It's official - I'm no longer a Republican

Heisenberg said:
I've resigned from the Republican Party, of which I have been a dues-paying member since 2008. While I will continue to support some GOP candidates (when they are the best person for the job), I no longer believe it is possible for me to make a difference through the Republican Party. This may change in the future...but as it stands, it appears the days of moderate voices are gone, having been forced to pretend they're right-wingers in order to "rally the base."

I am also giving serious thought to joining the Democratic Party. However, I am a little apprehensive about this for a few reasons. First, I'm proud of the fact that I supported Mitt Romney with my time, money, and vote - I'd do it again without hesitation. And while I agree with Democrats on women's rights, gay rights, climate change, and taxes on the wealthy (for the most part), I disagree with them sharply on healthcare and the role of government in the economy. So I guess the question would be: is the Democratic tent big enough for me?
Click to expand...

Is this your own version of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?
 
Last edited:
wanderingbear said:
Republicans dont really want a small government. They just want to take away the rights of the poor.Get rid of all human services and put that money in to police state, and global military domination.
Click to expand...

there you go, Voltaire......this is what is hiding in that tent........people like WB......
 
Heisenberg said:
I've resigned from the Republican Party, of which I have been a dues-paying member since 2008. While I will continue to support some GOP candidates (when they are the best person for the job), I no longer believe it is possible for me to make a difference through the Republican Party. This may change in the future...but as it stands, it appears the days of moderate voices are gone, having been forced to pretend they're right-wingers in order to "rally the base."

I am also giving serious thought to joining the Democratic Party. However, I am a little apprehensive about this for a few reasons. First, I'm proud of the fact that I supported Mitt Romney with my time, money, and vote - I'd do it again without hesitation. And while I agree with Democrats on women's rights, gay rights, climate change, and taxes on the wealthy (for the most part), I disagree with them sharply on healthcare and the role of government in the economy. So I guess the question would be: is the Democratic tent big enough for me?
Click to expand...

what is it that you disagree with on the healthcare issue? When a system is rigged against the consumer, isn't it the gov't job to step in between the corrupt monopoly that refuses to restructure itself and the people who elected it to protect them?

Can you think of any other industry in our economy that allows for this type of 'profit' over the literal health of the consumer? If you paid your water company each month for 30/31 days of service and they came in and shut you off after 17 days then told you that they needed the rest of your monthly payment for their managerial functions and profit.. how long before you would be knocking on your representatives door demanding they stop this kind of thievery? If your gas company decided that you didn't need your heat from Jan 1 thru March 2, but you still had to pay their monthly fees, would you demand your government step in a fix this broken and corrupt system?

unless it is the 'mandate' you disapprove of.. and in that case, wouldn't a 'single payer' system be preferable then..where everyone pays a single entity, thus the costs are lower, and those premiums are passed onto the doctor/hospital.. instead of the for-profit middleman, aka, the insurance conglomerate, taking it's profit out of your premiums 1st and then deciding your health needs and how much it will pay out to your provider second.

it has to be one or the other.. either the 'for-profit' system is allowed to continue to charge you for 30 days of gas while only providing you with 12 days of service and service on the days they've decided you can actually get it because that's what is more profitable for their bottom line.. or they are removed from the basic equation altogether and regulated to a more 'ala carte' system where the consumer can pick and chose the extra things it would like to add onto their already guaranteed 'starting point'..



do you think government should take a 100% hands-off approach when it comes to the economy? Or is it ok to prop up some companies whose failure might cause calamitous results through out the nation and the world,affecting untold millions? Be they banks, airliners, railroads,.. etc. Is it ok to subsize transportation and roads? or would the private sector do better alone? If your street needed repaving is the system you want one where you find a company to pave it for you.. and do you do your whole road? or just in front of your house.. but then why bother when your neighbors section of the road is even worse and you have to drive through it to get to your house..


Do you think gov't should stop 'outsourcing' research and development to private contractors? or is that kind of gov't involvement in the economy ok? Where would our military be if gov't didn't pay for private companies for the development of our weapons,safety measures,vehicles,airplanes.. etc..

Isn't it better that the gov't regulates that companies label what's in your food or what goes in your medicine? or can the private, for-profit sector be trusted to put actual chicken in chicken nuggets instead of say, dog.. since it would be cheaper.. sure the company who did that might actually go out of business after awhile.. but maybe they wouldn't, maybe their profits would so extreme that the next 4 companies in competition with them started doing the same..

isn't gov't intervention into that part of the economy more benficial to the nation as whole.. even if it's stepping on the toes of the private sector?

You asked is the Democratic tent big enough for me?" .. the answer is, sure, just ask Nancy Pelosi and Harry Ried how difficult it is to get a majority of democrats to all do the same thing.. ;) Our tent is full of differences.. I believe in the death penalty,harsher prison sentences for violent offenders,guns and at the same time I'm pro-choice and I believe in stopping the destruction of the rainforests..... we don't fit in the predetermined boxes the same way the GOP does. But that can be our downfall as well. One of the things I admire(as much as I loathe-lol) about the Right is their uniformity. It's awe-inspiring to watch them 'borg' on any given issue from the top all the way down to local gov't..

you don't see that with Dems because their tent is so full of contrast..

Ironically, we also really do believe in 'freedom of religion'.. to us it's not something we put on a tee-shirt and picket the building of a local Mosque. .. Your religion is yours.. we're not going to tell you how or who is better to worship, we're just going to ask that you don't demand we follow the God of your choosing

we really do believe in personal freedoms.. again, it's not something we put on one sign and in another demand the banning of gay marriage..

we really do believe your health decisions are between you and your doctor..in all choices, whether they be doctor assisted suicide,medical marijuana,if grandma gets her hip replaced or whether to abort or not...



I don't believe we live in a time where it's feasible or even beneficial for the gov't to take no role in either the economy or healthcare. Maybe 100 years ago that was doable, but not today. There simply has to be gov't involvement into both areas since we've seen extreme corruption of both after they have been left to police themselves for far too long and at the determent of us all. We should have never had to ask ourselves if we deserve a for-profit insurance system, when the only way to make the profit is to deny the services that are being paid for. we would never allow it in any other business model, but we actually fight to the point of division of the country on this issue because the same companies use more of those premiums to buy off our leaders than they do giving the life-saving treatments we paid them for.

and witnessed in 08, when left to their own accord.. some profit driven companies will screw the economy of the entire world if they can make a dollar at it.

there is nothing wrong with making profits.. but there is something wrong with making them by intentionally destroying billions of people.. So yeah, sometimes gov't involvement is a necessary evil to prevent the wholesale destruction of society..and I don't think it's a radical,unAmerican, European.. point of view to have..
 
Healthcare is best managed by the States. IMO, Federal law concerning healthcare should be limited to two precepts: each State must guarantee universal coverage (by a specified date), and each State must reimburse other States for costs accrued by residents visiting another State. How each State decides to deliver on that is entirely up to them and their taxpayers. Some will try a market approach, while others would try single-payer. The point here is, I do not agree with the Democrats' top-down approach to healthcare. It is much easier to fix healthcare at the State level.
 
ekg said:
Can you think of any other industry in our economy that allows for this type of 'profit' over the literal health of the consumer? If you paid your water company each month for 30/31 days of service and they came in and shut you off after 17 days then told you that they needed the rest of your monthly payment for their managerial functions and profit..
Click to expand...

isn't it at least silly, if not outright dishonest, to pretend this happens in the health care industry?.....
 
Heisenberg said:
I've resigned from the Republican Party, of which I have been a dues-paying member since 2008. While I will continue to support some GOP candidates (when they are the best person for the job), I no longer believe it is possible for me to make a difference through the Republican Party. This may change in the future...but as it stands, it appears the days of moderate voices are gone, having been forced to pretend they're right-wingers in order to "rally the base."

I am also giving serious thought to joining the Democratic Party. However, I am a little apprehensive about this for a few reasons. First, I'm proud of the fact that I supported Mitt Romney with my time, money, and vote - I'd do it again without hesitation. And while I agree with Democrats on women's rights, gay rights, climate change, and taxes on the wealthy (for the most part), I disagree with them sharply on healthcare and the role of government in the economy. So I guess the question would be: is the Democratic tent big enough for me?
Click to expand...


Congratulations. Your orientation kit is in the mail.
 
Heisenberg said:
I've resigned from the Republican Party, of which I have been a dues-paying member since 2008. While I will continue to support some GOP candidates (when they are the best person for the job), I no longer believe it is possible for me to make a difference through the Republican Party. This may change in the future...but as it stands, it appears the days of moderate voices are gone, having been forced to pretend they're right-wingers in order to "rally the base."

I am also giving serious thought to joining the Democratic Party. However, I am a little apprehensive about this for a few reasons. First, I'm proud of the fact that I supported Mitt Romney with my time, money, and vote - I'd do it again without hesitation. And while I agree with Democrats on women's rights, gay rights, climate change, and taxes on the wealthy (for the most part), I disagree with them sharply on healthcare and the role of government in the economy. So I guess the question would be: is the Democratic tent big enough for me?
Click to expand...


After reading your post, you never were a Republican no matter how you were registered.
 
bravo said:
After reading your post, you never were a Republican no matter how you were registered.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with that. Yes, some of those positions he holds are not your traditional Republican positions and I wouldn't put him up as an example of your typical Republican. But one doesn't have to agree with all Republican points to be one (or vote for one). There are Republicans who hold different views on gay marriage, climate change etc. If the Republican Party is going to require ideological purity it is going to become a permanent minority party real soon.
 
Heisenberg said:
Healthcare is best managed by the States. IMO, Federal law concerning healthcare should be limited to two precepts: each State must guarantee universal coverage (by a specified date), and each State must reimburse other States for costs accrued by residents visiting another State. How each State decides to deliver on that is entirely up to them and their taxpayers. Some will try a market approach, while others would try single-payer. The point here is, I do not agree with the Democrats' top-down approach to healthcare. It is much easier to fix healthcare at the State level.
Click to expand...

while that would be a start.. it couldn't stay on a state level for any length of time..

you would need the federal gov't to force states to pay back other states.. and you would have people in 'market' states going over the border to the 'universal' state to get the Rx or certain treatments..thus bankrupting the states that were more progressive with their healtcare..

I just disagree that healthcare can be done on the state level. It's not simply a state issue, it's a national issue.. the same way protection from foreign entities is not regulated to the state, health care cannot be either. It's not like whether to allow beer to be sold on Sundays.. or whether to legalize pot. It's too big and affects too many people to be dropped to a state-level issue.
 
A white moon's hot said:
you will pay watermark.

All you takers will pay.

With my last dying breath you will all pay.

Conservatives do not forget. We are all about the past. It is our greatest strength. We hold grudges. We will cut off our nose to spite our face. I demand vengeance. I will have my vengeance on the takers. They will all see.
Click to expand...

Curious, my new Party will be the Party of the People's Righteous Vengeance.
 
Lowaicue said:
If the democratic party is as 'liberal' as people say then it is a broad church and able to take all shades of opinion. However, from an outsider's point of view, I am sure the Republican party will rediscover its course and the extreme right, the bible bashers, the racists, the Palinists will find there is no place for them. If it doesn't it will disappear and be replaced by a more sensible party.
As in most societies there seems little room for grey, yet most people are never, at heart, unswervingly red or blue. Take things in the balance. The goods and the bads. The very fact that you have engaged your brain and thought outside your particular box bodes well for all.
The Razors and the Dixies of the world will find themselves in an ever dwinding minority until they are alone baying at the moon.
Click to expand...

For some reason, the Republicans have been taking moderates and running them as extremists for the past two cycles. Aren't you supposed to do it the other way around?
 
Heisenberg said:
Healthcare is best managed by the States. IMO, Federal law concerning healthcare should be limited to two precepts: each State must guarantee universal coverage (by a specified date), and each State must reimburse other States for costs accrued by residents visiting another State. How each State decides to deliver on that is entirely up to them and their taxpayers. Some will try a market approach, while others would try single-payer. The point here is, I do not agree with the Democrats' top-down approach to healthcare. It is much easier to fix healthcare at the State level.
Click to expand...

The federal government can't require states to guarantee universal coverage. The best it can hope to do is offer to pay for a big chunk of the costs and hope that the state decides it's an offer too good to refuse. This is, ironically, one of the main reasons that provinces in Canada have more de facto power than state in the US, because states have more sovereignty which often forces the federal government to go it alone if it wants anything done, while the Canadian provinces can be told to provide some minimum level of healthcare and such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top