• 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?

Ikari said:
Well I try to stay away from absolutes, because one never really knows until a situation is reached. But if you ask the base question as to whether or not government could be used as an aggregate system to provide healthcare and in doing so can provides greater access for less money; the answer is yes. In fact, this is one of the things government does well, much better than private industry. It can aggregate large systems and it can do so on long time scales. So it is indeed possible to gain greater access to healthcare while paying less overall by using government. And if we set a system up like that, then I would pay attention to it and the details. An intelligent system would be one that did exactly this. It's set up for the People, it serves the People well, it functions properly (not like our VA hospitals), it saves us money and allows us to heal our citizens on reasonable time scales. This is possible to do with government, but it's not easy and it will take work to maintain (much like the Republic in general).

But since the answer is yes, I remain open to the possibilities. It would be great to pay less and have more access to healthcare.
Click to expand...
Couple of things..

How do you square that with libertarianism, and is it ok to lie to get to the ends?
 
j-mac said:
Couple of things..

How do you square that with libertarianism, and is it ok to lie to get to the ends?
Click to expand...

Left libertarianism isn't against social programs. There's no such thing as a free lunch, everything has to be paid for. When you use government to achieve a goal, we pay taxes to do so. But you can still respect the rights of the individual and focus on the maximization of the individual's freedom even in a system with social programs. Furthermore, as society becomes more and more complex, you're likely going to need these programs and some amount of government aggregation to ensure open participation and functionality of the system on whole.

Libertarianism isn't necessarily anarchism.
 
Conservative said:
ACA is a liberal policy and that is a problem.
Click to expand...

And here we have it folks--the underlying stupidity of the right unveiled. As is apparent from the above post, conservatives genuinely believe that their GOP pols whom they elected actually oppose Obamacare simply because they say they do, completely ignorant of the fact that these same pols get millions from the same insurers who profit handsomely from it.

Anyone have a theory as to what causes the right's "thinking" (or lack thereof)--their inability to differentiate between GOP rhetoric and their actual motives? ?
 
Conservative said:
ACA is a liberal policy and that is a problem. Bailing out the Unions are liberal policies and those are a problem, Wealth redistribution and class warfare are liberal policies and those are problems. Obama's results are a disaster as are all Progressive policies because they destroy individual incentive
Click to expand...

The idea that conservatives don't engage in "class warfare" (which isn't a "policy") is preposterous.
 
Ikari said:
Left libertarianism isn't against social programs. There's no such thing as a free lunch, everything has to be paid for. When you use government to achieve a goal, we pay taxes to do so. But you can still respect the rights of the individual and focus on the maximization of the individual's freedom even in a system with social programs. Furthermore, as society becomes more and more complex, you're likely going to need these programs and some amount of government aggregation to ensure open participation and functionality of the system on whole.

Libertarianism isn't necessarily anarchism.
Click to expand...
Personally, I think smashing ideologies into a thousand different titles is subterfuge at its core. But, with that said, I believe that the less of my life the Government dictates, and the less of my labor they confiscate to do so the better.

I believe that is closer aligned with libertarianism than advocating that we have to have control over people to be free. I too pay taxes, but those taxes should allow me a say no?
 
solletica said:
And here we have it folks--the underlying stupidity of the right unveiled. As is apparent from the above post, conservatives genuinely believe that their GOP pols whom they elected actually oppose Obamacare simply because they say they do, completely ignorant of the fact that these same pols get millions from the same insurers who profit handsomely from it.

Anyone have a theory as to what causes the right's "thinking" (or lack thereof)--their inability to differentiate between GOP rhetoric and their actual motives? ?
Click to expand...
You appear to be confusing the GOP with Conservativeism. All Conservatives can do is hope to influence the Republican Party, just as the far left influenced the Democrats.
 
j-mac said:
Personally, I think smashing ideologies into a thousand different titles is subterfuge at its core. But, with that said, I believe that the less of my life the Government dictates, and the less of my labor they confiscate to do so the better.

I believe that is closer aligned with libertarianism than advocating that we have to have control over people to be free. I too pay taxes, but those taxes should allow me a say no?
Click to expand...

It's not subterfuge as much as it is political philosophy that is much discussed. Libertarian philosophy has wide application and can span the realm from anarchism to socialism. Even in left-libertarianism, the focus is to limit government force against our free exercise of rights. Does that mean no taxes? Of course not. Does that mean the government cannot work towards general welfare? Of course not. In fact, general welfare is one of the main reasons why we have government in the first place. As pricing becomes outrageous, healthcare access becomes limited more and more to the rich. But it serves society better, and in fact costs us less overall, if we can aggregate that over the entire populace. And then there's the whole morality issue too which can accompany the system if one is so inclined.

