Bill
Administrator
More manifesto stuff. Completely ignored the question.
What is/are the foundation(s) of your political beliefs?
- Thread starter Skeeter
- Start date
omicron1792
5 year old buck +
My political views are a natural offshoot of my most basic core principals. That Jesus is my Lord and I strive to follow the principles he established. My politics are a natural offshoot of how I think He would want me to live.
T-Max
5 year old buck +
Honest question. Where does Elon or Vivek fit in this narrative?
Bill
Administrator
Good question. From what we know at this point those guys have no authority to do anything but make recommendations. I’m good with that.
Howboutthemdawgs
5 year old buck +
Example of government overreach. I’m building two houses in a well populated and booming county. I say that to say they have the resources to have a streamlined, efficient process. So far the lots are 18 months from purchase to now and we still don’t have permits. These are expensive lots. So assume there’s a loan, that’s 18 plus months of interest that will have to be passed to a future buyer. Additionally, we will have $50k in EACH lot in permit and other bs administrative fees which once again gets passed on. So because of the government deliberately inflicted pain on growth, the price of poker increases by 6 figures to a buyer. And then the government will come out and say we have to bring down housing, it’s gotten unaffordable. So between them causing inflation which has made mortgage rates skyrocket and their inefficiencies at a municipality level, they are singlehandedly causing the housing affordability issue.
Moral of my story, I HATE what the government has become on both sides of the aisle. Republicans are bs artists just like dems. This area I’m talking about is deeply red. Their (republicans) screwing of the American people is a little more in line with my beliefs so I guess I’m one of them.
But we need a government obviously. And some of their policies are phenomenal and make us the greatest country on earth. The thing I truly believe is politicians have lost any fear of screwing over the American people. Not fear of losing their jobs but there needs to be a deep fear. You voluntarily entered into a responsibility to literally shape a country and represent the will of the voters. That trust should come at a steep price of broken. If you don’t like it, don’t volunteer for that burden.
Moral of my story, I HATE what the government has become on both sides of the aisle. Republicans are bs artists just like dems. This area I’m talking about is deeply red. Their (republicans) screwing of the American people is a little more in line with my beliefs so I guess I’m one of them.
But we need a government obviously. And some of their policies are phenomenal and make us the greatest country on earth. The thing I truly believe is politicians have lost any fear of screwing over the American people. Not fear of losing their jobs but there needs to be a deep fear. You voluntarily entered into a responsibility to literally shape a country and represent the will of the voters. That trust should come at a steep price of broken. If you don’t like it, don’t volunteer for that burden.
This isn't exactly in line with the course this thread has taken, but the question was rather open ended.
I'm a "Bootstraps" guy. I don't buy into the idea that ANY American can't make him or herself a success if they simply make good choices and do the right thing consistently over time. I'm not rich. I didn't come from money. My Dad was a cop and my mom a teacher's aid, in a high cost of living part of the country. We didn't have a lot, but always had enough to eat and a roof over our head. I worked a paper route as a young boy then had two jobs through high school. Somehow I also managed to have some fun.
So, at 19 years old without any real prospects in life, I joined the USAF and did that for 9 years. After that I worked as a paramedic (thank you Uncle Sugar for the Paramedic certification) and went to school full-time using the GI bill. I'd pull a 24 or 48 hour EMS shift then head straight to class. Some days were easier than others. Then, I'd head to my Spartan efficiency apartment in a bad part of town to eat, study and sleep on my second hand couch. I did this for years. Work, eat, sleep study; rinse and repeat.
I didn't do drugs. I didn't do crime. I didn't knock up a girl. It was nose to the grindstone. After that it was work, work work in a career I liked at first but hated for the last few. By then, I had a wife, kids a mortgage and all that. So, I did it. I kept doing it even when I hated it so much it made me want to "take all the pills at once". I'm still not rich. But we'll be OK. We own a little property and a home with no mortgage. Now, I live in the country in South Dakota and haul milk on the night shift until I decide I don't want to anymore and I'll retire to kill deer and catch fish.
If this mediocre man can do it, anybody can. You can't convince me otherwise. So, for me, the question is this. "Which political party aligns best with my lived experience?"
I'm a "Bootstraps" guy. I don't buy into the idea that ANY American can't make him or herself a success if they simply make good choices and do the right thing consistently over time. I'm not rich. I didn't come from money. My Dad was a cop and my mom a teacher's aid, in a high cost of living part of the country. We didn't have a lot, but always had enough to eat and a roof over our head. I worked a paper route as a young boy then had two jobs through high school. Somehow I also managed to have some fun.
