• 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!

New Poll shows Tea party more popular than Republican Party

You're an idiot. 1 - because you used the word "teabagger." 2 - because you're ignoring data. You said that the Democrats are successful and the Republicans are blowing it, or something to that effect. Here I show you what's going on in the trends and you just brush it aside! :roll:

It's sad that you have to violate forum guidelines to make your point.

Go back and read what I really said instead of what you falsely remember I said. Read what I was responding to.
 
I'm not aware of any state that restricts the ballots to two parties.

Debates have nothing to do with the Constitution. Nobody has a right to be invited to a debate.

Really let see if your not register as a Rep/Dem/Green in Maine/New Hampshire/Mass/Rhode Island/Vermont/Conn/New York/Maryland/Texas to name just a few then you don't get your name put on the ballot. Also the IRS only requ. the Dem and Rep party hence once agin going back to my discussion that they are a Monopoly that need to be broken up.

Debate has everything to do with the Constitution, please show me where in Article 1 or II that states I or anyone else who wish to run for National office doesn't have the right to be part of any debate.

I'll be waiting :2wave:
 
If the independents really wanted to debate, they can. Just spend the money and get a televised spot. Hell with as many as there are they could split the bill.

Sorry but a true independent can't because the election laws that Congress has set up make the deck stack hence why the two party system is broken and a monopoly. The IRS only allows you to give money thru your tax return to either the Dem or Rep Party none other. So how Constitutional is that it is a direct violation of Article I and II.
 
Ok please explain how you have a debate with you (if you decide to run for president) and the other 50,000+ people that want to run for president?

How do you air that? How do you televise an honest and indepth debate with that many people?

That's not even including how large the ballot paper would actually be. Waste much paper?


Hmm it's funny you bring in TV considering tha the major don't allow third party cand. unless that Cand. threatens to take them to Court.

As for the ## of folks it seems to work for Local and State Election so it should work for the National Election the problem is that neither party want to give up any of their power hence makes them a Monopoly that should be broken up.
 
The IRS only allows you to give money thru your tax return to either the Dem or Rep Party none other. So how Constitutional is that it is a direct violation of Article I and II.

I don't think you can make political donations directly to parties on your tax return. Please show me where you can do that.
 
Really let see if your not register as a Rep/Dem/Green in Maine/New Hampshire/Mass/Rhode Island/Vermont/Conn/New York/Maryland/Texas to name just a few then you don't get your name put on the ballot.

Huh? Register to vote? Are you saying in those states no other parties are allowed on the ballot?

Debate has everything to do with the Constitution, please show me where in Article 1 or II that states I or anyone else who wish to run for National office doesn't have the right to be part of any debate.

That's funny. Show you something that's NOT in the Constitution? You're a funny guy.
 
Its the same line people who say the civil war was over states rights use so they won't say the 's' word.

Wrong Hatuey do you really want to discuss the leading cause of the Civil War then lets discuss them, while Slavery was one of the reason that the South went to war it wasn't the only reason. For all of the Confederate States one of the leading reason for the Civil War was State vs. Federal rights many over what right the Federal Govn. had to set laws not only Slave Laws but trade laws to start with.
 
Huh? Register to vote? Are you saying in those states no other parties are allowed on the ballot?

No only the Partys that I listed are allowed on the ballots



That's funny. Show you something that's NOT in the Constitution? You're a funny guy.

So you then you agree with me that the Dem and Rep Parties are a Monopoly that should be broken up and that the IRS should not allow us to only give Tax Money to either Party.
 
Wrong Hatuey do you really want to discuss the leading cause of the Civil War then lets discuss them, while Slavery was one of the reason that the South went to war it wasn't the only reason. For all of the Confederate States one of the leading reason for the Civil War was State vs. Federal rights many over what right the Federal Govn. had to set laws not only Slave Laws but trade laws to start with.

Teh North was far superior to the South's economy what with their textile mills and such, not to mention a lot of legislation passed was screwing with the Southern economy through tariffs and trade agreements. Seems like a logical reason to secede to me. :D
 
No only the Partys that I listed are allowed on the ballots

So you are saying only these parties are ALLOWED to get on the ballot? That's different. You can't just walk in and demand to be on the ballot, you know. There's a process.

So you then you agree with me that the Dem and Rep Parties are a Monopoly that should be broken up and that the IRS should not allow us to only give Tax Money to either Party.

Uh...no.

And you still haven't backed up your claim about the IRS. I don't think it's true. I think you're confusing that with the contribution to the presidential campaign fund, which doesn't go to any party.
 
Teh North was far superior to the South's economy what with their textile mills and such, not to mention a lot of legislation passed was screwing with the Southern economy through tariffs and trade agreements. Seems like a logical reason to secede to me. :D

And there you go in a nutt shell why the Civil War happen while Slavery was a part of it it was the Economy that lead to the Southern States to secede. But then again they don't teach this in school anymore it's the PC version that is taught.
 
And there you go in a nutt shell why the Civil War happen while Slavery was a part of it it was the Economy that lead to the Southern States to secede. But then again they don't teach this in school anymore it's the PC version that is taught.

Eh, what're you gonna do.
 
Hmm it's funny you bring in TV considering tha the major don't allow third party cand. unless that Cand. threatens to take them to Court.

Again, I don't disagree that some should be allowed, but I definitely don't think all should.

As for the ## of folks it seems to work for Local and State Election so it should work for the National Election the problem is that neither party want to give up any of their power hence makes them a Monopoly that should be broken up.

Umm the local and state don't have 50,000+ trying to debate at one time on-air like the situation you want would be.

Again, how do you televise a debate with 50,000+ like you are wanting since you claim that anyone wanting to run for president should be allowed to be in the debate.
 
So you are saying only these parties are ALLOWED to get on the ballot? That's different. You can't just walk in and demand to be on the ballot, you know. There's a process.

Why not nothing in Article I or II say's other wise, hence if I decide I want to run for The President of the United States then you can't deny me that right. I'm register as an American the State of Maine at first didn't want to put it on my Voters Card they did after I threaten to take them to Court over a 1st Adm and Article I and II violation.





And you still haven't backed up your claim about the IRS. I don't think it's true. I think you're confusing that with the contribution to the presidential campaign fund, which doesn't go to any party.

Hmm the last time I look at the 1040 it has a section you can check.

As for Presidential Campaign yes it does go to the Federal Req. Party you can only give to the Dem./Rep./Green/Libs/Commy no others.
 
Sorry but a true independent can't because the election laws that Congress has set up make the deck stack hence why the two party system is broken and a monopoly.

Nothing stops them from spending their money to televise their own debate.

The IRS only allows you to give money thru your tax return to either the Dem or Rep Party none other. So how Constitutional is that it is a direct violation of Article I and II.

You are free to donate your money through a charity donation to a party.
 
Nothing stops them from spending their money to televise their own debate.

Except when Anderson try to do that in 1980 all three Networks refuse to allow him to buy the time. And with the exception to Ross who threaten to buy CBS so he could put on his own debate, the networks want allow you or I to buy the time.



You are free to donate your money through a charity donation to a party.

And the key word here is what folks PARTY.
 
And there you go in a nutt shell why the Civil War happen while Slavery was a part of it it was the Economy that lead to the Southern States to secede. But then again they don't teach this in school anymore it's the PC version that is taught.

Your one of those "the civil war wasn't really about slavery" guys AND a "PC" guy. Two for one.
 
Eh, what're you gonna do.

Start making Schools teach the real history behind the Civil War not what Jessie Jackson and the NAACP wants all of use to believe. As I have stated the Civil War was a very complex in why it happen and to say it was because the South didn't want to free the Slave while the North did is a crock. Never mind the fact that Southern States like Virgina,Arkansas,Tennessee called for the Slave's to be freed. While Northern States of Delaware,Kentucky and Missouri didn't outlaw Slavery till after the Civil War was over.
 
Your one of those "the civil war wasn't really about slavery" guys AND a "PC" guy. Two for one.

Did I state that no I said while Slavery was one of the reason it isn't the only reason it is one of the many different reason that lead to the Southern State's secession.
 
Start making Schools teach the real history behind the Civil War not what Jessie Jackson and the NAACP wants all of use to believe. As I have stated the Civil War was a very complex in why it happen and to say it was because the South didn't want to free the Slave while the North did is a crock.

While it's true the North wasn't full of abolitionists eager to die to free a bunch of blacks, and the reasons for the war were complex, a quick reading of the eleven articles of secession adopted by the rebel states will prove that preserving slavery was at the top of their list of concerns.

Never mind the fact that Southern States like Virgina,Arkansas,Tennessee called for the Slave's to be freed.

Yes, never mind that, because it IS a crock. Even if it's true, they sure didn't just free them, did they? :roll:

You have yet to back up a single claim of yours here. I doubt you'll back up this one.
 
Did I state that no I said while Slavery was one of the reason it isn't the only reason it is one of the many different reason that lead to the Southern State's secession.

Okay, okay.
 
So? You can donate to a candidate too instead of a party.

In certain States like Maine which has many towns that don't have party alleg. on them yes you can but for all State and federal Election you can't give money to just anyone that person must belong to a one of the Federal Req, Party's.

Like I said it's time to for us American start being loyal to America and not to the Party.
 
While it's true the North wasn't full of abolitionists eager to die to free a bunch of blacks, and the reasons for the war were complex, a quick reading of the eleven articles of secession adopted by the rebel states will prove that preserving slavery was at the top of their list of concerns.

While I agree that the issue of Slavery was part of the reason if you go and read the first article of secession it was all about State rights nothing more or nothing less.



Yes, never mind that, because it IS a crock. Even if it's true, they sure didn't just free them, did they? :roll:

You have yet to back up a single claim of yours here. I doubt you'll back up this one.

Really I guess you don't know much about the US Civil War prior to the attack on Fort Sumter the states that I list all had some sort of discussion in their State Leg. about first freeing the Slaves then secession from the Union over State Rights verse Federal Rights. None of these discussion got out put to a vote do to the fact of the attack by General Beauregard of the Southern Carolina Ist Core. You do understand that all of the most Northern States hadn't secessed till after the attack on Sumter.

So do you want to keep discussing the cause of the Civil War or you ready to concede that I might know a tad more on the subject.
 
While I agree that the issue of Slavery was part of the reason if you go and read the first article of secession it was all about State rights nothing more or nothing less.

Which first article? There were eleven states.

Sure it was about state's rights - to keep slaves.

Read ALL of every secession document, they are chock-full of statements supporting slavery and stating very clearly that slavery is a very important reason for secession.

Really I guess you don't know much about the US Civil War prior to the attack on Fort Sumter the states that I list all had some sort of discussion in their State Leg. about first freeing the Slaves then secession from the Union over State Rights verse Federal Rights. None of these discussion got out put to a vote do to the fact of the attack by General Beauregard of the Southern Carolina Ist Core. You do understand that all of the most Northern States hadn't secessed till after the attack on Sumter.

So do you want to keep discussing the cause of the Civil War or you ready to concede that I might know a tad more on the subject.

I know none of the 11 states freed their slaves. That's all that matters.

You didn't say they discussed it - big deal, anyone can discuss something. You said they "called for" freeing slaves. Bull. They did no such thing.
 
Back
Top Bottom