Jump to content

Welcome to RR

Message of the day

If you don't do heroin, you're gay.

Join a club

Maybe even start your own. Just don't join the crazy cultist one. That one seems like one to avoid.

Click here to get started

Sign in to follow this  
Seeker

Political Opinion Expansion Thread

Recommended Posts

Seeker    113

Same premise as the music expansion thread, except with political opinions. You rate the one above you on a scale from 1-10 (based on how much you agree) and explain why. You then post a political opinion of your own.

 

I'll start:

 

The world would be a better place if Israel or Oman expanded and took over the entire Middle East.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Seeker said:

Same premise as the music expansion thread, except with political opinions. You rate the one above you on a scale from 1-10 (based on how much you agree) and explain why. You then post a political opinion of your own.

 

I'll start:

 

The world would be a better place if Israel or Oman expanded and took over the entire Middle East.

5/10

Neutral/undecided/uninformed.

_

"Free markets, financial discipline, firm control over public expenditure, low taxation, nationalism, "Victorian values" (of the Samuel Smiles self-help variety), privatisation and a dash of populism." is what the UK needs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ragreynolds    760

8/10 - I agree for the most part, but I'm not hardcore into that sorta stuff if ya feel me.

Freedom of speech should never be infringed. This means hate speech laws should NEVER be a thing in any circumstance, and no one should ever be censored or prevented from saying anything on any public forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bryanna    202
31 minutes ago, ragreynolds said:

8/10 - I agree for the most part, but I'm not hardcore into that sorta stuff if ya feel me.

Freedom of speech should never be infringed. This means hate speech laws should NEVER be a thing in any circumstance, and no one should ever be censored or prevented from saying anything on any public forum.

3/10 people should be less sensitive but free speech refers to the media being allowed to share their own opinions without penalty. there's just some things that shouldn't be said and free speech doesn't protect that.

 

free education and free healthcare is a human right, along with a guarantee that all people have homes and food to put on the table. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5/10

Free education should be a right but the taxpayer should not pay for your tuition fees, you should instead get a tuition fee loan from the goverment. Healthcare should be free at the point of service but if you want plastic surgery, sex changes act you should pay for it. 

The rest I agree from the point of right of property but no the government shouldn't offer you a free home or free food but make sure it helps you get a job where you keep most of your salary instead of give it in as taxes. We are not North Korea!

____

An appointed second chamber maintains the current broad range of membership of the House of Lords rather than creating more professional politicians and it does that for free. It doesn’t threaten the democratic supremacy of the House of Commons. As a second chamber, it's only purpose is to scrutinise hence permanent appointment by an elected government is more cost effective than election. 

Having the House of Lords as an elected chamber causes more problems than it solves: with two elected chambers, the House of Commons would no longer be supreme. The chamber would be full of professional politicians rather than attracting individuals with a wealth of knowledge and experience in a vast range of fields.It isn’t clear how often elections should be and additional elections would cause additional costs.

Abolishing the House of Lords means the standard of scrutiny of legislation would drop in a unicameral system. The House of Commons would have too much power without a revising second chamber. The bicameral system is ingrained in British political culture and has historically worked well.

 

 

 

Edited by His_Majesty_Jimmy_I
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ragreynolds    760
1 hour ago, His_Majesty_Jimmy_I said:

5/10

Free education should be a right but the taxpayer should not pay for your tuition fees, you should instead get a tuition fee loan from the goverment. Healthcare should be free at the point of service but if you want plastic surgery, sex changes act you should pay for it. 

The rest I agree from the point of right of property but no the government shouldn't offer you a free home or free food but make sure it helps you get a job where you keep most of your salary instead of give it in as taxes. We are not North Korea!

____

An appointed second chamber maintains the current broad range of membership of the House of Lords rather than creating more professional politicians and it does that for free. It doesn’t threaten the democratic supremacy of the House of Commons. As a second chamber, it's only purpose is to scrutinise hence permanent appointment by an elected government is more cost effective than election. 

Having the House of Lords as an elected chamber causes more problems than it solves: with two elected chambers, the House of Commons would no longer be supreme. The chamber would be full of professional politicians rather than attracting individuals with a wealth of knowledge and experience in a vast range of fields.It isn’t clear how often elections should be and additional elections would cause additional costs.

Abolishing the House of Lords means the standard of scrutiny of legislation would drop in a unicameral system. The House of Commons would have too much power without a revising second chamber. The bicameral system is ingrained in British political culture and has historically worked well.

 

 

 

Please reduce this to one sentence.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, His_Majesty_Jimmy_I said:

5/10

Free education should be a right but the taxpayer should not pay for your tuition fees, you should instead get a tuition fee loan from the goverment. Healthcare should be free at the point of service but if you want plastic surgery, sex changes act you should pay for it. 

The rest I agree from the point of right of property but no the government shouldn't offer you a free home or free food but make sure it helps you get a job where you keep most of your salary instead of give it in as taxes. We are not North Korea!

____

An appointed second chamber maintains the current broad range of membership of the House of Lords rather than creating more professional politicians and it does that for free. It doesn’t threaten the democratic supremacy of the House of Commons. As a second chamber, it's only purpose is to scrutinise hence permanent appointment by an elected government is more cost effective than election. 

Having the House of Lords as an elected chamber causes more problems than it solves: with two elected chambers, the House of Commons would no longer be supreme. The chamber would be full of professional politicians rather than attracting individuals with a wealth of knowledge and experience in a vast range of fields.It isn’t clear how often elections should be and additional elections would cause additional costs.

Abolishing the House of Lords means the standard of scrutiny of legislation would drop in a unicameral system. The House of Commons would have too much power without a revising second chamber. The bicameral system is ingrained in British political culture and has historically worked well.

 

 

 

Is this a tory trait? Avoiding the subject at all costs?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ragreynolds said:

Please reduce this to one sentence.

I thought this thread wasn't meant to be minimalistic. I wanted to share the pros of the house of lords and I was expecting a response. The videos were just in case someone didn't knew what the house of lords was. I thought this was meant to be political discussion thread. I put 20 minutes into that post -_--_-

lazy sods....cmon....people tell me what you think of the lords.

Edited by His_Majesty_Jimmy_I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ragreynolds    760
37 minutes ago, His_Majesty_Jimmy_I said:

I thought this thread wasn't meant to be minimalistic. I wanted to share the pros of the house of lords and I was expecting a response. The videos were just in case someone didn't knew what the house of lords was. I thought this was meant to be political discussion thread. I put 20 minutes into that post -_--_-

lazy sods....cmon....people tell me what you think of the lords.

It's not really a discussion, it's supposed to be:

Person A: *makes statement*
Person B: *Rates that statement from 1-10 based on how much they agree* + possibly *Adds comment about why they agree or disagree*

What you did was go off on a tangent about what you think about the House Of Lords. What you should really have said was either "The House of Lords should be abolished" or "The House of Lords is great". It was fine to link the videos for if people didn't know what they were, but this thread is supposed to be more of an opinion stating place than an actual discussion.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ragreynolds said:

It's not really a discussion, it's supposed to be:

Person A: *makes statement*
Person B: *Rates that statement from 1-10 based on how much they agree* + possibly *Adds comment about why they agree or disagree*

What you did was go off on a tangent about what you think about the House Of Lords. What you should really have said was either "The House of Lords should be abolished" or "The House of Lords is great". It was fine to link the videos for if people didn't know what they were, but this thread is supposed to be more of an opinion stating place than an actual discussion.

:rolleyes:let me rephrase then.........

In a bicameral system, the chamber that is there to review and scrutinise laws works better if people are appointed because of their skills instead of being voted and let partisan politics get in the way of effective law making.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ragreynolds    760

5/10 - I don't know enough about this to have a properly informed opinion, but on one hand I think it's very good to have a vote so that more people are happy with who gets appointed. On the other hand I think that partisan politics (as you said) can often get in the way and this means that often times the best person for the job will not get it.

---

It would be better if the government was run by independents instead of there being big political parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6/10

Parties formed naturally, I believe as long as MPs were non-partisan just when it came on raising their constituent's voices in parliament then I'd be fine. As long as they represent all of their constituents, left or right in the commons I'm happy. After that they can focus on their partisan politics. I'm all for a politically diverse parliament but the only way to do that is by lowering the amount of MPs of a certain party that is required for a majority by a wee bit.

_________

If a coronation and anointment of the English monarch as sovereign and head of the church become a multi-faith service(a non-christian monarch) then the monarchy itself will lose all of it's purpose and tradition.

Edited by His_Majesty_Jimmy_I
missed a word that changed the whole meaning of what I wrote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nox    17
On 6/13/2017 at 5:53 PM, The_Right_Honourable_Jimmy said:

6/10

Parties formed naturally, I believe as long as MPs were non-partisan just when it came on raising their constituent's voices in parliament then I'd be fine. As long as they represent all of their constituents, left or right in the commons I'm happy. After that they can focus on their partisan politics. I'm all for a politically diverse parliament but the only way to do that is by lowering the amount of MPs of a certain party that is required for a majority by a wee bit.

_________

If a coronation and anointment of the English monarch as sovereign and head of the church become a multi-faith service(a non-christian monarch) then the monarchy itself will lose all of it's purpose and tradition.

1/10, don't much care for anything to do with British monarchs. Been that way for the past few centuries. I can agree with the tradition bit, but purpose is hard to justify. Religion is  an evolving part of culture, meaning that traditions can change. I dislike ideological stagnation and traditions are rife with them and some people use tradition as an excuse to avoid change. Like I said, I don't really care what the monarch wants to do and I need more context to form a better opinion.

_____________

I'm gonna exaggerate my views with this one:

A generic libertarian perspective, in the scope of US politics, is morally wrong.

@Seeker and I talked about differences between libertarian policy in Sweden Vs. US. From what I remember, Sweden has universal basic income but no minimum wage laws. This is antithetical to some US libertarians, who believe any form of taxation is theft.  Some would consider zero-minimum-wage laws and no taxation to be beneficial; I see that as a form of libertarian extremism and try to avoid those talks.

To elaborate: most US libertarians are anti-regulation anti-tax and pro free market. At their worst, they advocate total-market rule and advocate the destruction of our rights. In this case, I argue that libertarians advocate destroying our rights through the free market.

In the US, to work a job is to sign away your rights for money. Your freedom of speech is taken away along with your freedom of self-expression. Libertarians will make the argument that at-will employment offsets this, but the argument seems hypocritical. Our 4th amendment rights are broken daily as companies dig deeper into our lives. A libertarian argues that a government doesn't give you choice. It forces itself upon you and is always looking to take away your rights and money. That sounds exactly like what the market does too.

Businesses need these sorts of restrictions; that I can agree with. What I don't agree with is how the libertarian viewpoint ignores this and the effects big business has on our rights. There are many big-business lobbies that are working hard to limit our rights, and its their money that's allowing them to do it. In the end, it does come down to the politician's actions yet many libertarians will ignore the market's role. This is where I take issue.  

Now, I believe that capitalism is the best system we have for individual growth, but it isn't perfect by itself. It's unwise to think a free market has all of the solutions or that a free market implies a free people. 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×