• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we force parties to alternate colors?

Do you not see what is underlined?
Explain it.

As we are already polarized we do not need more separating us. Is that such a hard concept to understand?
It was done previously and there were no problems.
You could have just said you don't comprehend the factors resultant of polarity, instead of opting for a level of sarcasm you're ill-equipped to pursue. Polarity will always be an intrinsic feature of the political landscape.

Now explain exactly how a Con is more likely to embrace the welfare state, or a Lib the death penalty, based on a colour code. How might a revolution be discouraged by changing up the colours of flags or ribbons? You appear to have stumbled on a secret you could market to the intelligence community. lulz
 
Explain it.
I have no need to explain the self explainable, especially to one who can not comprehend that which was asked and is ill-equipped to pursue.


You could have just said you don't comprehend the factors resultant of polarity, instead of opting for a level of sarcasm you're ill-equipped to pursue. Polarity will always be an intrinsic feature of the political landscape.
ANd we don't need more of it.
So again; Mr. noticeably ill-equipped to pursue, what is it you do not understand about that concept?


Now explain exactly how a Con is more likely to embrace the welfare state, or a Lib the death penalty, based on a colour code. How might a revolution be discouraged by changing up the colours of flags or ribbons? You appear to have stumbled on a secret you could market to the intelligence community. lulz
You are way over your head here implying what wasn't said. It is a further source of division that we do not need.
And there were no problems with it switching before, so there should be no problem now - that is, except for totally polarized folks like yourself.
 
I have no need to explain the self explainable, especially to one who can not comprehend that which was asked and is ill-equipped to pursue.


ANd we don't need more of it.
So again; Mr. noticeably ill-equipped to pursue, what is it you do not understand about that concept?


You are way over your head here implying what wasn't said. It is a further source of division that we do not need.
And there were no problems with it switching before, so there should be no problem now - that is, except for totally polarized folks like yourself.
Right. Well, cheers for reminding me precisely why I stopped bothering.

Have a nice day, Excon. Soundly thrashed, I now flee from the insuperable. I know when I'm outclassed.
 
Right. Well, cheers for reminding me precisely why I stopped bothering.

Have a nice day, Excon. Soundly thrashed, I now flee from the insuperable. I know when I'm outclassed.
Your verbosity doesn't save you.

So you have a nice day as well.
 
Well if the Dems wished to represent themselves with the color red then we have an issue of free speech.
If the Pubs wished to represent themselves with the color blue then we have an issue of free speech.

Or if a third party wanted to identify itself with red or blue then we have an issue.

No party should have a claim to a color.

Those aren't issues of free speech. Those parties are free to try to identify with whatever color they want. The news media is free to co-ordinate the parties in whatever color they want too. The government shouldn't get involved in infringing on free speech for something so trivial.
 
How about instead of eliminating colors, lets eliminate parties
 
Well if the Dems wished to represent themselves with the color red then we have an issue of free speech.
If the Pubs wished to represent themselves with the color blue then we have an issue of free speech.

Or if a third party wanted to identify itself with red or blue then we have an issue.

No party should have a claim to a color.


Green is an ideology.
That ideology can still be represented by a different color.




Like Mauve, eh?

How about if we officiously change the Green Party to the Mauve Party, are you down with that idea?
 
Should we force parties to alternate colors every so many years, like every four or so?







:doh
Damn, messed this one up.
No poll options.

Speak your mind.


I do not believe any party should have a permanent claim on a color.

So I would be more than fine with forcing a switch.



I'm totally down with the idea.

Congress should pass a law requiring this since it's not busy doing anything else.

It could be enforced by the Federal Election Commission.

Make them guys do something to earn their big salaries.
 
Those aren't issues of free speech. Those parties are free to try to identify with whatever color they want. The news media is free to co-ordinate the parties in whatever color they want too. The government shouldn't get involved in infringing on free speech for something so trivial.
Neither the Dems or Repubs have officially adopted any color. Had they and another wanted to identify itself with such color, that would be an issue of free speech.

And while it is a 1st Amendment issue for the media, there is no reason to allow the media to cause or continue such polarization.
They should voluntarily bring it back to alternating.
 
I thought this thread was about the race of the cantidates.
 
How?
The television host would be telling you who the color represents, as well as any internet or newspaper source would also be telling you whom the colors represented.
Like they probably did when Republicans were Blue and Democrats were Red.
Was there any confusion noted when they switched previously?

So like I said; Only idiots would be confused by a color over a persons name or party designation.
You can be against it all you want. But really,
only an idiot would be confused by a change.




That sounds like a good reason to change it.
 
That ideology can still be represented by a different color.
Like Mauve, eh?

How about if we officiously change the Green Party to the Mauve Party, are you down with that idea?
I believe what you quoted explains it quite well. The green party is an ideology. While green may be preferred, that ideology can be represented by any color.
It would still be the green party, just in your case here, represented by the color mauve at one time or another.
 
I'm totally down with the idea.

Congress should pass a law requiring this since it's not busy doing anything else.

It could be enforced by the Federal Election Commission.

Make them guys do something to earn their big salaries.
:doh

:lamo
 
No purpose whatsoever, we are just doing it because we can.

Not everything has to have a purpose.

What's the purpose of neckties?

There is none. It's just someone thought they looked good for some strange reason and they became something men wear even though they are incredibly uncomfortable, look terrible, are dangerous, and have no redeeming characteristics to speak of.
 
Those aren't issues of free speech. Those parties are free to try to identify with whatever color they want. The news media is free to co-ordinate the parties in whatever color they want too.
The government shouldn't get involved in infringing on free speech for something so trivial.




When the U. S. government came up with the brilliant idea of color-coded alerts for terrorism it was the government that decided what the alert code color was at any particular time.

Did you like that system?
 
Neither the Dems or Repubs have officially adopted any color. Had they and another wanted to identify itself with such color, that would be an issue of free speech.

And while it is a 1st Amendment issue for the media, there is no reason to allow the media to cause or continue such polarization.
They should voluntarily bring it back to alternating.

Voluntarily would be fine. It's probably a slightly better system although I don't think it's in the top 1000 causes of polarization in this country. Mandating it and infringing on the 1st amendment is going way too far for something that is so ridiculously minor.
 
When the U. S. government came up with the brilliant idea of color-coded alerts for terrorism it was the government that decided what the alert code color was at any particular time.

Did you like that system?

I fail to see how that is in any way relevant honestly. The government coming up with colors for terror levels doesn't infringe on the media's right to report how they want.
 
When the U. S. government came up with the brilliant idea of color-coded alerts for terrorism it was the government that decided what the alert code color was at any particular time.

Did you like that system?

I fail to see how that is in any way relevant honestly. The government coming up with colors for terror levels doesn't infringe on the media's right to report how they want.
 
I fail to see how that is in any way relevant honestly.
The government coming up with colors for terror levels doesn't infringe on the media's right to report how they want.




Any media that adopted its own color code for terror alerts would probably have had a problem with the U.S. government.

But you go ahead and believe what ever you want to believe, doesn't cost me a penny.
 
Any media that adopted its own color code for terror alerts would probably have had a problem with the U.S. government.

I doubt it. Although it would be stupid and confusing if they did that. Anyway it's the government's own terrorism levels. They should decide those colors because its their own system.. Nowhere near the same as government limiting the media's reporting on political parties.
 
Back
Top Bottom