• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Which Candidate?

Crosscheck

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
12,008
Reaction score
9,396
Location
NW USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Name which candidate has came out and talked about plan to fight cancer, ALS, and Alzheimer’s?


You are more likely to come in contact with one of those than a terrorist or wild man with a gun.

Maybe one did but I missed it.
 
Name which candidate has came out and talked about plan to fight cancer, ALS, and Alzheimer’s?


You are more likely to come in contact with one of those than a terrorist or wild man with a gun.

Maybe one did but I missed it.

I'm curious. How are these a "Government" problem?

Did we form a union to cure cancer? ALS? Alzheimers?

Did I miss that in my government class?

Why just those three? How about a cure for the common cold, measles, hair loss...death?

When you can explain why this is a "Government" responsibility, then maybe we can try to answer why candidates aren't coming out to talk about it.
 
Name which candidate has came out and talked about plan to fight cancer, ALS, and Alzheimer’s?


You are more likely to come in contact with one of those than a terrorist or wild man with a gun.

Maybe one did but I missed it.

Joe Biden, Oh wait, he's "not running."
 
I'm curious. How are these a "Government" problem?

Did we form a union to cure cancer? ALS? Alzheimers?

Did I miss that in my government class?

Why just those three? How about a cure for the common cold, measles, hair loss...death?

When you can explain why this is a "Government" responsibility, then maybe we can try to answer why candidates aren't coming out to talk about it.

You probably missed it in school but we do have a "Government" Dept of Health and Human Issues. But I know it is more important we spend our money playing Whac-A -Mole in the Middle East.
 
You probably missed it in school but we do have a "Government" Dept of Health and Human Issues. But I know it is more important we spend our money playing Whac-A -Mole in the Middle East.

No, it I more important for us to CUT the responsibilities of central government down as much as possible, not add more responsibilities which costs us more.
 
No, it I more important for us to CUT the responsibilities of central government down as much as possible, not add more responsibilities which costs us more.

Yes, lets save that money for being the policeman of others countries who hate us. That was foolish of me thinking of spending it on ourselves.
 
Yes, lets save that money for being the policeman of others countries who hate us. That was foolish of me thinking of spending it on ourselves.

Yah, because the South Koreans, Filipinos, Kuwatis, Baltic States, etc hate us sooooo much
 
Yes, lets save that money for being the policeman of others countries who hate us. That was foolish of me thinking of spending it on ourselves.

Your problem lies in presenting your position as an either/or equation.

Wherever did you get the idea I support being the world's policeman? If you sift around I'm sure you'll find posts of mine that clearly indicate otherwise.

No, it's not EITHER we save money by not investing in government sponsored medical research OR we spend it on military adventurism.

Nope, it's cut back on government spending in general and focus on the core duties we expect our government to perform. One of those is national defense. So a standing military force just strong enough to deter others from messing with us.
 
Your problem lies in presenting your position as an either/or equation.

Wherever did you get the idea I support being the world's policeman? If you sift around I'm sure you'll find posts of mine that clearly indicate otherwise.

No, it's not EITHER we save money by not investing in government sponsored medical research OR we spend it on military adventurism.

Nope, it's cut back on government spending in general and focus on the core duties we expect our government to perform. One of those is national defense. So a standing military force just strong enough to deter others from messing with us.

I totally agree with you on cutting back on government spending but the lobbyists and corrupt politicians are so embedded together it is near impossible.

My original question came up after listening to a draft dodger president candidate bark about smashing ISIS. Of course that wouldn't involve him or any of his family as none of them has ever worn an US military uniform.

So instead of blowing money over there why not argue for medical research which could actually benefit the taxpayers.

I agree with a strong military defense and we could use that along our borders. Perhaps don't need a wall, we could maintain a standing army patrolling our borders.
 
Yah, because the South Koreans, Filipinos, Kuwatis, Baltic States, etc hate us sooooo much

I stand corrected. Some countries appreciate our money spent there and for us providing them their police force.
 
Back
Top Bottom