• 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?

There's a place for the states, and often it makes sense to use federalism because it works better. However, it should also be explained that some founders like Hamilton thought there shouldn't be any states except to be completely subservient to the national government. It mostly became a necessity to placate the Southerners.

Yep, until it no longer did then they were forced to accept the will of the rest - leaving (seceding?) was never an option.
 
If you think I for one second care what the president does behind close doors sexually, you're insane. Infidelity is not the most becoming of traits, but it's not the worst either.

And... get away with what? Benghazigate? Who gives a ****?
You think the Clinton impeachment was about sex and not committing perjury to a Grand Jury? Jonathan Gruber had you lot pegged!
 
If you think I for one second care what the president does behind close doors sexually, you're insane. Infidelity is not the most becoming of traits, but it's not the worst either.

Whether you care or not is irrelevant... I simply asked you if Obama gets away with rewriting federal law without being held legally responsible, does that mean in your estimation he did nothing wrong?

Or put another way, do you assess right & wrong, and judge the morality of a persons actions from a legal perspective?
 
Well considering medicine was in its infancy at that point, I am not sure what the hell you are talking about. Please, tell me what the founding fathers had to say about HMOs? Preexisting conditions? Birth control?

Are you being serious right now? Am I talking to an actual human being?

Yep and poverty was in its infancy at that point as well so "welfare" got left out. ;)
 
Yep, until it no longer did then they were forced to accept the will of the rest - leaving (seceding?) was never an option.

Yeah, we had to deal with the traitors.
 
Left alone Jonathan Gruber would have disappeared after a while but what makes this story interesting, and a lot of fun, are the people who now never heard of him, defend hm, claim it was someone else's fault, and so on.

I've followed Leftist politics for quite a while now and they always claim to know what's best for 'the masses', despite their infamous screw-ups over the years. I've no doubt that Gruber is representative of Left Wing leaders and that his fellow travelers believe themselves to be remarkably sophisticated about economics, human needs and understand intuitively and definitely what other people need and want in their lives.

'The masses' are always other people, "and we can all understand why it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations". The masses have to be told what's good for them.

You are correct, in my assessment, that Gruber is likely representative of the upper echelon, the so called "brains" of the party, as if they have one.

That would fit with the arrogance of trying to dictate, often by law, what they say is good for you while exhibiting gross ignorance to the degree of two years of unemployment instead of training and upgrade programs. Even in failure, they justify the lies and deceit with "but, people were helped. Yes they were, the 'shovel ready' thing helped a few hundred community organizers who simply had to hold so many meetings that the entire budget they scammed was used up without a dime going to a needy worker.

I live in Canada, socialists have been legal here for a long, long time. They are no more progressive than a gold fish can teach physics, their core ideas, like a higher minimum wage, are about 100 years old. In a day and age when we have more women Premiers than men, one of whom ios an out-of-the-closet lesbian, the cries for 'women's rights' is like driving an Edsel.

Obama's cling to Bibles and guns was what is called "image reinforcement", reminding his supporters that their common "enemies" are all evangelical, Bible moralists toting guns for the purpose of killing black people. That, I expected, what rocked me was "he could have been my son"....the first ever president to break the convention of never commenting on the finding of a jury of one's peers. That showed his true colors and how his socialist/populist ideas play to the fears of his constituents. The bad Republican racists will be coming for you if I am not around to protect you.

The guy is a master at imagery and manipulating emotions to his benefit, but entirely absent of any true compassion for others
 
You are correct, in my assessment, that Gruber is likely representative of the upper echelon, the so called "brains" of the party, as if they have one.

That would fit with the arrogance of trying to dictate, often by law, what they say is good for you while exhibiting gross ignorance to the degree of two years of unemployment instead of training and upgrade programs. Even in failure, they justify the lies and deceit with "but, people were helped. Yes they were, the 'shovel ready' thing helped a few hundred community organizers who simply had to hold so many meetings that the entire budget they scammed was used up without a dime going to a needy worker.

I live in Canada, socialists have been legal here for a long, long time. They are no more progressive than a gold fish can teach physics, their core ideas, like a higher minimum wage, are about 100 years old. In a day and age when we have more women Premiers than men, one of whom ios an out-of-the-closet lesbian, the cries for 'women's rights' is like driving an Edsel.

Obama's cling to Bibles and guns was what is called "image reinforcement", reminding his supporters that their common "enemies" are all evangelical, Bible moralists toting guns for the purpose of killing black people. That, I expected, what rocked me was "he could have been my son"....the first ever president to break the convention of never commenting on the finding of a jury of one's peers. That showed his true colors and how his socialist/populist ideas play to the fears of his constituents. The bad Republican racists will be coming for you if I am not around to protect you.

The guy is a master at imagery and manipulating emotions to his benefit, but entirely absent of any true compassion for others

That goes way back to the "beer summit" where Obama stated the cop acted stupidly, and then admitted he didn't know the facts of the incident.
beer1__1249002544_6971.jpg
 
Well considering medicine was in its infancy at that point

wait....

Um. You do know that this is insanely, wildly, hilariously incorrect?

I am not sure what the hell you are talking about.

The Founders wanted an extremely limited federal government because of the awesome power it would wield in the areas it was assigned. If there is a single word that perhaps best describes the Founders approach towards government power, that word is "paranoia". The Founders purposely did not give the Federal Government control over any particular private industry (such as healthcare), and would have been rather aghast at the suggestion that we should do so.
 
History is laughing at you. People like you go so far to call him a tyrant, and yet:

1) He's done nothing illegal
2) The economy has steadily grown since he's been in office (albeit it started about as low as it could get)
3) He killed Osama bin Laden
4) He's been insanely aggressive against terrorism
5) He hasn't raised taxes

Yes, you didn't get everything you want out of the executive branch for the past 6 years, but to freak out like he's Stalin, that's insane. Most things he would have wanted to do, he couldn't do because of the obstructionist Congress. So relax and grow up, buddy.

1) He violated oath of office.

2) We have the lowest labor participation rate in 36 years.

3) The hunt for UBL was going on when he got the job. There's not a damn thing he brought to the table.

4) um...:lamo

5) He signed Obamacare into law...that's a tax hike.
 
Got it, Fortune 500 companies and millions of Americans have moved to TX because of no insurance, low pay, and high environmental problems? Liberal logic?

Because they can get low wage workers, often illegals. Yes.
 
You think the Clinton impeachment was about sex and not committing perjury to a Grand Jury? Jonathan Gruber had you lot pegged!

About whether or not he cheated on his wife. Yeah, no ****. Who wouldn't lie about that? LOL
 
Whether you care or not is irrelevant... I simply asked you if Obama gets away with rewriting federal law without being held legally responsible, does that mean in your estimation he did nothing wrong?

Or put another way, do you assess right & wrong, and judge the morality of a persons actions from a legal perspective?

You didn't say anything about federal law. If you are talking about him using executive privilege,.. he's not the first to do it? I'm not really sure what you are talking about? What specifically, are you saying Obama did that was illegal?
 
Yep and poverty was in its infancy at that point as well so "welfare" got left out. ;)

Oh, so you want to travel back and live with the morals of 1776? Great. When will you be picking up your slave?

You're being a ridiculous person right now.
 
wait....

Um. You do know that this is insanely, wildly, hilariously incorrect?

Please, go on. Tell me more about medicine during the 1700s.

The Founders wanted an extremely limited federal government because of the awesome power it would wield in the areas it was assigned. If there is a single word that perhaps best describes the Founders approach towards government power, that word is "paranoia". The Founders purposely did not give the Federal Government control over any particular private industry (such as healthcare), and would have been rather aghast at the suggestion that we should do so.

The founders were absolutely worried about having too strong of a federal government. What are you in, 3rd grade? What an obvious statement. I don't see what the hell that has to do with the idea that this lady apparently thinks she knows the Founding Fathers would be against national health care.
 
1) He violated oath of office.

2) We have the lowest labor participation rate in 36 years.

3) The hunt for UBL was going on when he got the job. There's not a damn thing he brought to the table.

4) um...:lamo

5) He signed Obamacare into law...that's a tax hike.

1) What?
2) The economy was crashed when he inherited it. Job growth has occurred in every quarter since the recovery.
3) He made the decision. Sorry if that bothers you.
4) Sorry if you get hit with a drone strike
5) How much have you taxes risen, specifically?
 
You are correct, in my assessment, that Gruber is likely representative of the upper echelon, the so called "brains" of the party, as if they have one.

That would fit with the arrogance of trying to dictate, often by law, what they say is good for you while exhibiting gross ignorance to the degree of two years of unemployment instead of training and upgrade programs. Even in failure, they justify the lies and deceit with "but, people were helped. Yes they were, the 'shovel ready' thing helped a few hundred community organizers who simply had to hold so many meetings that the entire budget they scammed was used up without a dime going to a needy worker.

I live in Canada, socialists have been legal here for a long, long time. They are no more progressive than a gold fish can teach physics, their core ideas, like a higher minimum wage, are about 100 years old. In a day and age when we have more women Premiers than men, one of whom ios an out-of-the-closet lesbian, the cries for 'women's rights' is like driving an Edsel.

Obama's cling to Bibles and guns was what is called "image reinforcement", reminding his supporters that their common "enemies" are all evangelical, Bible moralists toting guns for the purpose of killing black people. That, I expected, what rocked me was "he could have been my son"....the first ever president to break the convention of never commenting on the finding of a jury of one's peers. That showed his true colors and how his socialist/populist ideas play to the fears of his constituents. The bad Republican racists will be coming for you if I am not around to protect you.

The guy is a master at imagery and manipulating emotions to his benefit, but entirely absent of any true compassion for others

Well said. And the country is worse for having elected him.

Thinking back in history, which other 'leaders' had the same style and substance? Can you think of them?
I think this may very well be why we shouldn't elect charismatic 'empty shirts' to leadership positions, and why sometimes they do get elected.
 
If you are talking about him using executive privilege,.. he's not the first to do it?

My apologies, I think I misread the conversation you were having.

But let me ask you this based on what I just quoted from you... Are you ok with Obama bypassing the congress on a matter that is neither urgent nor a matter of national security, and using executive privilege to unilaterally rewrite federal immigration law?

It's a simple yes or no question to establish where you stand on this.
 
Heya Grip. :2wave: Weeeell.....not all legislation. :lol:



ACA Architect: 'The Stupidity Of The American Voter' Led Us To Hide Obamacare's True Costs From The Public

A few months back, he was caught on tape admitting that Obamacare doesn’t provide subsidies for federally-run insurance exchanges; it’s now the topic of a new case before the Supreme Court......snip~

ACA Architect: 'The Stupidity Of The American Voter' Led Us To Hide Obamacare's True Costs From The Public - Forbes

It only took 10 pages for someone to point this out. How many posts is that? All the rhetoric and finally there is a post about the real future of ACA. :applaud
 
King has a good chance in winning in King Vs. Burwell and that would have a devastating impact on ACA.

King v. Burwell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"If the challenge is successful, approximately 5 million Americans who obtained coverage through federal exchanges would lose their tax credits and, in all likelihood, their health insurance coverage. The Individual mandate, employer mandate, and tax credits for employers to provide health-insurance coverage would also likely be overturned in states with federal exchanges. However, insurers would still be required to cover all applicants regardless of pre-existing conditions, which would destabilize the insurance market in states with federal exchanges and lead to rapid rises in premiums and the possible collapse of the insurance market in those states."

"Only 14 states have set up their own exchanges. If the mandates and subsidies are struck down in the other 36 states, many think that the economic foundation of the ACA would be undermined, putting the entirety of the legislation at risk."

