Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

BSUTOP25

POLL: Where do you side on these issues?

Where do you stand on these issues?  

41 members have voted

  1. 1. On the marriage debate, I believe:

    • Marriage is designed specifically for a man and a woman and the government must regulate it as such.
    • In leaving it up to the individual state governments to regulate it according to the wishes of their constituency.
    • Any adult should be free to marry anybody they choose but the government should still regulate it while all institutions, including religious, should be forced to carry out and recognize ceremonies.
    • The government should not regulate any marriage or civil partnership whatsoever except to recognize it as a private contract between consenting adults - this would enable private institutions, such as churches, to allow or not perform what would essentially be symbolic ceremonies.
    • Other (please explain below) or I don't care about this issue.
  2. 2. With foreign policy, I believe the United States:

    • Is the world's predominant superpower and should unilaterally exert its militaristic and economic authority to shape and maintain the world order as it pleases.
    • And a few key allies should lead the direction of global policy through militaristic and economic enforcement when and where it makes sense according to our interests.
    • Needs to reevaluate its current policy and assume more of a moderate and collaborative diplomatic approach with the world community.
    • Should significantly reduce its military presence and economic influence with a non-interventionalist policy (not to be confused with pacifist, see next option).
    • Must strive to become as isolationist as possible through a platform of pacifism and economic self-reliance.
      0
    • Other (please explain below) or I don't care about this issue.
  3. 3. With foreign trade, I believe the United States should:

    • Have an open global trade policy that allows the market to decide supply and demand.
    • Maintain a strategically regulated trade policy that attempts to maintain a fair exchange of goods and services with punitive sanctions such as caps, fines, and embargos for violations.
    • Strengthen barriers to even out surpluses and deficits in the attempt to protect/enhance domestic production and wages.
    • Eliminate imports as much as possible while relying primarily on domestic goods and services.
      0
    • Other (please explain below) or I don't care about this issue.
  4. 4. With the Second Amendment and firearms, I believe that law-abiding citizens:

    • Are protected with an inalienable right to own and possess whatever firearm they so please as long as they don't commit crimes.
    • Should be able to own any firearm they please but must go through a proper and reasonable background check as well as a training course.
    • Can only own and/or possess certain firearms as controlled/regulated by the government while having to go through an extensive background check and training course.
    • Should not own any firearm whatsoever.
    • Other (please explain below) or I don't care about this issue.
  5. 5. With abortion, I believe:

    • A woman should be able to solely decide when and how to terminate a pregnancy without interference.
    • A woman and father/partner should be able to duly decide when and how to terminate a pregnancy without interference.
    • It should be legal but there should also be a limit set on how late a pregnancy can be terminated and am against late-term abortions that are conducted as a method of birth control.
    • In leaving it up to the individual state governments to regulate it according to the wishes of their constituency.
    • The practice to be immoral and should be banned except in cases of extreme circumstance.
    • Other (please explain below) or I don't care about this issue.
  6. 6. On immigration, I believe in:

    • Closed borders with extremely restrictive policies toward any and all immigration.
    • A very stringent vetting process that profiles and segments certain groups wishing to move to the United States.
    • Through background checks and waiting periods on all applicants.
    • More open borders with less red tape to increase the number of immigrants.
    • Completely open borders where people of all backgrounds can come and go as they please.
      0
    • Other (please explain below) or I don't care about this issue.
  7. 7. On public education, I believe:

    • We spend and waste way too much money on public education and it should be completely privatized.
    • The system is broken and we need to reduce spending and find more efficient means to educate our youth.
    • It's just right and shouldn't change at all.
    • The system is broken and we need to increase spending and find more effective means to educate our youth.
    • There is not enough money or resources currently available so we must raise taxes and eliminate private education while forcing everyone into the public system.
      0
    • In leaving it up to the individual state governments to regulate it according to the wishes of their constituency.
    • Other (please explain below) or I don't care about this issue.
  8. 8. With property, I believe:

    • All material and intellectual property should be wholly owned by the government, period. Individuals and private entities have no claim or right to property whatsoever.
      0
    • It should be government regulated depending on the material, situation, and circumstance. In other words, individuals and private entities should be able to privately own property as long as it is safe and morally acceptable.
    • Individuals and private entities should be able to own and/or possess whatever they please as long as it doesn't substantively harm any other individual or entity.
    • The government should have no say in property rights whatsoever. Leave it up to natural law to decide.
    • Other (please explain below) or I don't care about this issue.
  9. 9. With personal privacy, I believe the government:

    • Owns me and every other person and we are all subject to revealing everything about ourselves. There is no such thing as personal privacy.
      0
    • Has the authority to monitor, seize, and investigate my communications, property, and whereabouts if they suspect me of any wrongdoing or criminal activity.
      0
    • Can monitor, seize, and investigate my communications, property, and whereabouts as long as they go through a proper legal process of obtaining a warrant by demonstrating probable cause.
    • Should never be allowed to monitor, seize, and investigate my communications, property, and whereabouts without my knowledge and consent.
    • Other (please explain below) or I don't care about this issue.
  10. 10. On the environment, I believe the federal government should (multiple answers possible on this):

    • Have a strong role in overseeing and regulating how individuals and entities use, treat, and manage the environment.
    • Defer to the states to oversee and regulate environmental affairs.
    • Have little to no say in environmental affairs.
    • Reduce its ownership of public land by selling it off to private entities or individuals.
    • Increase the amount of public land acreage to preserve access and protect against development.
    • Other (please explain below) or I don't care about this issue.
  11. 11. With healthcare, I believe we should have a system based on:

    • Public government management that has full and complete control over access, procedures, and price controls.
    • Hybrid management but primary run by the government with some degree of private practice access for those who can afford it.
    • Hybrid management that is primary market based and run by private hospitals and insurers but with a government-based social safety net to protect and provide for the disadvantaged.
    • Fully market based with no government assistance or social safety net whatsoever.
    • Other (please explain below) or I don't care about this issue.


Recommended Posts

For transparency, let's get it all out on the table.

And please spare me the complaints on how a choice might be worded. Simply check "other" and explain below if you want to express your view in a specific way. 

On the environment question, it was a tough one to word and probably the most difficult to answer. I'm a moderate when it comes to environmental regulation and land ownership. I believe the federal government needs to have a sound pragmatic policy in regulating and managing our public lands but with a fair amount of constructive input from and collaboration with local communities. It's a balance between effectively managing and preserving our natural resources while mitigating regional biases and ignorance. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried,  but your phrasing makes it difficult.  I don't know if that's intentional,  or you're just oblivious to the tone and charge in some of your phrasing,  but... 

I'll use this post to explain my Other choices a bit later:

1. On marriage:  my position closely approximates the 3rd choice:  "Any adult should be free to marry anybody they choose but the government should still regulate it while all institutions, including religious, should be forced to carry out and recognize ceremonies."  

The reason I selected "Other" was because I don't think all institutions, especially religion, should be forced to carry out ceremonies (recognition is a different concept and I'd need further clarification what is meant here).  The reason I did not select the 4th choice is that marriage, while at its core is a contract between two consenting adults, brings with it a litany of legal, tax, social, and other considerations which all but force the government's hand in participating in the regulation, execution, protection, and otherwise, of marriage and married people.  Not unlike most contracts, actually, but the contract of marriage and its effect on various rights, including property, probate, and children, it especially complicated that there is simply no situation government could not be involved.

2. Foreign policy:  in the middle of "be more diplomatic" and "non-interventionist."  I selected the "more moderate and diplomatic" option. This is 2016 after all.  There's no putting that genie back in the bottle.

4. Second Amendment: I'm between the first two options.  I believe in the 2nd Amendment, though I also believe there's a lot of room in the express language therein for great ambiguity and disagreement.  Bottom line is I believe people have a right to most firearms; I don't necessarily believe in mandatory licensing and training for them but I think it's a good idea.  Same with background checks, though I'll remind everyone the 2nd Amendment literally says nothing about licensing, background checks, etc.  So there's a lot of room for playing around with the general regulation of "arms."  Ultimately, and I know some of you think this is a preposterous argument (but I think its a valid point): I don't think we have the right to any/all arms and that we have a direct and express interest in regulating the types of arms we are allowed to possess. By this I mean we generally don't want people to own or possess certain WMD and other similar type of arms.  So then regulation becomes then a sort of sliding scale of reasonableness, and therein lies the debate.

 7. Public education is very complicated, and I don't think I know enough about the general issue to have much of a strong opinion.  I think in some circumstances we probably spend too much; in others, not enough.  I think we're also not very efficient or effective.  I think communities and parents have a lot of blame in that.  Society in general as well.  I do believe in federal standards, but I think we can also apply some reasonable local standards.  As someone who came from a small rural educational district, I do think I was disadvantaged by the limited course selection and emphasis on ag / trade skills curriculum over more college-prep and academic topics, as well as the general disinterest and apathy of our small town instructors.  Ultimately I'd like a wholesale move to something like you see in Europe, where there are step-tracks you can move into based on achievement and interest:  university for some, trades for others.  I'd love to see a baseline liberal arts education provided to everyone regardless of what they want to do, as well as disabusing this increasing attitude that a university education is supposed to result in jobs (rather than an education).   Also, let's figure out a way to reduce the costs of higher education.  Holy sh-t. 

8. / 9.  Property and privacy:  these are such complicated, convoluted topics I can't get beyond answering "it depends" to both of them. Because it really depends on what we're talking about.  I do think the constitution provides a baseline expectation and provision for private property rights, and while privacy is not express in the Constitution, there are certain very obvious language where it derives (and moreover, where the public is protected from the government in that regard).  I suppose with regard to property I'm somewhere within or between the 2nd and 3rd option, and with privacy, the 3rd and 4th.

10.  Strongly believe the environment has to be strongly regulated at the federal level.  Private enterprise has generally failed in every regard with respect to the protection of the environment, and moreover, as a strong believer in public lands, I simply don't see how private enterprise or even the states can manage them at all.  I think the Fed is the proper authority with respect to balancing MUSY standards, which I also strongly believe in.  Moreover, and maybe most importantly, the environment doesn't observe or acknowledge arbitrary political boundaries we create, so piecemeal management makes no sense.  Oh, and climate change....

 

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears; it was their final, most essential command.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jwherb said:

I tried,  but your phrasing makes it difficult.  I don't know if that's intentional,  or you're just oblivious to the tone and charge in some of your phrasing,  but... 

I'll use this post to explain my Other choices a bit later. 

Sorry, please believe me when I say I honestly tried to write the questions and answers as fairly as I could and gave multiple options and the "other" option in case someone didn't like or fit in to how things were phrased. It's not as easy as you might think. 

Also, it should be noted that there are multiple answers available on the environment question. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

Sorry, please believe me when I say I honestly tried to write the questions and answers as fairly as I could and gave multiple options and the "other" option in case someone didn't like or fit in to how things were phrased. It's not as easy as you might think. 

Also, it should be noted that there are multiple answers available on the environment question. 

Ok, fair enough. 

I just think it seems designed for a secondary purpose of boxing people into certain groups rather than genuine facilitation of discussion.  But maybe that's just my impressions I'm bringing to it, so I'll take you at your word. 

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears; it was their final, most essential command.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jwherb said:

Ok, fair enough. 

I just think it seems designed for a secondary purpose of boxing people into certain groups rather than genuine facilitation of discussion.  But maybe that's just my impressions I'm bringing to it, so I'll take you at your word. 

Thanks. As mentioned, if somebody doesn't want to be "boxed into" one of the preset answers I provided, there is the option to select "other" and explain below. Hopefully that will be a sufficient instigator for discussion. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jwherb said:

I tried,  but your phrasing makes it difficult.  I don't know if that's intentional,  or you're just oblivious to the tone and charge in some of your phrasing,  but... 

I'll use this post to explain my Other choices a bit later:

1. On marriage:  my position closely approximates the 3rd choice:  "Any adult should be free to marry anybody they choose but the government should still regulate it while all institutions, including religious, should be forced to carry out and recognize ceremonies."  

The reason I selected "Other" was because I don't think all institutions, especially religion, should be forced to carry out ceremonies (recognition is a different concept and I'd need further clarification what is meant here).  The reason I did not select the 4th choice is that marriage, while at its core is a contract between two consenting adults, brings with it a litany of legal, tax, social, and other considerations which all but force the government's hand in participating in the regulation, execution, protection, and otherwise, of marriage and married people.  Not unlike most contracts, actually, but the contract of marriage and its effect on various rights, including property, probate, and children, it especially complicated that there is simply no situation government could not be involved.

Like most of these questions and answers, sometimes you have to dive into the hypothetical and explain your thoughts under certain circumstances and parameters. I went with the 4th option because I think it's unjust/unfair policy to design tax and legal code based on relationship status. I've never been a proponent of tax breaks based on marriage status or number of heads within a household. With regard to probate, I believe that can be settled in a private contract and custody can pretty much be managed in the same way it is with singles who make an "oops." No policy in this area is going to be perfect, there are always shades of gray (or grey in the UK). 

2. Foreign policy:  in the middle of "be more diplomatic" and "non-interventionist."  I selected the "more moderate and diplomatic" option. This is 2016 after all.  There's no putting that genie back in the bottle.

Agreed.

4. Second Amendment: I'm between the first two options.  I believe in the 2nd Amendment, though I also believe there's a lot of room in the express language therein for great ambiguity and disagreement.  Bottom line is I believe people have a right to most firearms; I don't necessarily believe in mandatory licensing and training for them but I think it's a good idea.  Same with background checks, though I'll remind everyone the 2nd Amendment literally says nothing about licensing, background checks, etc.  So there's a lot of room for playing around with the general regulation of "arms."  Ultimately, and I know some of you think this is a preposterous argument (but I think its a valid point): I don't think we have the right to any/all arms and that we have a direct and express interest in regulating the types of arms we are allowed to possess. By this I mean we generally don't want people to own or possess certain WMD and other similar type of arms.  So then regulation becomes then a sort of sliding scale of reasonableness, and therein lies the debate.

I specifically put "firearms" rather than "weaponry" because if you include nuclear arms and all that the discussion goes down a non-constructive path. Firearms typically viewed as weapons an individual can carry and operate on their person. I agree that there should be background checks but I worry about things like no fly lists and other disqualifiers which are more of a rubber stamp than a pragmatic approach to making sure dangerous criminals don't have access to firearms. We can agree to disagree here.

 7. Public education is very complicated, and I don't think I know enough about the general issue to have much of a strong opinion.  I think in some circumstances we probably spend too much; in others, not enough.  I think we're also not very efficient or effective.  I think communities and parents have a lot of blame in that.  Society in general as well.  I do believe in federal standards, but I think we can also apply some reasonable local standards.  As someone who came from a small rural educational district, I do think I was disadvantaged by the limited course selection and emphasis on ag / trade skills curriculum over more college-prep and academic topics, as well as the general disinterest and apathy of our small town instructors.  Ultimately I'd like a wholesale move to something like you see in Europe, where there are step-tracks you can move into based on achievement and interest:  university for some, trades for others.  I'd love to see a baseline liberal arts education provided to everyone regardless of what they want to do, as well as disabusing this increasing attitude that a university education is supposed to result in jobs (rather than an education).   Also, let's figure out a way to reduce the costs of higher education.  Holy sh-t. 

I'm open and willing to explore new means, tactics, and strategies to improve the overall education in our country. I believe we've lost our competitive edge in brainshare and a good amount if not most of the emerging talent in this country is actually foreigners who have moved here. It's a disservice to our future generations if we don't provide a critical learning environment that fosters creativity and innovation. 

8. / 9.  Property and privacy:  these are such complicated, convoluted topics I can't get beyond answering "it depends" to both of them. Because it really depends on what we're talking about.  I do think the constitution provides a baseline expectation and provision for private property rights, and while privacy is not express in the Constitution, there are certain very obvious language where it derives (and moreover, where the public is protected from the government in that regard).  I suppose with regard to property I'm somewhere within or between the 2nd and 3rd option, and with privacy, the 3rd and 4th.

Property and privacy are both near and dear to my heart. I feel as if our natural rights as men (meaning the species not the gender J-dubs) are constantly being eroded by the public safety argument. I don't know how it can be accomplished but perhaps there should be more dialog on ways to create a pragmatic approach to allow individuals and entities to possess property and enjoy privacy without being viewed with suspicion without cause. 

10.  Strongly believe the environment has to be strongly regulated at the federal level.  Private enterprise has generally failed in every regard with respect to the protection of the environment, and moreover, as a strong believer in public lands, I simply don't see how private enterprise or even the states can manage them at all.  I think the Fed is the proper authority with respect to balancing MUSY standards, which I also strongly believe in.  Moreover, and maybe most importantly, the environment doesn't observe or acknowledge arbitrary political boundaries we create, so piecemeal management makes no sense.  Oh, and climate change....

As I mentioned in my "preamble," this was the toughest issue for me. I agree with you on several points but am torn on others. I believe the climate is changing but I think we have to have a balanced and well thought out scientific approach on how to address it. 

Thanks for the candid and detailed answers, this is exactly what I was hoping for on this thread. Note my commentary in bold blue above. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far the results are pretty interesting. If you simplify things a bit, we can actually find some common ground on certain issues. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, BSUTOP25 said:

For transparency, let's get it all out on the table.

And please spare me the complaints on how a choice might be worded. Simply check "other" and explain below if you want to express your view in a specific way. 

