statefan91 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

RWW26 - I have GP on ignore so no idea what his circus is saying.

You've mentioned a number of times that you don't align with either party. Can I ask what your views are? What is most important to you?

---

• Sure. I don't believe any person, president, governor, congressman or congresswoman ect. has any right to tell a woman of she can or can't have an abortion.
• I don't believe any person has the right to tell any man or woman who he or she can or can't love and can or can't marry.
• I don't believe any person has the right to demand others pay higher taxes simply because they have more money and I don't believe any person has the right the freely take from the wealthy to give to the poor.
• At the same time, I don't believe any person has the right to pass policies that benefit the wealthy specifically at the expense of the less wealthy and vis versa.
• I also don't believe any person has the right to to tell any person how they should go about living their lives when it comes to.things such as solar panels, or solar powered vehicles, or charging more because you aren't using energy efficient lightbulbs.
• I do believe that government serves a purpose in that it does help to define laws, regulations, etc.
• I just don't believe, in the system we have now, that it is done in a way that benefits the WHOLE. I believe it is done in a way that benefits the SOME.
• The left and the right both scream and yell about this and that, but in the end, they both want the same thing. Complete control that benefits the SOME and not the WHOLE.
• My wish, hope, and dream is that somehow and someway, we revert back to actually having a thing called states rights and an election not based on the electoral college(yes, that's a discussion for a different day).
• For now, I can't align myself with either party because both parties have gone so far left and right that I just can't find any common ground with them.

---

Broke it down a little bit for ease of reading, appreciate your response. I agree with a lot of your points. The ones I disagree with to some degree are related to wealth. Even those like Elizabeth Warren who I think most would agree are on the far end of the "tax the rich" spectrum, is only proposing a small tax on those with fortunes $50MM+, and it would only apply to the money after $50MM.

I don't think a plan like that is too outlandish, and the projections of what it would generate are astounding. There is a lot of wealth in this country that sits in banks for generations doing little productive for the society.

---

statefan91 said:

---

Understood - but you have to start somewhere. I'd rather Warren be ambitious and have a plan to explain how she'll pay for the big ideas she has. She's done that so far, how realistic it is depends on the makeup of the legislative branch just as much as if she gets elected.

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Understood - but you have to start somewhere. I'd rather Warren be ambitious and have a plan to explain how she'll pay for the big ideas she has. She's done that so far, how realistic it is depends on the makeup of the legislative branch just as much as if she gets elected.

---

Agreed but I will always be gun shy of any plan by any politician. They all say what sounds good and what it takes to get elected and then they bend you over every single time.

---

ciscopack said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Understood - but you have to start somewhere. I'd rather Warren be ambitious and have a plan to explain how she'll pay for the big ideas she has. She's done that so far, how realistic it is depends on the makeup of the legislative branch just as much as if she gets elected.

---

Agreed but I will always be gun shy of any plan by any politician. They all say what sounds good and what it takes to get elected and then they bend you over every single time.

---

As pathetically poor of a person and president I think Donald Trump is; I don't think he bends me over with his every move. To me he's our lowlife president whom many worship including many Christians and he could not be further away from the Bible. He doesn't fill positions and often when he does, the person he chooses should be #5M down the list or more, like 11 months before the election he chose mafia linked stock fraud felon Felix Sater as a senior advisor and loads of clowns since including talking about how good of people the leaders of Russia and North Korea while talking junk to long time friends. I have no problem with our friends paying their share of the way to defeat Russia and N. Korea and China's crooked ways either but there are better methods. Trump said he wasn't familiar with Sater whose office was on the same floor as his at Trump Headquarters and Sater had worked for Trump in real estate transactions. I don't mind keeping people out of the US who want to walk in without going through proper immigration channels....no matter where they come from. There is supposedly a process. Very few of those trying to gain access are because they though their government would kill them. I don't care for a 10th century AD wall but razor wire, high tech surveillance and more agents wouldn't bother me at all and there must be some kind of punishment for trespassers to keep them from coming back without going through channels. Take care of them and bus them home if they can be bused. Dump Trump. I'd be fine with calling off the election if the Repubs and others would agree.....we'll dump Trump and put in R - John Kasich in as President with a D or I vice president. Never voted Republican...skipped a few names and I'm fine with that for sure.

---

statefan91 said:

---

pack4life11 said:

---

This is going to kind of be all over the place, but I'm enjoying reading this thread and having these discussions with all of you...

My major issue with the Democratic Party and the constitution is freedom of speech and guns. The 2nd amendment is literally the only one that clearly and explicitly states "...shall not be infringed." I disagree 100% with anyone who thinks gun control will decrease crime. Criminals love gun control. I do not agreein any way, with taking away guns from law abiding citizens.

- Guns right have already been infringed if you read the text of the constitution and take it at face value. The fact that fully automatic guns are illegal proves that. I don't think there's anything wrong with gun control in the following sense, which I think is what the majority of the nation would see as logical: Require background checks that work across every municipality at every point of sale with a waiting period. Institute red flag laws that must be approved by magistrates before removal of guns from those deemed to pose a threat to others via a legal process. National gun registry. Background check on ammo purchases. Very strong penalties for death and injury that occur due to carelessness of storage and use. None of those things, save red flag laws, "infringe" on someone's ability to own a gun, but they sure as hell help make sure people are more responsible. I'm tired of reading articles every day about toddlers and children that find unsecured guns and shoot themselves, siblings, etc on accident.

In regards to freedom of speech- in my experiences, Democrats love freedom of speech...until you say something they don't agree with. At that point, whatever you're saying is now racist, demeaning, sexist, bigoted, etc. A lot of Democrats preach tolerance, but are very intolerant of those that disagree with them and immediately attempt to censor or name call.

- I think you have to consider a couple things. First with freedom of speech. That does not mean freedom from consequences of your speech. I haven't seen any government programs being designed to take away free speech. There may be a lot of brushback to people who voice homophobic / racist / xenophobic comments, but I don't see anyone forming government solutions to the issue.

Now, do I believe in everything Donald Trump says or do I support everything that comes out of his mouth? Absolutely friggin not. I do not think he acts very presidential a great deal of the time, especially on Twitter. However, I for one was very tired with Obama going around apologizing to other countries for America being America and attempting to either buy back friendship, or pay money to have countries behave.

- You can believe in American exceptionalism and still understand that the country has done things that need to be apologized for. If you're in a relationship and you never apologize then I have to think something is wrong. Having support of our allies is how the country stays safe, that's my preference at least.

I agree with RWW on most of what he said and that's where I think a lot of my beliefs and political views lie, minus the abortion bit. With rape, or if life is not sustainable outside the womb due to a medical condition of the child, or if the baby is a threat to the mothers health, then I'm very open to the abortion route. But simply erasing a life because of a choice you made, that doesn't fly with me. On the flip side of that deal, I believe that men who father children should be held accountable as well (takes two to tango) and that the raising of a child whether wanted or not sits at the feet of both individuals who acted and created that child. I believe men who rape women should be publicly castrated as well but I guess that's a different subject entirely.

- I definitely struggle with the abortion topic. I have two healthy, planned children and we are comfortable enough to afford their necessities and to give them a good life. I also have never been in the position of being a woman with an unplanned pregnancy. Many don't know they're pregnant until 6-8 weeks and the laws being enacted prevent them from being able to get an abortion after that point. We should be helping the causes of unwanted pregnancy first - government should offer 100% free birth control and contraceptive access. I think the societal and financial benefits of reducing unwanted children would more than cover the cost to the government. Also, if you are going to restrict access to abortion you need to, as a society, be prepared to bear the cost of supporting the children with healthcare, nutrition, housing, etc. for those that can't afford to have the child but are forced to bring them to term.

I believe if 2 men or 2 women want to get married then they should be able to. But they shouldn't be catered to any more than a man or a woman who are married. I also believe that people who own a good (cake store, salon, car dealership, etc) should be allowed to serve whoever they want to serve and laws should not interfere with that.

- I don't think any gay couple is asking to be catered to "more" than a straight couple. I think they're just being asked to be treated equally. Government has no place in marriage in my opinion, but if they are going to be involved with it they need to offer it to two consenting adults no matter the sex.

Regarding those going into business and being allowed to serve whoever they want to serve...How does that jive with discriminatory practices? Are you saying you think a business should be able to only serve whites, blacks, asians, etc if they want to? Or are you just focused on sexual orientation? Because if a gay person is living in a small town and wants a wedding cake, and the only baker in town denies them service, are you saying that's ok? What if it's a doctor deciding they don't want to operate on a gay person? I'm not really sure where you can draw the line without it being discriminatory.

I don't believe you can tax a nation into prosperity.

- I don't think that's what anyone is proposing. You can tax the country to provide benefits for the country that the less fortunate could never afford to live a better life (help with healthcare, food, jobs training, housing).

I don't believe in government funded anything because government funded just means tax payer funded.

- Does this apply to the military, fire, police? How would those things operate if they were private? Firemen only go to the houses that are prepaid on their firefighting plan?

I know a lot of my response here is all over the place, but I am thoroughly enjoying the civilized discussion here and trying to gain more understanding of everyone's point of view.

---

I'm trying to not make this super long because you gave a lot of great thoughts, so I'll try to just splice in my responses.

---

statefan91 said:

---

He was interesting tonight, I didn't notice him in the first debates. I think he has a very good, pragmatic view of the current environment.

I think the question for Democrats is if they think they can win by energizing hundreds of thousands / millions of people that don't normally vote with the large scale reform ideas via inspiration without losing too many centrists, or if they need to take someone more centrist (Biden, Harris, Bullock) and hope that the progressive wing is still energized enough to come out.

None of the above gets into the additional concerns on if those areas that were Obama 8/12 and Trump 16 would vote for a woman or person of color.

---

statefan91 said:

---

To the last point, I was talking more toward if a district that went Obama in 8/12, to Trump in 16, could go back to D if it's someone like Harris/Warren/Castro. I think the last few years have either emboldened the '16 Trump voter into being a diehard Trump supporter, or mostly turned them off and now they're waiting for a Democrat that will excite / interest them. TBD on if that's a Biden-esque or Warren-esque candidate.

---

statefan91 said:

---

Here's NC as an example:

https://www.ncsbe.gov/Data-Stats/End-of-Year-Snapshot


TOTAL
DEMOCRATIC
2,651,857
UNAFFILIATED
2,093,645
REPUBLICAN
2,067,260
LIBERTARIAN
34,375

Interesting that Democratic and Unaffiliated are top 2, but due to gerrymandering the Republicans still hold a vast majority of the seats in the state.

---

910wolf said:

---

A lot of the older generation are registered as Democrats but vote Republican

---

PackBacker07 said:

---

These debates are what they are, but I won't be following too closely until the September debates. I watched some last night, but nothing really stood out. September should be pared down to 10 or so, and when the real race will start IMO. Bullock, et Al are fine, but they don't have a shot to be in the next one.

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

PackBacker07 said:

---

These debates are what they are, but I won't be following too closely until the September debates. I watched some last night, but nothing really stood out. September should be pared down to 10 or so, and when the real race will start IMO. Bullock, et Al are fine, but they don't have a shot to be in the next one.

---

For others, assume 10 qualify. Would you want to have 1 debate with all 10, or would you rather have 2 debates with 5 candidates each, allowing them to actually debate each other.

---

statefan91 said:

---

I would want two debates, with the top 5 polling candidates on the first night and the bottom 5 polling candidates the second night.

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

I would want two debates, with the top 5 polling candidates on the first night and the bottom 5 polling candidates the second night.

---

I don't like that format. No one watched the 'JV' debates for Republicans last cycle. If you're going to give the top 5 candidates a stage together, you might as well just have that be the only one.

---

statefan91 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

I would want two debates, with the top 5 polling candidates on the first night and the bottom 5 polling candidates the second night.

---

I don't like that format. No one watched the 'JV' debates for Republicans last cycle. If you're going to give the top 5 candidates a stage together, you might as well just have that be the only one.

---

Understood, I just don't think you gain much from having Warren debate with Marianne Williamson or John Hickenlooper. Putting her, Biden, Sanders, Harris, and Buttigeig on the same stage would be much more interesting.

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

I thought tonight was way better than last night. The candidates actually got into it and called each other out. Tulsi Gabbard tore into Harris' record as a prosecutor

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

I thought tonight was way better than last night. The candidates actually got into it and called each other out. Tulsi Gabbard tore into Harris' record as a prosecutor

---

I was looking Gabbard until she said trump supported Al Qaeda. She lost me at that point. I believe that as much as the ones who said the same about Obama. I did find it funny how butthurt that fraud Harris looked when Gabbard tore her a new one though. Lol

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

I thought tonight was way better than last night. The candidates actually got into it and called each other out. Tulsi Gabbard tore into Harris' record as a prosecutor

---

I was looking Gabbard until she said trump supported Al Qaeda. She lost me at that point. I believe that as much as the ones who said the same about Obama. I did find it funny how butthurt that fraud Harris looked when Gabbard tore her a new one though. Lol

---

No one running for president this cycle hasn't said or done things I massively disagree with. Gabbard is probably in my top 5. She's intelligent, not crazy liberal, and is strong on a few issues I care about.

---