So, at 19 years old without any real prospects in life, I joined the USAF and did that for 9 years. After that I worked as a paramedic (thank you Uncle Sugar for the Paramedic certification) and went to school full-time using the GI bill. I'd pull a 24 or 48 hour EMS shift then head straight to class. Some days were easier than others. Then, I'd head to my Spartan efficiency apartment in a bad part of town to eat, study and sleep on my second hand couch. I did this for years. Work, eat, sleep study; rinse and repeat.
I didn't do drugs. I didn't do crime. I didn't knock up a girl. It was nose to the grindstone. After that it was work, work work in a career I liked at first but hated for the last few. By then, I had a wife, kids a mortgage and all that. So, I did it. I kept doing it even when I hated it so much it made me want to "take all the pills at once". I'm still not rich. But we'll be OK. We own a little property and a home with no mortgage. Now, I live in the country in South Dakota and haul milk on the night shift until I decide I don't want to anymore and I'll retire to kill deer and catch fish.
If this mediocre man can do it, anybody can. You can't convince me otherwise. So, for me, the question is this. "Which political party aligns best with my lived experience?"
I'll take a stab at it. First we need to examine whether or not the Constitution specifically grants the federal government authority in these areas. Then we can worry about outside influences. I do not see those powers enumerated in the copy I have. I understand that they justify it with a very broad, butterfly effect like interpretation of the general welfare clause that would have the founders rolling in their graves. They only get away with it because the people let them. Does not make it correct and should not be allowed. Therefore, those decisions should go to the states, or the people. There would still be outside influence but it puts it a more local level where the individuals voice can have more influence.
You've mentioned workplace safety a couple of times now and I'm curious why that's a top issue for you? I understand why consideration for the environment is high on people's list on this forum, but this interest in workplace safety stands out to me.
I think it's a multi faceted problem when dealing with the bureaucracy that you are describing. These may not be the only factors, but they're some pretty big ones.
First, there is not currently a good incentive for government to be efficient. If we can come up with a mechanism to reward efficiency and/or punish inefficiency, I believe we would see positive results. Perhaps DOGE will be a good start in that direction, or at least that is the hope. Time will tell.
Second, we have gone too far on assigning liability. Many of the regulations that add to inefficiency are an attempt to limit or deflect liability. There needs to be a line drawn somewhere that says that life comes with risks and at some point it's nobody's fault, or randomness or just the cruel hand of fate. Or, heaven forbid, the individual needs to take the responsibility on themselves and not pass it off on to government or the corporation they work for. I see this all the time when it comes to environmental concerns. They'll complain all day about this or that but not alter how they are contributing to the problem through their actions or inaction. People are really good at rationalizing their behaviors.
Third is people's desire to have control over another. Some people just really enjoy being able to tell another person what they can and cannot do. Again, we need mechanisms to drive the outcomes we desire. While it can be unpopular, fear of losing one's job can be a powerful motivator.
How do we make these things happen? I don't know specifically. What I do know is that our current methods are not working so it's time to try something else. I'm always skeptical of politicians and people who are seeking out power, but at least the incoming administration on the federal level looks to be willing to try new things and I find that encouraging. Again, time will tell if they can make any progress, assuming those in favor of the broken system don't completely stop them from trying to innovate.
Once I started to understand the following, it made things clearer to me.
Sometimes the biggest push for regulation comes from the biggest companies. Yeah, you read that right.
It is a way to maintain market dominance. Only the biggest and baddest companies can afford to deal with big reg problems and headaches. And they are in a position to chisel the cost out of consumers.
Last edited:
I’ve been thinking about all this since the day it was posted.
This is a very cool question. The responses are really well thought out.
I can come up with two: The Golden Rule. Are you treating people like you would like to be treated, or better yet: Are you treating people like you would like your family members treated? For me in my work life, it comes down to this: Know the rules. Be nice. Ask them twice, tell them once then if there remains unsatisfactory compliance, ACT. The “act” part doesn’t always look “nice” on video but its the way it has to be.
The second is that sometimes “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”
I learned that from that well known legal mind S'Chn T'Gai Spock. The class was The Wrath Of Khan, lol!
This is a very cool question. The responses are really well thought out.
I can come up with two: The Golden Rule. Are you treating people like you would like to be treated, or better yet: Are you treating people like you would like your family members treated? For me in my work life, it comes down to this: Know the rules. Be nice. Ask them twice, tell them once then if there remains unsatisfactory compliance, ACT. The “act” part doesn’t always look “nice” on video but its the way it has to be.
The second is that sometimes “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”
I learned that from that well known legal mind S'Chn T'Gai Spock. The class was The Wrath Of Khan, lol!
I think quite a few will agree with using those two ideas as a foundation, as several have posted similar ideas. I still find them difficult for a basis of formal governance. In the first case, there is enough variation in how people wish to be treated to not violate someone's interpretation of the rule. In the second case, at some point it allows for violating the rights of the truly innocent, which I cannot agree with.
The conclusion I've come to is that this difference in core philosophy is the root of conflict, even if we can set aside personal interests and greed. I would love to find a workable solution to this problem.
While I would agree that the teachings of Jesus are a good basis for ethics, I have a hard time with government regulating morality. In such a model, I have to ask where do you draw the line and why? For example, we are commanded to be stewards of the earth and have been given dominion over the animals. In my interpretation of this it would mean that to be a good steward we must get maximum use out of the animals we harvest. While I believe that I come closer than many others, I would not find it appropriate to make a law requiring others to get as much out of the animals harvested as what I do. For a point of reference, no part of the animals I harvest end up in a landfill. I extract what I reasonably can for consumption (eating the flesh, several organs, and bone broth/stock) and compost the rest, which one way or another ends up feeding the soil in my garden, be that with a detour through a worm bin or straight out onto the beds. I do it because it suits my nature. I will encourage others to do the same but it is not my place to try and force them to do the same. There will always be someone who could look at what I do and say that I should be doing more.
So even with as good a starting point as the bible, where do you draw the line and why?
I find that many people start with an idea of a desired outcome and then try to work backwards to rationalize why it is the correct viewpoint. It is much more difficult to start with a solid philosophy and accept the logical outcome whether a person agrees with it or not. As an example, my neighbor was out recreationally shooting for the last hour on the opening day of firearm deer season a few years ago. While I know the law in Minnesota prohibits his actions, my core philosophy does not allow for the infringement of his property rights when he is not violating my property rights. I did not nor would I ever report him as long as he is not violating the property rights of another. Eventually I did end up talking to the property owner and expressed my feelings on the lack of consideration and we were able to come to a neighborly agreement on what we would do in the future. That's where I see a difference in what is rightly handled through government and what is handled through community.
omicron1792
5 year old buck +
So having dominion over the animals is biblical. The length at which you take it is you. That’s a pretty easy line for me to see.
So repeal all wanton waste laws? Everyone draws the line at a different place.
I wouldn't advocate for such a thing, but thinking about where we draw that line, and why is important. In this case, the wild animals are part of the commons and thus open to some regulation. I just try to err on the side of individual freedom as much as possible.
You didn't mention there about in Pennsylvania, voting precincts went against the PSC rulings on counting votes.
These are my thoughts as well. I do seem to usually always tend to leaning towards one side but it drives me crazy when people can't be open to listening to both sides and make a choice on what they say. I swear they would vote for a clown just because they were in the party they always vote for. I look at our government like a pendulum. It swings one way ant then that party gets to arrogant and cocky. They start messing everything up and then it swings all the way the other way. It would be so nice if we were in the middle with the pendulum and made bi partisan commen sense agreements.
Bill Loser
5 year old buck +
Government the way it has become is the one thing out founding fathers missed on. I believe we were never meant to be governed by these career politician hacks. What the founding fathers envisioned was guys like them, guys who had the countries best interest in mind, not their own. Guys who were doing it to help guide the country to greater heights. What we have become is a joke, we are governed by people who do not give a shit about us, or the country (both sides). This is why I believe Trump and guys like him scare the holy hell out them, and also why I respect the hell out of guys like him. They do it because right or wrong they are trying to do what they believe is best for the country.
I believe that is what the fathers envisioned.
As far as how or why I became a conservative, I was many many moons ago a very strong Democrat supporter. I believed the Dems were the party of the working class (that's what we were taught in school) and the Republicans were the party of the rich. Then the Clinton's happened. I started seeing how crooked and dishonest that side was and is. When Crooked Bill got his rocks off in the oval office and he wasn't run out of office that was the tipping point for me. He made a mockery of the presidency and the party and media helped him do it. That's when I started looking at what I believe in and when I changed into an independent. I will never again be nailed to one party, I will always go with what I believe is best for the country.
I believe that is what the fathers envisioned.
As far as how or why I became a conservative, I was many many moons ago a very strong Democrat supporter. I believed the Dems were the party of the working class (that's what we were taught in school) and the Republicans were the party of the rich. Then the Clinton's happened. I started seeing how crooked and dishonest that side was and is. When Crooked Bill got his rocks off in the oval office and he wasn't run out of office that was the tipping point for me. He made a mockery of the presidency and the party and media helped him do it. That's when I started looking at what I believe in and when I changed into an independent. I will never again be nailed to one party, I will always go with what I believe is best for the country.
