• 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?

Lerxst said:
It's not ignoring it. The local (municipal and county) and state elections are carried out by the exact same people electing US Senators and Reps. Do you not understand that? If you go to the polls you vote local, state, and US all at the same time. So how does this change the nature of the voter turn out? Sour grapes? Hardly. It's not the end of the world nor is it the beginning of a new one. You folks that play in this "Us against Them" game of American politics can have your victory parties and gloat, or wallow in despair. I don't care. It will swing back eventually. Either way I can't care. Nothing is going to change in two years.
Click to expand...


What I do UNDERSTAND is the distinction between a trend and one time occurrence.

The GOP has been gaining seats for some time now.

And you may be right, given enough time we DID go from Reagan to Obama.

I think the difference is the lefts ideology isn't just failing here in the US, its failing all over the world.

The more the World shifts towards Liberalism, Socialism and Progressivism the worse things become.
 
Perotista said:
For the die hards of both parties the debate goes, Is too, Is not, Is too, Is not. Yeah. Integrity, honesty, common virtues have been replaced by the attitude of I am the elite and I know what is best for you. You are too dumb to figure what is good and bad for you by yourself.
Click to expand...

Well, they do rely on the "low information voter" to get anywhere. That suggests they automatically think the voter is stupid, and until last Tuesday they had a very valid argument.
 
Perotista said:
Yeah. Integrity, honesty, common virtues have been replaced by the attitude of I am the elite and I know what is best for you. You are too dumb to figure what is good and bad for you by yourself.
Click to expand...
That is the essence of Liberalism.
 
Conservative said:
Union bosses that generate not one red penny to the profit of a company certainly are doing well. Why isn't that discussed

Union bosses' salaries put 'big' in Big Labor - Washington Times
Click to expand...

OK, since people seemed to have missed it

Let me preface my next response by saying I am an advocate for union reformation.
Click to expand...

But, let me ask you this one simple, easily recognizable question which "your side" (since that is the direction this conversation is taking) loves to put out there -- What do you care how much someone else makes? That's the question always posed when people kvetch about executive salaries. Why do you care? What business is it of yours? Please don't insult everyone here by saying you're merely bleeding your little heart out for the poor, helpless, hapless worker who's a victim of organized labor. What you're doing is demonizing the opposition. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Last edited:
ChezC3 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have no animus towards unions in general and agree they've benefited workers through collective bargaining - but employee relations, discipline and negotiations is all they should be collectively involved in, particularly with the use of union dues. If unions have $100s of millions of dollars to give to Democrat candidates, then they have $100s of millions of dollars they should return to hard working union members and lower union dues.

Unions are not the same as corporations, unless you're talking about public corporations. Private entities are different. I'd be more inclined to let both sides participate in the political process if their participation was shared based on the wishes of those they represent. At least on the side of corporations, they donate funds to both parties and candidates in both parties, although at different levels depending on the issues and the candidates. I don't know a single union that donates anything to Republican candidates or the party. Perhaps you do.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I have no animus towards unions in general and agree they've benefited workers through collective bargaining - but employee relations, discipline and negotiations is all they should be collectively involved in, particularly with the use of union dues. If unions have $100s of millions of dollars to give to Democrat candidates, then they have $100s of millions of dollars they should return to hard working union members and lower union dues.

Unions are not the same as corporations, unless you're talking about public corporations. Private entities are different. I'd be more inclined to let both sides participate in the political process if their participation was shared based on the wishes of those they represent. At least on the side of corporations, they donate funds to both parties and candidates in both parties, although at different levels depending on the issues and the candidates. I don't know a single union that donates anything to Republican candidates or the party. Perhaps you do.
Click to expand...

So you'd exclude Labor from lobbying?

I am speaking of publicly traded corps. I agree that union/stockholder membership should have more of a say, that would be part of the reformation I was speaking of.

Federal unions pushing mostly Democratic candidates, but also some Republicans - The Washington Post

Now, I don't believe that the Democratic Party is a friend of Labor. They're a mix of the New Left and Corporate Dems. The New Left doesn't focus too much on these issues, while corporate dems all too often only provide lip service to them.
 
MMC said:
Heya Pero. It appears Howard Dean has had enough.




Liberal Civil War Continues: Howard Dean Calls Obamacare Architects Elitist......
pillowfight.gif



Within 24 hours of the 2014 midterm election results pouring in, handing the Senate over to Republicans, outgoing Majority Leader Harry Reid unleashed his chief-of-staff to the Washington Post where he slammed the Obama White House for the Democrat bloodbath.

The problem is not that he said it. The problem is that he thinks it. The core problem under the damn law is it was put together by a bunch of elitists two don’t fundamentally understand the American people. That’s what the problem is," Dean said in response to Gruber's comments on MSNBC's Morning Joe.

It should be noted that when Dean talks about Gruber not "fundamentally understanding Americans," he's referring to those in his far-left base who want single-payer healthcare. Regardless, the civil war and the sniping within the Democrat party continues.....snip~

Liberal Civil War Continues: Howard Dean Calls Obamacare Architects Elitist - Katie Pavlich


Michael-Jackson-Popcorn.gif
Click to expand...

The ACA has been an albatross around the Democrats neck which lead directly to the 2010 loss of the house and the 2014 loss of the senate. Among other things of course. It is true Obama won in 2012 but he won against a candidate who had Romneycare in his background and was afraid to bring Obamacare up as the Democrats had a very good response for it if he did.

Yes, the Democrats have been trying to get socialized medicine or government run health care through for a very long time. But what the Democrats did with the ACA is give us socialized health insurance. The fact we are still talking about this 5 years after it was passed and the majority of Americans still oppose it, that should tell the Democrats something. But they continue to ignore the people.

Do I want those without healthcare to have it, of course I do. But I don't want the ACA as it does not accomplish that.

With medicare JFK started the debate and started congress working on it shortly after he was inaugurated. That debate continued for 5 years before any legislation was proposed and passed. Back then the Democrats made sure they had the people on their side along with quite a lot of Republicans. In 1964 a full year before medicare was passed the polls were showing 61% for, 31% against. Now compare the two:

Medicare votes in Congress – Over 60% of the American Public was in favor of Medicare before it was introduced to congress.
House – Democrats 237 AYE 48 NAY – Republicans 70 AYE 68 NAY
Senate – Democrats 57 AYE 7 NAY – Republicans 13 AYE 17 NAY

Obamacare votes in Congress – Only 35% of the American Public was in favor of Obamacare and 58% against it before it was introduced to congress.
House – Democrats 220 AYE 36 NAY – Republicans 0 AYE 179 NAY
Senate – Democrats 60 AYE 0 NAY – Republicans 0 AYE 39 NAY

Is it no wonder the ACA or Obamacare continues to haunt the Democrats. Right, wrong or indifferent, the Democrats own health care and as long as over half of all Americans are opposed to it, it will continue to haunt them into the far future.
 
Fenton said:
What I do UNDERSTAND is the distinction between a trend and one time occurrence.

The GOP has been gaining seats for some time now.

And you may be right, given enough time we DID go from Reagan to Obama.

I think the difference is the lefts ideology isn't just failing here in the US, its failing all over the world.

The more the World shifts towards Liberalism, Socialism and Progressivism the worse things become.
Click to expand...

Explain to me how the ideology is actually failing here? Versus say just the Fox News presentation that it is. Hell, everybody is still saying Obama is hated but he has like a 42% job approval rating. Is it possible for us strip away the hyper partisan political rhetoric that infects our electoral process and get a clear picture on where this nations actually stands on conservatism vs liberalism? Because if the general election starts pushing back the other way, like it did in 2008, your argument here is busted. What I think we are seeing is a very well planned out and financed media campaign and a very lazy American voting populace. Neither side REALLY took these midterms too seriously. The record low also applied to Republicans. I am just banking on the gullibility of the American public to prove the same point it always does. They can be bought via the idiot box and talk radio. The Democrats will obstruct just like the Republicans did. The Republicans will appear ineffective. There will be a huge amount of money poured into the propaganda machines, and this thing will play out again like it always does. I just don't see these midterms as indicating anything historical or game changing.
 
ChezC3 said:
OK, since people seemed to have missed it



But, let me ask you this one simple, easily recognizable question which "your side" (since that is the direction this conversation is taking) loves to put out there -- What do you care how much someone else makes? That's the question always posed when people kvetch about executive salaries. Why do you care? What business is it of yours? Please don't insult everyone here by saying you're merely bleeding your little heart out for the poor, helpless, hapless worker who's a victim of organized labor. What you're doing is demonizing the opposition. Nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...

I don't care what someone else makes only extortion to generate the money much of which goes to the union bosses that do absolutely nothing to grow the business.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Well, they do rely on the "low information voter" to get anywhere. That suggests they automatically think the voter is stupid, and until last Tuesday they had a very valid argument.
Click to expand...

I disagree with that. Most voters know what they want, but if they get what is/was promised is another thing. Sure we have approximate 50% of the electorate who base their vote only on the R and the D. Well, perhaps you are right. If that is all you base your vote on, that is low information among other things.
 
Conservative said:
I don't care what someone else makes only extortion to generate the money much of which goes to the union bosses that do absolutely nothing to grow the business.
Click to expand...

So exactly like I said. Got it!:thumbs:
 
Grant said:
That is the essence of Liberalism.
Click to expand...

I heard something the other day that gave me a chuckle. It went something like this, "Liberals pass a law hoping you don't understand it and Conservatives pass a law hoping you do understand it." It probably wasn't in those exact words, but that does get the feeling across. Much like Churchill's, "If you are not a Liberal when you are young, you have no heart. If you are not a Conservative when you are old, you have no brain."

But Liberal and Conservative has lost a lot of their original meaning over the years. When I think of those two ideologies, I think in terms of Classic Liberalism and Traditional Conservatism. They are not what we have today.
 
Lerxst said:
Explain to me how the ideology is actually failing here? Versus say just the Fox News presentation that it is. Hell, everybody is still saying Obama is hated but he has like a 42% job approval rating. Is it possible for us strip away the hyper partisan political rhetoric that infects our electoral process and get a clear picture on where this nations actually stands on conservatism vs liberalism? Because if the general election starts pushing back the other way, like it did in 2008, your argument here is busted. What I think we are seeing is a very well planned out and financed media campaign and a very lazy American voting populace. Neither side REALLY took these midterms too seriously. The record low also applied to Republicans. I am just banking on the gullibility of the American public to prove the same point it always does. They can be bought via the idiot box and talk radio. The Democrats will obstruct just like the Republicans did. The Republicans will appear ineffective. There will be a huge amount of money poured into the propaganda machines, and this thing will play out again like it always does. I just don't see these midterms as indicating anything historical or game changing.
Click to expand...

There is a distinction in ideologies.

Its probably easier to see on a State level. The effects of Conservative economic principles based on Supply side economics can be judge by looking at a State like Texas.

The effects of the Liberal ideology of more spending, growing the Public Sector and increased taxes can be judged by looking at a state like California.

Both are border states with comparable populations but with two distinct economic outcomes.

Texas's economy is growing, offering jobs for millions of people who've picked up everything they own and moved from States like California.

California currently has the Nations highest poverty rates and the highest total debt of any State in the Nation.

They also have unfunded pension liabilities in excess of 500 Billion dollars

These distinctions aren't lost on the average voter. People aren't as stupid as the Democrats would like to believe and notice when something doesn't work.
 
Conservative said:
LOL, why are you so jealous of TX? BLS gives a different story, Economic results paint a different picture, Census does the same as well but you post an op ed piece because that is what you want to believe. Must be frustrating today to be a liberal in a growing conservative environment.
Click to expand...

I'm not jealous? I'm merely pointing out facts to you. :lamo:lamo:lamo
 
Perotista said:
The ACA has been an albatross around the Democrats neck which lead directly to the 2010 loss of the house and the 2014 loss of the senate. Among other things of course. It is true Obama won in 2012 but he won against a candidate who had Romneycare in his background and was afraid to bring Obamacare up as the Democrats had a very good response for it if he did.

Yes, the Democrats have been trying to get socialized medicine or government run health care through for a very long time. But what the Democrats did with the ACA is give us socialized health insurance. The fact we are still talking about this 5 years after it was passed and the majority of Americans still oppose it, that should tell the Democrats something. But they continue to ignore the people.

Do I want those without healthcare to have it, of course I do. But I don't want the ACA as it does not accomplish that.

With medicare JFK started the debate and started congress working on it shortly after he was inaugurated. That debate continued for 5 years before any legislation was proposed and passed. Back then the Democrats made sure they had the people on their side along with quite a lot of Republicans. In 1964 a full year before medicare was passed the polls were showing 61% for, 31% against. Now compare the two:

Medicare votes in Congress – Over 60% of the American Public was in favor of Medicare before it was introduced to congress.
House – Democrats 237 AYE 48 NAY – Republicans 70 AYE 68 NAY
Senate – Democrats 57 AYE 7 NAY – Republicans 13 AYE 17 NAY

Obamacare votes in Congress – Only 35% of the American Public was in favor of Obamacare and 58% against it before it was introduced to congress.
House – Democrats 220 AYE 36 NAY – Republicans 0 AYE 179 NAY
Senate – Democrats 60 AYE 0 NAY – Republicans 0 AYE 39 NAY

Is it no wonder the ACA or Obamacare continues to haunt the Democrats. Right, wrong or indifferent, the Democrats own health care and as long as over half of all Americans are opposed to it, it will continue to haunt them into the far future.
Click to expand...

As more of the lies of the ACA come out, and as peoples new and higher rates come in the mail I doubt its popularity will rise. I think it will eventually crumble, either through SCOTUS or from a repeal of the mandate.
 
ChezC3 said:
So you'd exclude Labor from lobbying?

I am speaking of publicly traded corps. I agree that union/stockholder membership should have more of a say, that would be part of the reformation I was speaking of.

Federal unions pushing mostly Democratic candidates, but also some Republicans - The Washington Post

Now, I don't believe that the Democratic Party is a friend of Labor. They're a mix of the New Left and Corporate Dems. The New Left doesn't focus too much on these issues, while corporate dems all too often only provide lip service to them.
Click to expand...

No, I would not exclude labour from lobbying, on matters related to the employment of those union members they support. I don't know about the US, but here in Canada we have labour unions lobbying on Palestine, the Middle East, Keystone pipeline, climate control, etc. and all entirely unrelated to any employee they represent.

I promise you, if unions concentrated on the purpose for which they were created, they'd have far more support from the general public than they do now.
 
Perotista said:
I disagree with that. Most voters know what they want, but if they get what is/was promised is another thing. Sure we have approximate 50% of the electorate who base their vote only on the R and the D. Well, perhaps you are right. If that is all you base your vote on, that is low information among other things.
Click to expand...
Most people have lives away from politics and they rely largely on perceptions. They may be low infos politically but that doesn't mean, as Gruber said, that they are stupid. They are just smart in other areas which have greater interest for them.

Demcrats have been very good at developing perceptions, that the Republicans are racist, anti women, etc. and when its said often enough these people buy into it. As well the MSM plays along with it.

I have a feeling these 'stupid' voters will respond if the message from their leaders is repeated often enough. They just need to be made aware of the lack of respect Obama and his advisers have for them.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I promise you, if unions concentrated on the purpose for which they were created, they'd have far more support from the general public than they do now.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.

Like I said, I'm looking for a reformation not abolition.
 
Grant said:
Most people have lives away from politics and they rely largely on perceptions. They may be low infos politically but that doesn't mean, as Gruber said, that they are stupid. They are just smart in other areas which have greater interest for them.

Demcrats have been very good at developing perceptions, that the Republicans are racist, anti women, etc. and when its said often enough these people buy into it. As well the MSM plays along with it.

I have a feeling these 'stupid' voters will respond if the message from their leaders is repeated often enough. They just need to be made aware of the lack of respect Obama and his advisers have for them.
Click to expand...

I would agree with you. It brings to mind, for me, Romney's comment about the 47% never voting for him and the firestorm that caused in the media and political talk circles. For me, the comment about not being transparent because the average American voter is stupid is far more damaging and disrespectful, but it depends on your perspective, and as you say perceptions.
 
US Conservative said:
As more of the lies of the ACA come out, and as peoples new and higher rates come in the mail I doubt its popularity will rise. I think it will eventually crumble, either through SCOTUS or from a repeal of the mandate.
Click to expand...

I don't know. The one thing I know is it is not going anywhere as long as Obama is president. Now depending on how the SCOTUS rules on the subsidies, that could change things. But the more time passes, the more the ACA becomes ingrained in our healthcare system. A blanket repeal won't work now, there is no going back to the old system.

We are stuck with socialized health insurance. Notice I didn't say socialized health care. I just can't understand why the Democrats didn't listen to the people?
 
Perotista said:
I don't know. The one thing I know is it is not going anywhere as long as Obama is president. Now depending on how the SCOTUS rules on the subsidies, that could change things. But the more time passes, the more the ACA becomes ingrained in our healthcare system. A blanket repeal won't work now, there is no going back to the old system.

We are stuck with socialized health insurance. Notice I didn't say socialized health care. I just can't understand why the Democrats didn't listen to the people?
Click to expand...

The dems dont care about "the people", they care about their agenda and are more than willing to lie to achieve that. I think measures to gut the ACA are still very much doable, this isn't as entrenched as say social security (which I also oppose).
 
CanadaJohn said:
I would agree with you. It brings to mind, for me, Romney's comment about the 47% never voting for him and the firestorm that caused in the media and political talk circles. For me, the comment about not being transparent because the average American voter is stupid is far more damaging and disrespectful, but it depends on your perspective, and as you say perceptions.
Click to expand...
That it did become "a firestorm" is where political skills and a compliant media came in. Romney didn't say anything that wasn't true (unlike Obama), it is that it made him appear indifferent to the plight of the lower middle classes, or at least they were able to skew it that way.

The public had already warmed up to this perception through Bain Capital, the 'out of touch rich guy', etc.. Once that idea had been planted it was just a matter of waiting for the right opportunity, and the 47% remark was it. Of course none of this had anything to do with whether or not he would be a good President.
 
Perotista said:
I don't know. The one thing I know is it is not going anywhere as long as Obama is president. Now depending on how the SCOTUS rules on the subsidies, that could change things. But the more time passes, the more the ACA becomes ingrained in our healthcare system. A blanket repeal won't work now, there is no going back to the old system.

We are stuck with socialized health insurance. Notice I didn't say socialized health care. I just can't understand why the Democrats didn't listen to the people?
Click to expand...

I'd expect Obama to veto anything from congress as long as he's in power, but what can he do against SCOTUS?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom