Which set of viewpoints would you prefer?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

take your pick of platform you like more/dislike less!

[America Needs R'hllor]

I am: pro gun control, pro abortion, pro union, anti deficit but it's low on the priority list, pro immigration anti charter school, pro welfare. Not counting the deficit because who care, the first set I agree with on two points. The second set I agree with on four points. People with the first set are likely to be racists and socially conservatives, and whatever economic positive points they get is blunted by being anti-union, which is a no no for me. The second set could be Andrew Yang type people who would be willing to replace welfare with UBI, so while I'm very strongly pro welfare, I'd easily settle for the second group.

[scutosaurus]

Anti-Roe and anti-immigration are non-starters, so option 2 easily.*

*note that by this I mean the second set of options, not the second choice on the poll

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

what on earth does it mean to be "pro-union" but supportive of charter schools

Something along the lines of hating RTW and backing card-check and other stuff but supporting charters.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Voted for option 2, although now think i prefer option 1.

[PSOL]

Option 3 allows for organizing to be better done to get welfare and other concessions, so I pick that.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Neither is acceptable. Pro-choice and anti-welfare is a borderline-sociopathic combination (as, to be fair, is holding any strong stance on abortion while being anti-welfare), and anti-union is completely unacceptable even on its own.

[afleitch]

I am personally

Pro-gun regulation (3 and 4)
Pro-Roe vs Wade (if that's pro choice by inference) (3 and 4)
Pro-union
Pro-deficit
No particular view on charter schools
And pro-welfare

Option 3 is the closest. Given that the welfare system is closely tied to capitalist systems of economics it's possible to oppose it as an extension of the capitalistic state and promote similar levels of universal support enshrined constitutionally in a socialist or communist state.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Neither is acceptable. Pro-choice and anti-welfare is a borderline-sociopathic combination (as, to be fair, is holding any strong stance on abortion while being anti-welfare), and anti-union is completely unacceptable even on its own.

This. Also, being pro-union and anti-welfare or vice versa are genuinely bizarre and self-defeating positions. Unions can't survive without redistribution and redistribution will easily be rolled back in the absence of organized labor.

[Illiniwek]

I am:

Pro-gun regulation
Anti-Roe v. Wade
Pro-union
Pro-deficit
Pro-immigration
Anti-charter school
Pro-welfare

Neither option feels great. Reluctantly option 2 maybe?

[Mr. Reactionary]

I suppose I prefer the first set of positions to the second; it seems more pro-choice.

[😥]

Pro-gun regulation
Anti-Roe vs Wade
Pro-union
Pro-deficit
Lean pro-immigration
Anti-charter school
Pro-welfare

None of these options

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Pro-gun regulation
Pro-Roe vs Wade
Pro-union
Deficit-cautious
Very pro-immigration
Pro-charter school
Pro-welfare

Voted #3

[Mr. Smith]

Opt. 1 I s'pose.

Guns are to embedded in this society for good regulation and unions themselves are slowly becoming an artifact.

The rest is far too important.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

what on earth does it mean to be "pro-union" but supportive of charter schools

You can be broadly supportive of unions while acknowledging American public education is garbage, charter schools can be a part of the solution, and teacher's unions often hold education back.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Neither set is consistent or logical.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

what on earth does it mean to be "pro-union" but supportive of charter schools

You can be broadly supportive of unions while acknowledging American public education is garbage, charter schools can be a part of the solution, and teacher's unions often hold education back.

So supportive in theory but not in practice. Got it!

Of course not, but in my opinion teaching really shouldn't be a unionized profession. It's nature is incredibly dependent on individual performance and it ought to have a structure which attracts top talent rather than just anybody looking for a job. Finance workers aren't unionized. Surgeons aren't unionized. Engineers aren't unionized. These jobs are very highly skilled and employers negotiate with talented workers who can demand high salaries, earn bonuses, and be fired if they don't measure up. This is what we should expect from our education system, not something ripped out of an assembly line playbook. Unions make a lot of sense to boost the bargaining power of jobs with low to medium skilled workers who can easily be replaced, and each worker's impact doesn't vary all that much from another. Unions, therefore, should be expanded to boost wages at the bottom of the economy. Teaching isn't like that. Teacher unions mostly just serve to keep bad teachers employed and preserve gold-plated pensions for the most senior among them. Let's start treating teaching like the competitive, professional, and elite job it ought to be.

[S019]

Option 3 is what I prefer the most as it's pro gun control, pro immigration and pro choice, but I have major concerns about it being anti-welfare. Anti gun control, pro life, and anti immigration are all non-starters.


My actual views are:

Pro-gun regulation
pro-Roe vs Wade
pro-union
indifferent on the deficit
pro-immigration
anti-charter school (especially if it takes money from public schools)
pro-welfare

[Intell]

what on earth does it mean to be "pro-union" but supportive of charter schools

You can be broadly supportive of unions while acknowledging American public education is garbage, charter schools can be a part of the solution, and teacher's unions often hold education back.

So supportive in theory but not in practice. Got it!

Of course not, but in my opinion teaching really shouldn't be a unionized profession. It's nature is incredibly dependent on individual performance and it ought to have a structure which attracts top talent rather than just anybody looking for a job. Finance workers aren't unionized. Surgeons aren't unionized. Engineers aren't unionized. These jobs are very highly skilled and employers negotiate with talented workers who can demand high salaries, earn bonuses, and be fired if they don't measure up. This is what we should expect from our education system, not something ripped out of an assembly line playbook. Unions make a lot of sense to boost the bargaining power of jobs with low to medium skilled workers who can easily be replaced, and each worker's impact doesn't vary all that much from another. Unions, therefore, should be expanded to boost wages at the bottom of the economy. Teaching isn't like that. Teacher unions mostly just serve to keep bad teachers employed and preserve gold-plated pensions for the most senior among them. Let's start treating teaching like the competitive, professional, and elite job it ought to be.

1. Charter schools work, it hasn't worked in the US, it didn't work in Sweden it hasn't worked anywhere.

2. Every profession should be unionised, in many European countries this the case. By this I mean (wage agreements+payments) are covered by the union, the keeping of bad teachers aren't necessary which is fair to me.

[Senator Incitatus]

what on earth does it mean to be "pro-union" but supportive of charter schools

Distinguishing between public and private unions.

[John Dule]

Neither is acceptable. Pro-choice and anti-welfare is a borderline-sociopathic combination (as, to be fair, is holding any strong stance on abortion while being anti-welfare), and anti-union is completely unacceptable even on its own.

What is this supposed to mean?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Neither is acceptable. Pro-choice and anti-welfare is a borderline-sociopathic combination (as, to be fair, is holding any strong stance on abortion while being anti-welfare), and anti-union is completely unacceptable even on its own.

What is this supposed to mean?

What aspect of it is confusing, the parenthetical?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Abortions are going down due to contraception,  it's not an important issue like it was before. That's why we live in a center right country

[John Dule]

Neither is acceptable. Pro-choice and anti-welfare is a borderline-sociopathic combination (as, to be fair, is holding any strong stance on abortion while being anti-welfare), and anti-union is completely unacceptable even on its own.

What is this supposed to mean?

What aspect of it is confusing, the parenthetical?

Yes. I wish I could ask the question better but I really can't wrap my head around that statement.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Neither is acceptable. Pro-choice and anti-welfare is a borderline-sociopathic combination (as, to be fair, is holding any strong stance on abortion while being anti-welfare), and anti-union is completely unacceptable even on its own.

What is this supposed to mean?

What aspect of it is confusing, the parenthetical?

Yes. I wish I could ask the question better but I really can't wrap my head around that statement.

Women who have unwanted/unplanned/crisis pregnancies in the first place are disproportionately poorer or at least have lower social capital, so any strong stance on abortion combined with a strong anti-welfare stance is inevitably going to take on a harsher and more prescriptive tone than a similar abortion stance paired with a more generous welfare stance. "Borderline-sociopathic" was probably too strong a phrase to use for the combination of a pro-choice stance with an anti-welfare stance, but I still don't find at all desirable or acceptable the practical effect of "herding" poorer women towards abortions that they might not at all "want" in the sense that we normally think of wanting to do something. It's a combination of positions that ends up essentially recommending abortion to women in this situation rather than merely permitting it, and it shouldn't surprise you that someone as religious as I am finds that stance incredibly unsympathetic. It's effectively "pro-choice" without the "choice".

As for the combination of being strongly pro-life with being anti-welfare, I'm sure I don't need to explain to you why I find that one unspeakably cruel.