Democrats or Republican

Posted by: Miguel6668

Which do you think is better/ prefer

  • Republican

  • Democrat

73% 45 votes
27% 17 votes
  • Logically the republican party has far better ideals.

  • Well they don't cheat to get ahead, for starters. Although I disagree with the religious aspect which influences many decisions such as abortion and gay marriage, they're more willing to listen to different opinions and come to the most logical overall conclusion instead of mindlessly force everyone to believe what they do like people on the left.

  • Conservatives are more stable people

  • The more sound party is Republicans. They uphold time-tested values that caused our country to thrive and succeed. They value responsibility, accountability and ambition. They represent the American Dream.

  • I can't vote for Democrats because of their views against religious freedom and against free speech. The idea that they force religious vendors to violate their faith and moral conscience at government gunpoint is unconsciousable to me and totally against what the Founding Fathers envisioned. Freedom OF religion, not freedom from it.

    Posted by: ace88
  • Whatever negatives you may say of the Democrats, you may say of the Republicans as well. Everybody is equally terrible. It really isn't a question of which party has less idiots (because they both have many), it is only about policy. I just prefer Democratic policies.

  • You can choose this based on style, or principle. Democrats vs republicans. Republicans want to take away, or make more expensive, your health care. Democrats' entire existence is about helping you get health care and/or making it cheaper. Republicans are about making rich people richer, while democrats are about helping regular people, you and I, keep more of our tax dollars, for example. Republicans talk about tax cuts, but what that means is tax cuts for the rich, not you and me. Also democrats are about fiscal responsibility. Republicans want to spend tons of money on the military to murder people. Democrats are against that. We want to spend money here at home, to help provide healthcare and other things.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
reece says2018-03-17T15:25:35.6676383Z
@Spiffy-Gonzalez Name me one and I'll destroy it.
Spiffy-Gonzalez says2018-03-17T15:28:56.3029952Z
@reece we oppose abortion.
reece says2018-03-17T17:34:41.8201952Z
@Spiffy-Gonzalez How would the republican party go about implementing that into policy? Would you personally ban it? If so, how would you go about the epidemic of 'coat-hanger-alley-abortions'? The republicans aren't really supportive of sex education. If there's going to be abortions no matter what, isn't it better for it to be regulated?
MacWorth says2018-03-17T17:44:30.8137952Z
Name something good about Democrats and I'll destroy it.
reece says2018-03-17T17:57:17.4445952Z
@MacWorth I don't really like the democratic party. I just voted to keep up with the poll. But If we're just talking about the left and right in general, then I would have to say acceptance of climate change.
Spiffy-Gonzalez says2018-03-18T05:02:38.5605355Z
@Reece simple, yes we would ban it. We abortions would be illegal coat hanger abortions would be considered murder and would be charged as such. That's the exact same thing as saying if murder is going to happen no matter what would it be better to regulate it. Fact is it's better illegal and well policed. We just need to get society to understand that an unborn baby is still a human being.
reece says2018-03-18T07:49:28.1724867Z
@Spiffy-Gonzalez Would you consider sperm human beings? Where do you draw that line?
Spiffy-Gonzalez says2018-03-18T07:50:45.2208867Z
@reece at conception.
reece says2018-03-18T07:51:30.8508867Z
@Spiffy-Gonzalez Why's that?
Spiffy-Gonzalez says2018-03-18T07:56:47.7336867Z
@reece because at conception (technically a couple minutes after) it has completed human DNA and has all the characteristics of a living organism.
reece says2018-03-18T08:05:55.8031671Z
@Spiffy-Gonzalez A living organism such as an ant?
reece says2018-03-18T08:09:03.3304770Z
So would you ban morning after pills and other such contraceptives? How about rape? Would you force a women or a youth to give birth?
Spiffy-Gonzalez says2018-03-19T03:38:02.3512223Z
@Reece yes. I would not ban pills that prevent them from getting pregnant but I would ban anything that terminates the pregnancy unless the woman's life is in danger and the child is going to die. I'm not going to make laws based on less than a percentage of circumstances. People who abort for rape make up less than a percent of abortions. That said, yes. I would not let a woman kill her child because of an unfortunate event that happened to her.
reece says2018-03-19T05:14:55.9252223Z
@Spiffy-Gonzalez But would you ban morning after pills? You know, pills that a women takes after conception. Which are worse, abortions or broken families?
Spiffy-Gonzalez says2018-03-20T04:50:18.7314667Z
@reece most definitely abortions. The solution to poverty and loneliness is not to eliminate those who are lonely and in poverty. I would most definitely ban the morning after pill.
reece says2018-03-20T13:11:09.2913034Z
@Spiffy-Gonzalez What?? I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion. So why are you against abortion again?
Mister_Man says2018-03-20T22:34:54.8270596Z
@Spiffy - "The solution to poverty is to force women to give birth to more people." ....Perfect sense there.
Spiffy-Gonzalez says2018-03-21T01:23:13.7366596Z
@reece, what do you mean by being pro choice but not pro abortion?
reece says2018-03-21T01:33:04.2746596Z
@Spiffy-Gonzalez It's up to the women on whether she wants to carry. That's what pro-choice means. The thing is, you're only taking one side of the issue where there's no nuance.
reece says2018-03-21T01:39:30.3278596Z
@Spiffy-Gonzalez Sorry for using the word nuance. The word might be a bit too complicated for you.
Spiffy-Gonzalez says2018-03-21T05:30:11.1613105Z
@reece, no problem. Don't worry I understand the meaning (but I guess if I didn't there would still be no issue because internet). I agree that it should be up to the woman if she wishes to carry the child. However I believe that the child is a living person at the moment of conception. I do not believe in murdering a child. Luckily for us there are alternatives. 1. Complete abstinence from sex. 2. Adoption. 3. Condoms. 4. Getting her tubes tied or the male getting a vasectomy. 5. Birth control pills. 6. Waiting till marriage (or until she is in a decent situation) 7. Other implanted contraceptives. All of these have a 99+ percent efficiency rate. No child dies, the overwhelming majority do not get pregnant. Everyone is happy. In other words the perfect middle ground. The only exception would be rape cases. But seeing as less than half of a percent of abortions are for rape victims this this is a minor exception, not the rule. Not only that but almost half of my propositions (7, 5, and 4) solve these cases as well. I dare to say that if these were followed than all but the most exceptional cases of unwanted pregnancy would disappear.
reece says2018-03-21T06:54:33.9605696Z
@Spiffy-Gonzalez Well I'm not sure why you asked me what I meant by being pro-choice, not pro-abortion. You know, because internet. But it's good we're coming to common ground. I agree a fetus lives. But it doesn't necessarily mean it has a complex nervous system in which it can perceive its surroundings in away such as a developed human can. Sorry if that was a mouthful. In other words, it doesn't mean it's necessarily conscious in layman's terms. Please don't use the word murder. Murder is a legal term. Well, you do have the interwebs after all. You'll be able to search what it means. For "child" on the other hand, I suppose you're technically correct to call a fetus a child. For your alternatives, ignoring how accurate the '99+ percent efficiency rate' is, I agree that people should take all the correct preventive measures to not become/get someone pregnant if undesired. But I think we both still agree it is the women's choice on whether in the end she wants an abortion.
Spiffy-Gonzalez says2018-03-21T16:40:22.2320796Z
@reece because that's not a common stance and therefore looking for it on the internet could bring up conflicting results. You still have not answered the question. It being able to perceive things as an average human being can is of no concern to me. It's DNA is exactly human, and as it is a growing developing organism it does constitute life. Ergo it is a living human. And since this living human has its own DNA and it forming by itself it is it's own being. Not an extension of the mother. Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. It fits the definition perfectly. I do not see the issue. I disagree. I believe no one has a right to murder another for their own convenience.
Spiffy-Gonzalez says2018-03-21T16:41:47.0580175Z
@reece because that's not a common stance and therefore looking for it on the internet could bring up conflicting results. You still have not answered the question. It being able to perceive things as an average human being can is of no concern to me. It's DNA is exactly human, and as it is a growing developing organism it does constitute life. Ergo it is a living human. And since this living human has its own DNA and it forming by itself it is it's own being. Not an extension of the mother. Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. It fits the definition perfectly. I do not see the issue. I disagree. I believe no one has a right to murder another for their own convenience.
Spiffy-Gonzalez says2018-03-21T16:42:30.6512796Z
@reece because that's not a common stance and therefore looking for it on the internet could bring up conflicting results. You still have not answered the question. It being able to perceive things as an average human being can is of no concern to me. It's DNA is exactly human, and as it is a growing developing organism it does constitute life. Ergo it is a living human. And since this living human has its own DNA and it forming by itself it is it's own being. Not an extension of the mother. Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. It fits the definition perfectly. I do not see the issue. I disagree. I believe no one has a right to murder another for their own convenience.
reece says2018-03-21T17:33:23.7204175Z
@Spiffy-Gonzalez I thought the difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion is quite obvious. What happened to "I agree that it should be up to the woman if she wishes to carry the child."? Those are your words. Do you take them back? Legal abortion is not murder. Murder is illegal by law. It's a legal term. Do you understand?
Spiffy-Gonzalez says2018-03-21T18:38:04.2076014Z
@reece, I stand by what I said. It she be a woman's choice to carry, ergo she should abide by one of the seven choices that does not involve murder. And about murder, yes it is illegal by law, however that does not make the term solely a legality. Just because a type of murder is legal that does not change that it is murder nonetheless. For example if I made loitering legal and one was to do that action it is still considered to be loitering, legal or otherwise.
Mister_Man says2018-03-21T21:24:08.7584796Z
It was a mistake commenting on this, I'm developing a brain aneurism listening to you guys talk
asta says2018-03-22T01:58:26.5828014Z
Should the democrat be on the left and the republican be on the right?
Spiffy-Gonzalez says2018-03-22T04:52:37.8857236Z
Asta, illuminati confirmed :D
asta says2018-04-02T16:32:00.3876068Z
Science has confirmed that a fetus is a human. If a woman can't raise a child, she can set the kid up for adoption.
asta says2018-04-02T16:32:57.1560068Z
P.S. I'm not in the Illuminati. If you believe I am, I want proof.
Mister_Man says2018-04-03T01:31:50.8135181Z
@Asta - Only a true member of the illuminati would deny affiliation. You're being awfully suspicious.
Spiffy-Gonzalez says2018-04-03T04:09:14.8819181Z
@asta, you said you're not "in" the illuminati. This implies that you're not inside the illuminati headquarters in mount Everest. But you NEVER denied being a member! 0_0
reece says2018-04-03T10:44:41.1369040Z
Conservative interrogation techniques s̶u̶c̶k rock. What are you guys going to do next; waterboard him? I'm sure he'll tell you whatever you'll want to hear and become deradicalised while doing so. I'm sure his associates will understand.
Spiffy-Gonzalez says2018-04-03T23:37:17.0976295Z
@Reece the k in the crossed out word 'suck' was not crossed out. You must be in the killuminati (with a silent k) 😱 How global is this conspiracy?
mattj1111 says2018-04-03T23:39:57.5280295Z
Republican for a number of reasons: more openness to freedom of expression and also ideas, and logical debate. I also vastly prefer Republican policies such as: pro-life, gun rights/gun control, smaller government, transgender (but not gay issues), equity over equality. Anyone is welcome to debate me, I only ask for factual and civilized debate, not emotional insults.
reece says2018-04-04T03:05:34.3087318Z
@mattj1111 More openness to freedom and logical debate? Pro-life: you're taking a woman's freedom away to choose. Unlike a woman, a 24 week old fetus doesn't have the capacity to choose. Gun rights/gun control: You don't honestly believe we want to take your guns away do you? Just like the majority of the left and right, I want universal background checks and other precautions to keep citizens safe. Smaller government: What do you mean by smaller government? Less social spending, or a smaller congress, etc? Or are you talking about both? Transgender (but not gay issues): What do you mean? Do you support transgender issues but not gay issues? If so, I'm more open to freedom in that regard. What's your views on drugs such as marijuana? I bet it's not freedom. The left has the right beat on social issues when it comes to freedom. Equity over equality: do you believe everyone should have a basic standard of living for their support?
sadolite says2018-04-04T03:15:22.3351318Z
"I want universal background checks and other precautions to keep citizens safe." Here are all of the gun laws now currently on the books. What would you add that is't already there. https://www.atf.gov/file/58686/download
reece says2018-04-04T03:26:39.0163318Z
@sadolite you could have easily asked mattj1111 the same question.
sadolite says2018-04-04T03:32:05.0563318Z
I will ask anyone, hows that? What's your new law that you think will stop a maniac from killing who doesn't give a crap about gun laws
reece says2018-04-04T03:35:26.9203318Z
@sadolite I say the less maniacs with guns, the better.
sadolite says2018-04-04T03:46:55.0207318Z
All you are doing is stating the obvious, no one wants homicidal maniacs to have guns. There is even a gun law that prohibits it
reece says2018-04-04T03:49:47.6035318Z
@sadolite Well why are you trying to debate the obvious?
Spiffy-Gonzalez says2018-04-04T16:55:13.8971932Z
@reece in your comment you compare the value of life based on the ability to choose, why is that?
reece says2018-04-04T17:39:50.6075932Z
@Spiffy-Gonzalez Is this a trick question?
Spiffy-Gonzalez says2018-04-04T18:09:52.1267932Z
@reece, it us not. Why should one person who is unable to choose be worth less than another?
Observer001 says2018-04-04T19:11:53.3821279Z
Interesting.
reece says2018-04-05T03:07:12.4953923Z
@Spiffy-Gonzalez For mattj1111's standard it's because freedom. But for me, it's a bit more complicated. One being is developed to perceive the world, the other is not. One can be emotionally traumatised, the other can not. One can be physically hurt, the other can not. So yes, there is a value call to make.
reece says2018-04-05T03:13:30.7641923Z
...Developed enough to...*
sadolite says2018-04-05T03:20:48.6456087Z
"@sadolite Well why are you trying to debate the obvious?" No, see you have to say something of intellectual substance to have a debate. You declaring the obvious that everyone already agrees with as though it has never been considered and me pointing that out is not debate.
reece says2018-04-05T03:27:30.0285923Z
@sadolite T̲r̲y̲i̲n̲g̲ to debate*. Like I said, you could have asked mattj1111 the same question. You could have replied to him, but you chose me.
mattj1111 says2018-04-05T03:42:23.4249923Z
Okay, so let’s go over the basics. Why do you believe the mother should get to have the fetus aborted (a.K.A. Bruatally murdered) to her convenience? I see what you mean about the mother being able to perceive the world, but the unborn are the most innocent among us. Just because they cannot yet perceive the world doesn’t mean they should have the gift of life stripped from them in a ruthless way. They have literally never done anything wrong. If you could ask that fetus if it wanted to live or not, wouldn’t you agree the answer would be yes? And do you believe that all abortions should be legal, or just within as certain time frame?
mattj1111 says2018-04-05T04:01:17.9661923Z
Also, I never said all of you wanted to ban all guns. In fact, I think that most of you are honest in that you just want more restrictions and background checks. It doesn’t matter if you are a Republican or a Democrat; regardless, if you are a decent person, (which I am sure you are) you don’t want to see more people being murdered, and therefore want to take necessary action to ensure this. We all want criminals off the streets, obviously, but the difference comes in how we go about doing this. The grim reality is, banning certain types of guns results in a double-standard. And, studies show that places with stricter gun laws have unbelievably high rates of murders from guns. This is because evil whack jobs don’t care about the law. Banning only “the bad ones”, as often quoted by members of the left, would only take away the rights of law abiding citizens to defend thenselves.
reece says2018-04-05T04:12:19.6185005Z
My response to the first question: Do you know what an emotional appeal is? My response to the second question: If you could ask a rock if it would want to be saved from being crushed, wouldn’t you agree the answer would be yes? You can't fuse will onto something where there is none. My response to the third question: A certain time frame of course.
reece says2018-04-05T04:16:45.8481005Z
Please wait for my reply to your second comment.
reece says2018-04-05T04:24:24.4413005Z
@mattj1111 It was a question I asked. If the right is for gun rights/gun control, then what other alternative would the left have? It was one of your reasons why republicans are more open to freedom right? Are you referring to places like Chicago where people just need to hop over to the next state over to buy a firearm?
Eric567 says2018-04-05T06:36:28.0557005Z
(BEFORE I BEGIN, I AM A REPUBLICAN) Even if the fetus was human, anyone who would want or need an abortion typically finds it to have serious problems at an early state, or is in a financial/social position were they cannot afford that child. Assuming these two conditions are met, an abortion is a logical step to spare that soul a lifetime of pain and suffering. But, at the same time, you shouldn't just be able to walk into any clinic after intercourse (Hopefully not for money or random pleasure), and take away your child IF you can afford and/or he has no issues with development. There goes a saying: "A mind is a terrible thing to waste." And for the second scenario, this reigns especially true! I believe that abortions should be regulated to a fetus with abnormal growth, exposed to drugs/chemicals during pregnancy, or social/living conditions will pain its existence.
mattj1111 says2018-04-05T13:20:55.5236230Z
Reece, to answer you first question, yes I do know what an emotional appeal is. I intentionally asked a biased but factual question. If you don’t believe me about why abortion is brutal murder, I can explain further. (Here’s another appeal) I also encourage you all to watch the documentary “The Silent Scream”. For your second question, you are comparing apples to oranges, because a fetus is living and a rock is not. If you don’t agree with that, fine. However there is no denying that, if left to its normal processes, that fetus will grow into a real living human. A rock can’t and won’t ever grow into a real living organism. Finally when would that time frame be and why?
Spiffy-Gonzalez says2018-04-07T01:49:38.2860361Z
@reece you are aware that even before birth babies can become traumatized and harmed correct? Obviously it won't show until a certain level of development, but it still happens nonetheless?
Spiffy-Gonzalez says2018-04-07T01:50:24.8988361Z
@reece you are aware that even before birth babies can become traumatized and harmed correct? Obviously it won't show until a certain level of development, but it still happens nonetheless?
reece says2018-04-07T03:39:34.4028361Z
@Spiffy-Gonzalez Yes I'm aware.
reece says2018-04-07T03:52:32.7960361Z
@mattj1111 Wasn't The Silent Scream proven to be full of misleading information? So what if a fetus is left to its normal process, for the time being, it's just as conscious as a rock in that regard. About 24 weeks.
mattj11111 says2018-04-08T04:43:01.5314115Z
Reece, what is misleading about The Silent Scream? Next, what makes you think that a fetus is unconscious in the womb? If someone’s in a coma, should we kill them? The fetus has potential for life as in, if it is not aborted, it will grow into a real living baby. (I am only saying this part to humor the argument that a fetus is just a clump of cells.) Anyway, a rock will never become living. Another question when do you believe that the fetus (for lack of a better word) becomes living? At birth? At conception? Personally, I define how we would define anything else in that, if we found a single-celled organism in Mars, the world we rejoice because we have just found life on Mars. Finally, why 24?Weeks? What happens at 24 weeks that you feel is significant?
reece says2018-04-08T05:35:23.2778115Z
@mattj11111 http://prochoicechristian1.blogspot.co.nz/2009/11/silent-scream-is-lie.html "If someone’s in a coma, should we kill them?": It depends on the family and if there's no seeing them waking up. 'A fetus has potential for life, a rock doesn't.': rocks are carbon-based as well, so yes, they have potential for life. 'when do you believe a fetus becomes living?': When the nervous system becomes mostly developed. So no, not at birth or conception. "What happens at 24 weeks that you feel is significant?": At about 24 weeks, It's cutting it close to the fetus developing a complex nervous system.
Observer001 says2018-04-13T19:33:00.0711405Z
Shoot I voted on this poll that's why I keep getting notifications on this
Mister_Man says2018-04-13T22:02:22.7703405Z
@Observer - Yeah I wanna kill myself now
asta says2018-04-23T01:35:12.5293576Z
A rock is not alive. It does not have chromosomes nor does it meet the criteria for life. A fetus does.
asta says2018-04-26T11:12:26.5003257Z
I deny being a member of the Illuminati.
asta says2018-04-26T11:13:48.7747257Z
Are you in the Illuminati? According to your logic, if you deny being in the Illuminati, your a member. So are you? Or does your prior logic not make sense?

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.