A true Universal Healthcare system isn't advocating control over the people, it's in fact the opposite. It opens the system up for everyone to use while costing us less money in the end. I'm not 100% sure why folk would be against paying less and getting more.
 
Conservative said:
Love how liberals believe they know what a living wage is for everyone else and how liberals always buy the rhetoric from others who don't have a clue as well. Let's face it, Gruber nailed it
Click to expand...

LOL!

The term "living wage" was the invention of a far left socialist leader in Canada in the 70's. What we have seen in the so-called application is that that means you have to become a union member.

The rest is ornaments on a bare Christmas tree, where "supplemental programs", "higher minimum wage" and "training programs" become vote buying gimmicks hurled out in advance of election campaigns which are deliberately designed to affect leftist supporters by a six to one margin. We have lived with this since he 1930's, neither their tactics nor their ideas change, only the names to disguise previous failures.

"Living wage" is what they say it is, and no matter how high you raise the official poverty line, it will never be enough, especially during elections.

And all the while, those elected and their hangers on drive Mercedes and live in ocean view homes, with apparently very "livable wages" from generous taxpayers.
 
solletica said:
Libertarians are already awake. Right-wingers still need their pacifier--

"Prolife, nuke the arabs, deport the spics, kill all the fags, GUNS GUNS GUNS HELL YEAH!"
Click to expand...

Wow, stereotype much? Why don't you stereotype liberals and Democrats? I assure you that sentence doesn't describe how I feel but doubt anything is going to change your mind. I am for a limited central govt. where personal responsibility is left to the person and the states/local communities as well as charities. I don't trust a bureaucrat in D.C. vs a bureaucrat that lives in my neighborhood who I can see whenever I want and someone who has to look me in the eye for policies he has helped pass.

Our founders put power closer to the people not in a massive central govt. This massive central govt. has brainwashed a lot of people yet those people never ask why have so many become dependent on that govt? Why do we have so many being funded by the taxpayers especially for personal responsibility issues. I have yet to get an answer to that question? Seems that far too many think with their hearts and not their brain. Name for me ONE Federal Social program that cost what it was supposed to cost, did what it was supposed to do, solved a problem and went away? JUST ONE!!
 
solletica said:
And here we have it folks--the underlying stupidity of the right unveiled. As is apparent from the above post, conservatives genuinely believe that their GOP pols whom they elected actually oppose Obamacare simply because they say they do, completely ignorant of the fact that these same pols get millions from the same insurers who profit handsomely from it.

Anyone have a theory as to what causes the right's "thinking" (or lack thereof)--their inability to differentiate between GOP rhetoric and their actual motives? ?
Click to expand...

And there we have it, another ignorant view of being conservative, another liberal who believes the Federal Govt. is the answer, another liberal who believes personal social problems can be solved by the Federal Govt. Another liberal who thinks with their heart instead of their brain.
 
Kobie said:
The idea that conservatives don't engage in "class warfare" (which isn't a "policy") is preposterous.
Click to expand...

You think a conservative gives a damn how much money you have or how you spend it? You think any conservative would vote for redistribution of wealth? Not sure your definition of class warfare but bet it differs from mine for I know of no conservative that promotes talking from someone else to give to another person. Most that I know support free will and the consequences of making poor choices.
 
solletica said:
And here we have it folks--the underlying stupidity of the right unveiled. As is apparent from the above post, conservatives genuinely believe that their GOP pols whom they elected actually oppose Obamacare simply because they say they do, completely ignorant of the fact that these same pols get millions from the same insurers who profit handsomely from it.

Anyone have a theory as to what causes the right's "thinking" (or lack thereof)--their inability to differentiate between GOP rhetoric and their actual motives? ?
Click to expand...

With all due respect I doubt you could be more wrong.

If any group in the US has been more aware of Obamacare and its ramifications they have disappeared from the face of the earth. Fact, Ted Cruz predicted at least 20 million people would lose their plans and was either "stupid" or "lying" according to Democrats.

And despite the convoluted syntax, no one can say without being dishonest what conservatives can believe anything in such sweeping and idiotic posturing. How can anyone make a stupid claim as to infer that recently elected "pols" are the same hypocrites as Obama and co.? If they campaigned against it it usually means they against it unlike every one of Obama's claims.

And just how do your square that with the Dems meme that Obamacare was NOT an issue?

I would suggest that you might want to engage the grey matter on where the Democrats stand today, what relevance they have to the American voter, if any, instead of hammering on steel with insults about the victors in the last election.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
You think a conservative gives a damn how much money you have or how you spend it? You think any conservative would vote for redistribution of wealth? Not sure your definition of class warfare but bet it differs from mine for I know of no conservative that promotes talking from someone else to give to another person. Most that I know support free will and the consequences of making poor choices.
Click to expand...

Apparently, your definition of "class warfare" simply means "taxing the rich."
 
Kobie said:
Apparently, your definition of "class warfare" simply means "taxing the rich."
Click to expand...

My definition of class warfare is taking from the rich to give to the poor and demonizing those rich people. If a rich person WANTS to give to the poor, great and that is what happens when people get to keep more of what they earn. You don't seem to understand the concept
 
Conservative said:
My definition of class warfare is taking from the rich to give to the poor and demonizing those rich people. If a rich person WANTS to give to the poor, great and that is what happens when people get to keep more of what they earn. You don't seem to understand the concept
Click to expand...

So the demonization of the poor, that's not "class warfare." Okay.
 
Kobie said:
So the demonization of the poor, that's not "class warfare." Okay.
Click to expand...

Who demonizes the poor? Liberals who want to use them for props to retain and grow power. People like you love to spend money in the name of compassion. Do you believe it is compassionate to create dependence?
 
Conservative said:
Who demonizes the poor? Liberals who want to use them for props to retain and grow power. People like you love to spend money in the name of compassion. Do you believe it is compassionate to create dependence?
Click to expand...

:lamo

You're too much sometimes.
 
Conservative said:
Who demonizes the poor? Liberals who want to use them for props to retain and grow power. People like you love to spend money in the name of compassion. Do you believe it is compassionate to create dependence?
Click to expand...

I have to agree with this. There is no more demonization of the poor than those who think they are too stupid or too incompetent to make it on their own without government help. There is no more demonization of the poor who think the poor can be made more rich by making others less rich. There is no more demonization of the poor than those who think big government is the answer to all of societies ills and who give no credit for those who would improve their lot in life on their own given incentive and opportunity to do so.
 
Kobie said:
So the demonization of the poor, that's not "class warfare." Okay.
Click to expand...
No one is 'demonizing the poor'!

It is leftists who have said "Eat The Rich", etc, while there has never been anything like that said of the poor.

Of course they wouldn't have much meat on them anyway.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I have to agree with this. There is no more demonization of the poor than those who think they are too stupid or too incompetent to make it on their own without government help. There is no more demonization of the poor who think the poor can be made more rich by making others less rich. There is no more demonization of the poor than those who think big government is the answer to all of societies ills and who give no credit for those who would improve their lot in life on their own given incentive and opportunity to do so.
Click to expand...

We saw that happen in the '90's when Clinton, with a push from Gingrich, applied more stringent welfare rules and many of these people went back to work.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I have to agree with this. There is no more demonization of the poor than those who think they are too stupid or too incompetent to make it on their own without government help. There is no more demonization of the poor who think the poor can be made more rich by making others less rich. There is no more demonization of the poor than those who think big government is the answer to all of societies ills and who give no credit for those who would improve their lot in life on their own given incentive and opportunity to do so.
Click to expand...

The Republocrats in general use the poor to form their political propaganda bitchfest. It's one of the topics they use to try to pretend there's a difference, when functionally they'll just do the same thing anyway. Both the R and the D love government dependence, it's good for their power.
 
Grant said:
We saw that happen in the '90's when Clinton, with a push from Gingrich, applied more stringent welfare rules and many of these people went back to work.
Click to expand...

It has been true of people throughout history. My sig line is excerpted from Ben Franklin's essay:

. . .I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. . . .--Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766​
 
Ikari said:
The Republocrats in general use the poor to form their political propaganda bitchfest. It's one of the topics they use to try to pretend there's a difference, when functionally they'll just do the same thing anyway. Both the R and the D love government dependence, it's good for their power.
Click to expand...

It is true that permanent political class in Washington is pretty much cut from one piece of cloth and both Republican and Democrats share common motives of increasing their personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth. The difference is that the Democrats represent a group of people who seem to WANT bondage in return for cradle to grave security, however ineptly or destructively it is delivered. The Republican represent those of us who believe that government that does only what it constitutionally must do and then leaves the people alone to live their lives is the best government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom