• 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!

Stupidity of the American Voter?

I just did.

Maybe you didn't understand what was said. Should I rephrase it for you?

It's easy to type messages anonymously using a online idenity.

If you tried saying that in person, face to face, that is a recipe for getting injured.
 
cn_image.size.morning-joe.jpg


Perk.....MIKA.
drool.gif


Give her to me for 30 days and when I am finished with her. She will return a die hard Republican. :lamo



30 days?

Give me six hours and we'll have a card carrying member of the Liberal Party of Canada....
 
"Ignorance"?

Of what? Your stupid system?

That's jealousy talking. Your idol strutted out all his promises and the ignorant bought it, only to find out 1] you could not keep your plan and 2] at the end more people than live in my country will have NO coverage.

Show me where your Obamacare with it's premiums, bureaucracy, pre-approvals and bull**** is even in the same league as what most of the rest of the industrialized world has. At the end of the day you're still 30th or something, behind Cuba and Canada.

The methods leave more than a little on the table, shouting "ignorant" is actually childish and kind of proves the intent of this thread, the "stupid" bought into this abortion of a law.
You can only debate someone who has a basic understanding of a topic, and claiming that the Canadian system has no costs....or that everyone in the US has been forced into the ACA, shows that you have little to no knowledge of either system. Further, claiming that "no insurance" is better than having subsidized basic coverage, when most of those who now have coverage when before they had "no coverage" due to cost/preexisting conditions...is ironic writ large.

Note: I would LOVE to have a socialized single payer system (an expansion of Medicare), but I'll give you a clue.....it has not happened because what did/could pass was a conservative HC scheme. And for many that had no coverage before, that something, as bad as it is, is better than nothing.
 
Last edited:
My god this is fu**ing mind numbing. Voter turnout was historically low. Not just generally low across the board, but there were relatively fewer Democrats actually voting. This isn't a case of "Americans waking up." There is no indicator that Republicans actually pulled a significant number of Dems or independents. Americans were even more asleep than usual for a mid term election. Don't let your skirts get blown too far up your backside. It was a wave election. Obama is not running in 2016. This wasn't about Democrats or Liberals. It was about Obama. Even Republicans didn't really care that much about this election. You can expect a higher percentage of Democrats to get out and vote in the general election, that is something you can count on. What that means is that Republicans are going to have to shine like diamonds for the next 24 months or they will likely see their gains dissipate. You can bet the Dems will be mobilizing in 2016.

Stop ignoring election trends and come back to reality.
 
Last edited:
I noticed how you missed mentioning the state legislatures. But that was to be expected. Just sayin
Your counter is still a failure, for a 3rd time....because you have, as always, forgotten what the point was that you were supposed to counter:

Oh, you can't read. I said that GOP guvs were choosing not to set up state exchanges.....and you bring up 2 state exchanges where those guvs DID in fact try to setup exchanges...where the private contractors failed to do what they were hired to do.....and you think that applies to the context I was speaking about.

FFS...again, stick to C&P, when you go out on a limb and start making argument without the crutch, you fall down REALLY hard.

Respond with a comment that counters the point, stop C&P'ing NON SEQUITURS.
 
It's easy to type messages anonymously using a online idenity.

If you tried saying that in person, face to face, that is a recipe for getting injured.

So then Gruber and the rest of the people who had a hand in the ACA should be looking over their shoulders?
 
That's just another reason why there has to be education reform.

Tell me about a policy initiative backed by conservatives that favored higher employment over corporate profits? I can't recall any.
 
Yeah, it was supposed to be a secret.

That would be my guess as well.

How come our fearless leader hasn't weighed in on this yet? I mean, the guy couldn't wait to call out the Cambridge police for acting "stupidly", so it isn't like he's confused about the meaning of the word.
 
No, many of the people on this thread probably don't have the courage to say hateful things in person.

Which has what to do with the architect of the ACA letting it be known that the ACA crafters relied on the stupidity of people to push their pet project through?

Grant's comment was not nearly as offensive as that.
 
Which has what to do with the architect of the ACA letting it be known that the ACA crafters relied on the stupidity of people to push their pet project through?

Grant's comment was not nearly as offensive as that.

No, but I just wanted to comment on how easy it is to call someone stupid online and not suffer phisical injuries.
 
So then Gruber and the rest of the people who had a hand in the ACA should be looking over their shoulders?

That would seem to be the case.

The lesson seems to be that when one of their own calls them stupid no offense is taken. When someone outside the party agrees with Gruber then they get offended.
 
No, but I just wanted to comment on how easy it is to call someone stupid online and not suffer phisical injuries.

And all day long, day in and day out, people say **** on here that they wouldn't say in public. What made Grant's comment so noteworthy?
 
That would seem to be the case.

The lesson seems to be that when one of their own calls them stupid no offense is taken. When someone outside the party agrees with Gruber then they get offended.

TDS is at least addressing the issue. He's calling himself stupid (repeatedly) which leads me to believe that he agrees with Gruber about himself. Others seem to be making every effort to ignore what was said about them (them being the ones duped into thinking the ACA was something it wasn't, them being the ones who were declared "stupid" by the group that put the ACA together, etc.).

I wonder what threads on here would look like if Dick Cheney went around saying that they relied on the "stupid American voters" when they decided to invade Iraq....
 
And all day long, day in and day out, people say **** on here that they wouldn't say in public. What made Grant's comment so noteworthy?

Because, after last Tuesday, I have had it with conservatives curb stomping everything I stand for.

I am confronting the issue now.
 
Because, after last Tuesday, I have had it with conservatives curb stomping everything I stand for.

I am confronting the issue now.

This has nothing to do with last Tuesday. This wasn't an election issue. It was about the ACA. That passed long before last Tuesday.
 
I wonder what threads on here would look like if Dick Cheney went around saying that they relied on the "stupid American voters" when they decided to invade Iraq....
He didn't have to say it, he relied on it.

But I think it is so hypocritical to be going off topic...on Iraq....when earlier you were chastising others for the same.
 
No, but I just wanted to comment on how easy it is to call someone stupid online and not suffer phisical injuries.
Your anger and frustration should be directed at those who lied to you and the American people, and have been lying for the past six years.

If you've been buying what Obama and his cohorts have been selling all that time you should expect some negative feedback from those who recognized Obama or what he was.. Of course you can also continue to support those who have lied and disrespected you all these years, but that would only confirm what Gruber has already said.
 
Personally, I have no problem with right to work legislation and allowing a worker to opt out of union membership if they choose to. Perhaps if unions hadn't simply become financing arms of the state and federal Democrat parties, and concentrated solely on workplace issues and worker protection, more people wouldn't opt out of union representation. As it stands, the teachers, one of the most militant of political unions in Wisconsin, saw over 30% of their members opt out of union membership. That speaks a great deal to the need for the reforms Walker and the Republicans brought to the table.

You mean the Right To Work For Less legislation, right? Let me preface my next response by saying I am an advocate for union reformation. Why are you seemingly willing to exclude unions from the political process? You might say it is taking union dues from workers who'd vote one way and send it the other. OK, but so does corporations. Now, if you're advocating in all or in part private money being excluded from the political process I'd be a friend and ally. If you're merely saying that these guys shouldn't have collective clout and say nothing of the flip side of that coin, well, obviously we'd have a discrepancy.

Let me provide full disclosure and divulge I've been a Teamster. Many, all-to-many times I felt that my union dues were merely going to cover the cost of protecting lazy, good for nothing, POS who should be kicked out on their ass. I showed up every day, got excellent reviews, did my job without fail and for all intents, didn't need union representation. Now my pay at the time was about 30-40% more than at a non union shop. It was that way because of union representation. So, what those 30% of teachers did essentially is say, well, we got what we got because of the union and now, well, piss off. The other end of the bargaining table loves this. Why? because it provides the context and framework to slowly, ever-so-slowly chip away at all the rights, benefits, salaries that the Union got them, which could have only be gotten through solidarity in collective bargaining.

Again, this isn't where the main ire I have lies, if people are too stupid to realize this is nothing but a "divide and conquer" strategy, they deserve what they get. God don't save stupid.
 
Last edited:
Your counter is still a failure, for a 3rd time....because you have, as always, forgotten what the point was that you were supposed to counter:



Respond with a comment that counters the point, stop C&P'ing NON SEQUITURS.



Yet you couldn't notice that Oregon's exchange wasn't set up by Republicans......like you stated. Nor even how it played out. So you were wrong on that point. The usual.
 
Because, after last Tuesday, I have had it with conservatives curb stomping everything I stand for.

I am confronting the issue now.
An alternative is to take a second look at what you've been standing for. Maybe an adjustment in your philosophy can be made. It happens to most people.
 
My god this is fu**ing mind numbing. Voter turnout was historically low. Not just generally low across the board, but there were relatively fewer Democrats actually voting. This isn't a case of "Americans waking up." There is no indicator that Republicans actually pulled a significant number of Dems or independents. Americans were even more asleep than usual for a mid term election. Don't let your skirts get blown too far up your backside. It was a wave election. Obama is not running in 2016. This wasn't about Democrats or Liberals. It was about Obama. Even Republicans didn't really care that much about this election. You can expect a higher percentage of Democrats to get out and vote in the general election, that is something you can count on. What that means is that Republicans are going to have to shine like diamonds for the next 24 months or they will likely see their gains dissipate. You can bet the Dems will be mobilizing in 2016.

Stop ignoring election trends and come back to reality.


Heya Lerxst :2wave: Good seeing you return.

But check this out and note why its History was in the Making. ;)


http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...-take-lead-obama-w-32-a-6.html#post1063971989
 
37% and yet almost every Republican campaigned on Repeal of BO care.....yet each won running on that Platform. While the Democrats ran away from the so called Leader's Signature legislation.....even had Manchin and some looking to dial it down on their own. Imagine that.

Now round 2 of BO's enrollment is up and a whole lot more people have lost coverage.

Moreover now with a BO Bot Architect and the admitting that BO and Team tricked the CBO.....intentionally. Tricked the American People, and Lied to the SCOTUS. Just how do you think BO's Team will be looked upon in the Highest Court in the Land?

Funny. Most of the attack ads I've seen were regarding ISIS and EBOLA. But I will agree with you on one thing. Democratic senators ran away like the b**ches they are.

Hey that was a winning strategy :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom