• 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!

Would you consider switching parties if...?

What would it take to switch parties in a Federal election?

  • Depends on candidate's view of Religious Right

    Votes: 1 2.8%

  • Depends on candidate's view of Social Programs

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Depends on candidate's view of Tax Structure

    Votes: 1 2.8%

  • Depends on candidate's view of Military

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Depends on candidate's view of Environment

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Depends on candidate's view of World Affairs

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • It would take more than 1 big issue to sway me from my normal vote

    Votes: 17 47.2%

  • I only vote for my party

    Votes: 1 2.8%

  • I don't vote

    Votes: 2 5.6%

  • You left a necessary choice out for me - I'll explain.

    Votes: 14 38.9%
  • Total voters
    36
  • Poll closed .
radcen said:
I tend to agree. They all have become their own version of extreme.
Click to expand...

That's especially true of independent parties. They're all mostly moderate with one glaring extremist view. Either you follow that view or you discard the party. That's why most independent parties stand no chance. The only thing that separates most of them from each other is the one thing that chases the majority of people away.
 
Tigger said:
They were united against any form of Universal Health Care, because it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL, regardless of what form it takes.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous. The constitution doesn't address universal health care in any way. There's nothing for or against it in that document just like there's nothing about electricity, the Internet, iPhones, or germ warfare.

And Richard Nixon wasn't violating the constitution by trying to get universal health care.
 
X Factor said:
And, as a member of the right, I sincerely thank you for not supporting us.
Click to expand...

Is it true Republicans are an endangered species? Dude, I thought take a picture of the republican party while it still exists. It'll be a collectible one day.
 
Luna Tick said:
Ridiculous. The constitution doesn't address universal health care in any way. There's nothing for or against it in that document just like there's nothing about electricity, the Internet, iPhones, or germ warfare.
Click to expand...

Please check out Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution and then cross-reference the Tenth Amendment. Assuming you can comprehend basic English, you should be able to determine how totally wrong you are in that statement for yourself.
 
AdminX said:
Is it true Republicans are an endangered species? Dude, I thought take a picture of the republican party while it still exists. It'll be a collectible one day.
Click to expand...

No, actual conservatives are an endangered species, being done away with religious retards who have stolen the term. Real conservatives understand separation of church and state.
 
Tigger said:
Please check out Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution and then cross-reference the Tenth Amendment. Assuming you can comprehend basic English, you should be able to determine how totally wrong you are in that statement for yourself.
Click to expand...

Universal health care is not covered in that part of the constitution or any other part. Neither is a system of national parts or NASA. It's simply not covered and is therefore left to us, not the founding fathers, to decide. No ridiculous misinterpretation of the constitution will change that.
 
Cephus said:
No, actual conservatives are an endangered species, being done away with religious retards who have stolen the term. Real conservatives understand separation of church and state.
Click to expand...

I agree. Today's Republicans are far right religious zealots/extremists, not conservatives.
 
If you haven't heard this before, it might be an eye-opener...Nixon wasn't interested until he heard "less medical care, more profit". He never advocated for a "public option", he is one of the reasons we have the for-profit health care market that we have today, and why so many people can't afford health insurance or health care.

 
Cephus said:
No, actual conservatives are an endangered species, being done away with religious retards who have stolen the term. Real conservatives understand separation of church and state.
Click to expand...

I know, those blasted conservatives have one philosophy and can not be any other. It's especially true given that certain people really dislike religion and consider their brand of conservatism, which doesn't have religion in it, to be the one true conservatism.
Is that thick enough?

I wish people would read more history before saying things like this.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
I know, those blasted conservatives have one philosophy and can not be any other. It's especially true given that certain people really dislike religion and consider their brand of conservatism, which doesn't have religion in it, to be the one true conservatism.
Is that thick enough?

I wish people would read more history before saying things like this.
Click to expand...

Conservatives want small government... the modern day Republican party hardly wants that, they're just as bad as the Democrats. Conservatives want government out of people's lives... the modern day Republican party hardly wants that, they're just as bad as the Democrats. Separation of church and state is enshrined in the Constitution. Let me know when you find either party supporting that. Both use religion as a force for kissing up to the voters.
 
Luna Tick said:
Universal health care is not covered in that part of the constitution or any other part. Neither is a system of national parts or NASA. It's simply not covered and is therefore left to us, not the founding fathers, to decide. No ridiculous misinterpretation of the constitution will change that.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Constitution specifically says the federal government has no powers except which is granted by the Constitution itself, all other powers are reserved for the states. Therefore, the federal government can't simply invent new things that it has control over. Secondly. while the federal government has control over interstate commerce, it has no legal ability to force individuals to make purchases. That means it cannot force anyone to buy health care.
 
They are the party of "NO". McConnell stated that their only goal was to make Obama a one-term president. They put a hold on 70 of his appointments in the Senate, a record number of filibusters, refusing to vote on any Obama jobs plan since the teabaggers took over the house...even opposing their own ideas if Obama approves them. Obstructionism in the extreme. The debt ceiling hostage holding debacle was obscene, and their refusal to compromise caused US credit rating to be lowered for the first time in our history.
 
Luna Tick said:
Universal health care is not covered in that part of the constitution or any other part. Neither is a system of national parts or NASA. It's simply not covered and is therefore left to us, not the founding fathers, to decide. No ridiculous misinterpretation of the constitution will change that.
Click to expand...

WRONG. Cephus already commented on why it's wrong, so I'll refrain from repeating it all, since he did it much more politely than I probably would have.
 
Cephus said:
Conservatives want small government... the modern day Republican party hardly wants that, they're just as bad as the Democrats. Conservatives want government out of people's lives... the modern day Republican party hardly wants that, they're just as bad as the Democrats. Separation of church and state is enshrined in the Constitution. Let me know when you find either party supporting that. Both use religion as a force for kissing up to the voters.
Click to expand...

Since now you want to discuss the here and now, and perhaps the last few decades, I'll bite. Modern American conservatives emphasize small government, modern American conservatives used a mixture of appealing to less government in people's lives as well as having surges in the opinion it needed to uphold values (sometimes through the promotion of religion in public life). Religion has always been a useful means of 1) "kissing up to the voters" 2) Being a useful mechanism to encourage proper behavior and a concern for one's lot in the afterlife.

I know your little red button is religion, but that does not excuse the blatant disregard of history.
 
Last edited:
Cephus said:
Actually, the Constitution specifically says the federal government has no powers except which is granted by the Constitution itself, all other powers are reserved for the states. Therefore, the federal government can't simply invent new things that it has control over. Secondly. while the federal government has control over interstate commerce, it has no legal ability to force individuals to make purchases. That means it cannot force anyone to buy health care.
Click to expand...
The Constitution does indeed say that. I think it lasted about 20 minutes.
 
That video of Nixon is from 1971. In 1974 he proposed a universal health care system that included a public option. Unfortunately, it didn't pass because Democrats wanted single payer and thought they could win the White House and get it. Nixon was in trouble at the time because of Watergate. He later was too distracted by his Watergate problems to continue pursuing it.

Democrats' health plans echo Nixon's failed GOP proposal | McClatchy

 
Please provide a reference for Nixon "trying to get universal health care". He is the primary reason we have the health care we have now. He was strictly pro for-profit healthcare...higer cost, less care. Please refer to my other reply to you with the video provided.
 
The federal government mandated health care in 1798.
 
Tigger said:
WRONG. Cephus already commented on why it's wrong, so I'll refrain from repeating it all, since he did it much more politely than I probably would have.
Click to expand...

His is a silly misinterpretation of the constitution. If that interpretation were correct, we would have to disband NASA and the national parks system since the constitution doesn't specifically permit those. The founding fathers could not have anticipated everything that will be invented or problems we'll face. We have to decide those things for ourselves. When the constitution was written, universal health care had not even been invented yet. It didn't come around until Otto von Bismark did so in the 1870s.

The issue is simply not addressed in the constitution. It's not even possible for it to have been addressed. That leaves it up to us, and no ridiculous misinterpretation of the constitution can change that.
 
GreenvilleGrows said:
So, Alex, er - I mean, Pashendale - your primary issue is one of Social Equality; Social Programs; or both? Meaning, if a Republican outlined a more progressive social program (and you believed he was sincere and able), then would you vote Republican - or, did I read you wrong?
Click to expand...

Yes, I would. Without any reservations. Why wouldn't I vote for the ones who best represent my goals? It's technically a mere coincidence that one side tends to do this more than the other. But yes, I am supportive of ideas, and wouldn't care a lick whether the person espousing that idea had a D or an R next to their name. Or an I. Or whatever. I have many times tried to argue that the source of an idea is largely irrelevant compared to the idea itself, though that argument tends to come up in religious discussions. But yeah, despite being really freaked out by fundamental religious candidates, if one of them said he would do everything in his power to ensure that no one ever went hungry or homeless, and that it was because Jesus had commanded him to, I'd be loudly in support of him.

Also, what do you have against my avatar?
 
Did you vote for Bush 43? He caused the greatest expansion of federal government in over 50 years. He started two unnecessary wars of occupation (on credit/off budget) while cutting taxes...never done before and incredibly stoooooooopid.
 
Luna Tick said:
His is a silly misinterpretation of the constitution. If that interpretation were correct, we would have to disband NASA and the national parks system since the constitution doesn't specifically permit those.
Click to expand...

I would suggest that NASA and a very large percentage of the Federal Government should be disbanded specifically for that reason.

Luna Tick said:
The founding fathers could not have anticipated everything that will be invented or problems we'll face. We have to decide those things for ourselves. When the constitution was written, universal health care had not even been invented yet. It didn't come around until Otto von Bismark did so in the 1870s.

The issue is simply not addressed in the constitution. It's not even possible for it to have been addressed. That leaves it up to us, and no ridiculous misinterpretation of the constitution can change that.
Click to expand...

The lack of a specific mention in the Constitution means that a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT is required to make any other action LEGAL. Amend the Constitution or get rid of the programs. That's my answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom