Would you consider switching parties if...?

So far, I've heard a couple of folks who say their biggest hangup with the Republican party has to do with religion - and a little bit about social programs (healthcare and other). I haven't heard much categorically about the Democrat party, except, I guess the general feeling that they're based on larger Federal government.

It's interesting to me that, in theory, Republicans could potentially have a smaller Federal Government if it could be proven that States could effectively handle own their religious issues and social program related issues to the satisfaction of the States' citizens. I'm not sure why the Federal government would be able to handle 50 states' worth of problems if a state can't handle it's own. I mean, economies of scale eventually have a greatly diminished return. A lot of our states are larger than a lot of countries.

GreenvilleGrows said:

So far, I've heard a couple of folks who say their biggest hangup with the Republican party has to do with religion - and a little bit about social programs (healthcare and other). I haven't heard much categorically about the Democrat party, except, I guess the general feeling that they're based on larger Federal government.

Click to expand...

Come on, the modern Republican party is just as much in love with big government as the Democrats. You have to remember that the modern Republican party was taken over by disenfranchised Southern Democrats who abandoned the party over issues like abortion and civil rights. We really have no conservative party in this country, it's the loony liberal left party and the whackjob religious party.

Let me know when we have a conservative party at all.

Tigger said:

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

Click to expand...

And thanks to your misinterpretation of the Constitution, we would be without wonderful technological advances resulting from NASA. Our space program is one of the things that makes America great. Without it, we would not have cell phones or satellite TV. Thanks to our wisdom to create a space program, we have scientific knowledge we would never have gotten by just looking up at the sky and guessing.

Tigger said:

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.

Click to expand...

And your answer is wrong. For your interpretation to be correct, the constitution would have to have said, "Things not yet invented should not be pursued or created by the Federal government." Fortunately, they had the wisdom not to include that. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has not used your ridiculous misinterpretation of the constitution. As a result, we have NASA and scientific advances, though which we've established ourselves as a great nation.

I'm glad you were candid that you would disassemble something that's made us great. Now if we could just build a universal health care system, we could be far healthier.

GreenvilleGrows said:

Are there any national Republican candidates you'd vote for this election? If not, is there a candidate you would've voted for if he had a better track record from a particular issue or if he'd distanced himself from a particular issue?

Click to expand...

Had Romney not changed his mind about what he believes so many times, he might have gotten my vote. He is just too much of an unknown for me to feel comfortable voting for him at this point.

Huntsman looks promising, but I haven't really dug into his record as their is little chance I would have the chance to vote for him.

I have been an adult voter for all of Newt and Santorum's career. I would never vote for them to be POTUS. I don't see either as being minimally qualified for the job.

Bachmann, Perry and now defunct Cain were nutters IMO.

Luna Tick said:

And your answer is wrong. For your interpretation to be correct, the constitution would have to have said, "Things not yet invented should not be pursued or created by the Federal government." Fortunately, they had the wisdom not to include that. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has not used your ridiculous misinterpretation of the constitution. As a result, we have NASA and scientific advances, though which we've established ourselves as a great nation.

Click to expand...

Actually, it did more or less say that, and I've already pointed out exactly where it does. The intent of the Constitution would be to have those developments promoted by the PRIVATE sector.

Luna Tick said:

I'm glad you were candid that you would disassemble something that's made us great. Now if we could just build a universal health care system, we could be far healthier.

Click to expand...

Don't count on that. You tell some of use we have to use a National Health Care system and we'll choose to opt out of medical care alltogher. In short order that would leave me BLIND; which is a better option than accepting government health care so far as I'm concerned.

Tigger said:

Actually, it did more or less say that, and I've already pointed out exactly where it does. The intent of the Constitution would be to have those developments promoted by the PRIVATE sector.

Click to expand...

Then they would have never happened, at least not by us. We would not have gone to the moon. We would not have put up satellites. We would not have developed networking technology that lead to the Internet. We would be far behind where we are. All you've done is pointed to a section of the constitution and misinterpreted it. It does not say the government has no right to pursue new inventions. Fortunately for Americans, the Supreme Court hasn't gone with your misinterpretation, and our space program has thrived. NASA is one of the things that makes me most proud to be American. I think our country should be all about exploration, invention, and new scientific knowledge. It should not be about baseless wars against people who were never a threat to us. It shouldn't be about blaming the poor for being desperate enough to seek welfare. We should be leaders in increasing scientific knowledge, and leaders for using that knowledge to protect the environment. We are leaders in science, at least for now. We can keep it up if the right-wing extremist "defund the government" movement fails. For that extremism to fail, Americans need to reject the foolish misinterpretation of the constitution that you've alluded to.

Tigger said:

Don't count on that. You tell some of use we have to use a National Health Care system and we'll choose to opt out of medical care alltogher. In short order that would leave me BLIND; which is a better option than accepting government health care so far as I'm concerned.

Click to expand...

Germans are more healthy than we are and live longer, despite having health habits about as bad as ours. They're almost as fat as we are and they smoke a lot more, but are healthier thanks to their system of universal health care, which, btw, is a non-socialist solution. It's a Bizmarkian one.

Universal health care is not always socialist. The one in England actually is. The one in Canada is a combination of socialism and free market. The ones in Germany and Switzerland are completely non-socialist.

Luna Tick said:

Then they would have never happened, at least not by us. We would not have gone to the moon. We would not have put up satellites. We would not have developed networking technology that lead to the Internet. We would be far behind where we are. All you've done is pointed to a section of the constitution and misinterpreted it. It does not say the government has no right to pursue new inventions. Fortunately for Americans, the Supreme Court hasn't gone with your misinterpretation, and our space program has thrived. NASA is one of the things that makes me most proud to be American. I think our country should be all about exploration, invention, and new scientific knowledge. It should not be about baseless wars against people who were never a threat to us. It shouldn't be about blaming the poor for being desperate enough to seek welfare. We should be leaders in increasing scientific knowledge, and leaders for using that knowledge to protect the environment. We are leaders in science, at least for now. We can keep it up if the right-wing extremist "defund the government" movement fails. For that extremism to fail, Americans need to reject the foolish misinterpretation of the constitution that you've alluded to.

Click to expand...

You have to remember that I would PREFER to go backwards rather than forwards in time.

Luna Tick said:

Germans are more healthy than we are and live longer, despite having health habits about as bad as ours. They're almost as fat as we are and they smoke a lot more, but are healthier thanks to their system of universal health care, which, btw, is a non-socialist solution. It's a Bizmarkian one.

Universal health care is not always socialist. The one in England actually is. The one in Canada is a combination of socialism and free market. The ones in Germany and Switzerland are completely non-socialist.

Click to expand...

This isn't even about Socialism for me. It's about basic personal responsibility and my unwillingness to pay for the medical care of people who I'd rather see dead to begin with.

Tigger said:

....
This isn't even about Socialism for me. It's about basic personal responsibility and my unwillingness to pay for the medical care of people who I'd rather see dead to begin with.

Click to expand...

Wow. I hope that's a sick joke and not what you really think. I don't want anyone to die due to lack of health care. I want everyone to pay into some kind of system in which everyone is covered and then for everyone to get the care that they need. That's responsibility enough for me. Everyone pays in unless it's somehow impossible for the person to pay (such as they're a child or they're handicapped). We're way stronger when we all take responsibility together like this rather than try to go it alone.

Luna Tick said:

Wow. I hope that's a sick joke and not what you really think. I don't want anyone to die due to lack of health care. I want everyone to pay into some kind of system in which everyone is covered and then for everyone to get the care that they need. That's responsibility enough for me. Everyone pays in unless it's somehow impossible for the person to pay (such as they're a child or they're handicapped). We're way stronger when we all take responsibility together like this rather than try to go it alone.

Click to expand...

No, it's not a joke. I could possibly be talked into some sort of system if EVERYONE was required to pay into it.... No PAY, no PLAY. I'm sick and tired of seeing my money spent on people too stupid or lazy to do anything for themselves. If YOU want to waste your money on those people, so be it; but don't force me to.

GreenvilleGrows said:

Would you consider voting for someone in a different party than you normally support during a Federal election? If so, what would it take?

Click to expand...

It took George W Bush.

Tigger said:

No, it's not a joke. I could possibly be talked into some sort of system if EVERYONE was required to pay into it.... No PAY, no PLAY. I'm sick and tired of seeing my money spent on people too stupid or lazy to do anything for themselves. If YOU want to waste your money on those people, so be it; but don't force me to.

Click to expand...

Then there might be some common ground after all. I don't want anyone to be lazy and not pay into the system either. I agree on responsibility too. Everyone, with few exceptions, should have to pay and everyone gets covered. The exceptions should be people who simply cannot reasonably be expected to such as a person who's too handicapped or ill to be able to. For example, a person who's paralyzed from the neck down cannot reasonably be expected to work. Can we agree on that?

It really depends on the candidate but if I disagree with them on one issue strongly, I'll vote for somebody else. Usually there are very few candidates I disagree with on a single issue, however there are some where one issue of disagreement is more than what I need to be turned off and vote for somebody else.

Cephus said:

Come on, the modern Republican party is just as much in love with big government as the Democrats. You have to remember that the modern Republican party was taken over by disenfranchised Southern Democrats who abandoned the party over issues like abortion and civil rights. We really have no conservative party in this country, it's the loony liberal left party and the whackjob religious party.

Let me know when we have a conservative party at all.

Click to expand...

Well, I understand the sentiment, but I can't really say "the party" is one way or the other - Democrat or Republican. Both parties are made up of people - certainly "the establishment" is there, but other people circulate in and out and support the candidates. The former Southern Democrats don't want the California or New Hampshire Liberals telling them what to do anymore than the current Southern Republicans. Actual Democrats in the South still think Washington can fix everything, but the majority of people would rather keep their money in their own state. I'm pretty confident that the South doesn't want to force its views on the whole country. Do they want abortion to be legal - probably not! But, they're basically ok with it being legal in CA. And, in general, the northeast and west coast can keep their nutters to themselves. Mostly, people just don't want someone else's agenda shoved down their throat. Most Southern folks want their guns and Bibles. But, most of those figure Maine can do without both.

Abortion may be a single issue for me. I could not vote for any candidate who wants the law to declare "life begins at conception." It is too radically extreme and shows a candidate too willing to kiss-ass radical far-rightwing religious zealots in general.

I would switch parties if the other had hotter chicks, better whiskey and a hot tub.

Luna Tick said:

Then there might be some common ground after all. I don't want anyone to be lazy and not pay into the system either. I agree on responsibility too. Everyone, with few exceptions, should have to pay and everyone gets covered. The exceptions should be people who simply cannot reasonably be expected to such as a person who's too handicapped or ill to be able to. For example, a person who's paralyzed from the neck down cannot reasonably be expected to work. Can we agree on that?

Click to expand...

No we cannot; unless that person has already been paying into the system prior to the injury that made them that way. The number of exceptions should be almost non-existant. Otherwise we end up with the same system we currently have with Welfare, Medicare, etc....

I'm a one-issue voter on gun control and reproductive rights. I'm not really a Republican or a Democrat, but if a candidate is wrong enough on one of those issues I will vote against them automatically regardless of their other positions.

Tigger said:

No we cannot; unless that person has already been paying into the system prior to the injury that made them that way. The number of exceptions should be almost non-existant. Otherwise we end up with the same system we currently have with Welfare, Medicare, etc....

Click to expand...

A person who's born deformed to the point of severe handicap can't very well work and pay into a system. Neither can a severely mentally retarded person. Some people simple cannot work. Those of us who can should care for them. That's the reality. The alternative is to do what the Romans did and just kill them, but I don't think that makes for a very just society.

I agree with you that an able bodied person shouldn't refuse to work and then just leech of the system. Most people don't do that.

Cephus said:

Come on, the modern Republican party is just as much in love with big government as the Democrats. You have to remember that the modern Republican party was taken over by disenfranchised Southern Democrats who abandoned the party over issues like abortion and civil rights. We really have no conservative party in this country, it's the loony liberal left party and the whackjob religious party.

Let me know when we have a conservative party at all.

Click to expand...

It's kinda funny. It would say that we have no liberal party. Democrats and Republicans only really seem concerned with grabbing more power and with ensuring that powerful corporations become more powerful. Civil rights or protections for the poor or minorities aren't particularly a priority for the Democratic party, they're just less against them than Republicans. Pretty much what we're left with is oligarchy.

Paschendale said:

It's kinda funny. It would say that we have no liberal party. Democrats and Republicans only really seem concerned with grabbing more power and with ensuring that powerful corporations become more powerful. Civil rights or protections for the poor or minorities aren't particularly a priority for the Democratic party, they're just less against them than Republicans. Pretty much what we're left with is oligarchy.

Click to expand...

That's a pretty accurate assessment. I end up voting for Democrats only because they're not as ruthless and cruel and out of touch with reality as Republicans are. However, I'm not at all happy with the Democrats. Unfortunately, the way the 2-party system is set up makes it nearly impossible for a 3rd party candidate to win.

Considering I have only voted in one Presidential election, and that person was Stephen Colbert, I guess you could say I am easily swayed. Although voting in SC is pretty boring since it will 98% of the time go right I just vote for whoever.

GreenvilleGrows said:

Ok then, as a conservative, when was the last time you voted for a Democrat in a Federal election? Or, perhaps, do you vote Republican & 3rd party? If, for example, you haven't voted for a Democrat, what would it take for you to vote for a Democrat?

Click to expand...

I voted for a Democrat for Congress and twice in presidential elections when I was drunk. What would it take for me to vote for a Democrat? Well, it would take quite a laundry list of things:

1. First and foremost, a belief in limited government.
2. Want to balance the budget by cutting expenses.
3. Want to send as many programs as possible back to the States.
4. Want to repeal the Unaffordable Health Care Act.
5. Belief in the Constitution as its authors intended it to mean.
6. Want to keep taxes as low as possible for individuals and businesses.
7. Belief in a strong military with capability to easily handle any situation that might arise
8. Anti-abortion, except for the life of the mother.
9. Not for redfining marriage.
10. Belief in positive virtues such as hard work, personal responsibility, self-discipline, tenacity, self-sufficiency, et al.
11. Belief that all people should enter this country legally, including children, and that no benefits go to anyone who is here illegally.
12. Hmmm. Why go any further. This Democrat doesn't exist. Sometimes, I wonder if this person even exists within the GOP.

Paschendale said:

It's kinda funny. It would say that we have no liberal party.

Click to expand...

Wow! How liberal can liberal get? On second thought, please don't tell me. I don't want to get violently ill.

GreenvilleGrows said:

Would you consider voting for someone in a different party than you normally support during a Federal election? If so, what would it take?

Click to expand...

I vote for whichever candidate I feel best represents my interests. Up til now, for president, that has meant Democrats. For representatives/senators, that has meant mostly democrats, though I've voted for a couple republicans. If the republican party wants my vote more often, all they have to do is convince me that they will better support my interests than the democrats will.

LesGovt said:

Wow! How liberal can liberal get? On second thought, please don't tell me. I don't want to get violently ill.

Click to expand...

Have you ever thought about how people will live in the future.....and how they have lived in the past ?
Some thought may prevent illness.