On the environment question, it was a tough one to word and probably the most difficult to answer. I'm a moderate when it comes to environmental regulation and land ownership. I believe the federal government needs to have a sound pragmatic policy in regulating and managing our public lands but with a fair amount of constructive input from and collaboration with local communities. It's a balance between effectively managing and preserving our natural resources while mitigating regional biases and ignorance. 

I agree govt should have a strong role in the environment....but hate the fact that at the same time govt does so with an agenda.   The EPA is running wild these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, BSUTOP25 said:

So far the results are pretty interesting. If you simplify things a bit, we can actually find some common ground on certain issues. 

Interesting poll- I answered all of your questions and I didn't  find the need to quantify my answers. Some seemed a bit ambiguous but it's your poll. And overall , I think you did a good job. 

I like the fact you took the the time to present this. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Jwherb said:

Ok, fair enough. 

I just think it seems designed for a secondary purpose of boxing people into certain groups rather than genuine facilitation of discussion.  But maybe that's just my impressions I'm bringing to it, so I'll take you at your word. 

No statement is going to fully encompass a reasonable thinking person's beliefs.   Even if you agree on most everything.

For instance I put that abortion was immoral and should not be allowed in all but the rarest circumstances.   I would add a woman can kill her baby if she wants.  Those are my beliefs and I am aware one precludes the other.

None of those answers were exactly what i would want, but they were close enough for discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone else find it surprising that the two areas with most common agreement are marriage (80% for no government regulation) and healthcare (90% for private based with social safety net)? These were two very polarizing issues 8 years ago. Immigration seems to be the most divisive issue amongst our group. Any thoughts ... ? 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. So people on here want to force churches to marry people?   "including religious, should be forced to carry out and recognize ceremonies." 
If thats the case then instead of accepting gay marriage in general, I would be for outlawing gay marriage altogether!  

2. There is no single answer

3. most countries have many more restrictions than the US does

5. I'm morally against any form of abortion but would not try to outlaw it all

7. Standard US Public Education has fallen way behind most the rest of the modern world. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, pokerider said:

1. So people on here want to force churches to marry people?   "including religious, should be forced to carry out and recognize ceremonies." 
If thats the case then instead of accepting gay marriage in general, I would be for outlawing gay marriage altogether!  

Dude, only 2 out of 20 or people voted for that option.

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎11‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 7:29 AM, Jwherb said:

I tried,  but your phrasing makes it difficult.  I don't know if that's intentional,  or you're just oblivious to the tone and charge in some of your phrasing,  but... 

I'll use this post to explain my Other choices a bit later:

1. On marriage:  my position closely approximates the 3rd choice:  "Any adult should be free to marry anybody they choose but the government should still regulate it while all institutions, including religious, should be forced to carry out and recognize ceremonies."  

The reason I selected "Other" was because I don't think all institutions, especially religion, should be forced to carry out ceremonies (recognition is a different concept and I'd need further clarification what is meant here).  The reason I did not select the 4th choice is that marriage, while at its core is a contract between two consenting adults, brings with it a litany of legal, tax, social, and other considerations which all but force the government's hand in participating in the regulation, execution, protection, and otherwise, of marriage and married people.  Not unlike most contracts, actually, but the contract of marriage and its effect on various rights, including property, probate, and children, it especially complicated that there is simply no situation government could not be involved.

 

I also voted other for this one for this reason. Think it should be regulated by the Gov(maybe at one time we could have had it be purely ceremonial with nothing else other than a contract but I believe that ship has sailed) but no one should be forced to perform ceremonies. And I don't think many people either here or nationally are pushing for that.

The others I was able to give an answer even if my actual thoughts are somewhat more nuanced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Should be able to own any firearm they please but must go through a proper and reasonable background check as well as a training course.

I would agree with this, besides explosive projectiles (RPG's, Arty/Mortar, Rockets/Missiles)

 

ETA: noticed my others explanations weren't saved.  I'll get back to those later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, East Coast Aztec said:

I would agree with this, besides explosive projectiles (RPG's, Arty/Mortar, Rockets/Missiles)

Can I arm a drone?

You know what would be fun, is to put some model rockets on a couple of RC ships (the ones you can drive around the pond at the park), and shoot the rockets at each other!  Or if I could arm my drone, I'd blow up my kids RC boat with my armed drone.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CPslograd said:

Can I arm a drone?

You know what would be fun, is to put some model rockets on a couple of RC ships (the ones you can drive around the pond at the park), and shoot the rockets at each other!  Or if I could arm my drone, I'd blow up my kids RC boat with my armed drone.  

A model rocket? I think "model" sort of "blows up" your question.  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...