understand Catholics? The only Catholic bloc of the democrats are hispanics, and the education system is working overtime to deprogram the kids of hispanic immigrants from the faith.

 

[skeptic llc]

I consider myself classical liberal, which means I tend to vote D even though I generally disagree with today's "modern liberalism" (my term) in control of the Party and that also means I disagree with them on just about everything on the list but Abortion and Education.

Ha! I found myself checking most of the boxes too ...

 

[skeptic llc]

You've never heard of US hegemony and militarism?! How about chattel slavery and all that followed?

Here's your statement I responded to: "Because it's unethical for people to be barely surviving (or not) while others plunder resources, and hold others down." That's all, in your view, because of "US hegemony and militarism ... chattel slavery and all that followed"? Or are some places suffering independent of the US's wealth?

 

[skeptic llc]

I'll choose another place to eat if a poo sandwich and a turd taco are the only menu options on the roach coach.

Perfect illustration of the problem. Equating, e.g., Trump and Clinton shows how juvenile the far left tends to be. Really, you can't tell which one is worse? For example, an overt racist who stakes the racism is, according to your value system, just as good as a pol who does not?

 

[iguanaman]

I'm not a fan of the D Team.

Being corporate whores

Funding US militarism

Republican Lite, neoliberalism, elitist meritocracy

Being where progressive issues go to die

Meaning you agree with Democrats on every one of the choices in the poll. Those are pretty good reasons to vote Democrat don't you think? It's a "big tent" party so you will never get everything you want. And then there is the alternative and a vote for a 3rd party is a vote for the Party of Trump. This one step forward and two steps back has got to stop. It's now killing us by the 1000's a day.