Gruber is a hard link to the intent of the law as it was written for individual subsidies. His videos show an intent of how the law was written. The conservatives will argue that he is a smoking gun that the law was written to exclude subsidies for people that live in states that do not have exchanges. They will also the argue to the validity to the claims he has made (conservatives trying to prove that a liberal is telling the truth) and that he had significant input into the architecture of the law.

The liberals have already argued that they never heard of the guy (liberals will argue that the liberal is not telling the truth).
Nancy Pelosi says she doesn't know who Jonathan Gruber is | PolitiFact

Pelosi:
Didn't know the guy.
"Well, you gave an interesting set of observations, but one that you skipped is Mr. Gruber's comments were a year old, and he has backtracked from most of them. He's not even advocating the position that he was at some conference. So I don't know who he is. He didn't help write our bill. With all due respect to your question, you have a person who wasn't writing our bill, commenting on what was going on when we were writing our bill, who has withdrawn some of the statements that he made. So let’s put him aside."

But he was mentioned on her web site seven times:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi | News Room | Fact Check

"Still, when the press release was brought to Pelosi’s office’s attention on Thursday, aides indicated she does not know him – as she does not know everyone they have cited on their website."
Pelosi cited ObamaCare architect in push for law

Then this video surfaced where Pelosi referenced him:
"We're not finished getting all of our reports back from CBO, but we'll have a side-by-side to compare. But our bill brings down rates. I don't know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber of MIT's analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo, versus what will happen in our bill for those who seek insurance within the exchange. And our bill takes down those costs, even from now, and much less preventing the upward spiral."
Nancy Pelosi mentions Jonathan Gruber analysis | Video | C-SPAN.org

From the Politifact site:
"When this 2009 comment came to light, the Washington Post reported that Pelosi's office told them that the minority leader "meant that she didn't know Gruber personally."

Gruber actually did work on the ACA in an official capacity for DHHS:
"In 2009–10 Gruber served as a technical consultant to the Obama Administration and worked with both the administration and Congress to help craft the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, often referred to as the ACA or "Obamacare"."
Jonathan Gruber (economist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


What I am interested in is how this will sit with Justice Roberts will react to this whole thing. The statements that Gruber made about how they avoided writing the funding for the law to avoid the funding being a tax make Roberts look like a buffoon.
 
Oh, so you want to travel back and live with the morals of 1776? Great. When will you be picking up your slave?

You're being a ridiculous person right now.

No, you are being ridiculous by implying that morals, rather than constitutional amendments, change federal government powers.
 
The fact of the matter is that this law was rammed through on Christmas eve at midnight, with a straight party line vote, by having to actually bribe its own caucus members through promises of individual deals to individual congresscritters to get the vote over the top...We conservatives said from the beginning that it was a lie. Now we've been proven correct, and what do liberals do? Well, what they always do, move the goal posts, lie some more, and when that fails, start in with the snark, and call names...

Why anyone would allow these reprobates in any position of power is beyond me at this point.
 
Please, go on. Tell me more about medicine during the 1700s.

I'll do you one better. Behold, something closer to the actual infancy of medicine.

You could say that healthcare was not as advanced as it was today, but you cannot suggest that it was in some form of infancy, or has changed so dramatically in nature to the point where the Founders would have countenanced a federal takeover.

The founders were absolutely worried about having too strong of a federal government. What are you in, 3rd grade? What an obvious statement. I don't see what the hell that has to do with the idea that this lady apparently thinks she knows the Founding Fathers would be against national health care.

Let me get this straight - you do not see a connection between government power, and the ability to steer or control the individual healthcare decisions of hundreds of millions of Americans?

:lol: who's in third grade?

The Founding Fathers had the option to nationalize industry - they chose not to take it. Instead they rather deliberately left those decisions to the States. I frankly couldn't imagine any of them supporting single payer at the state level, either, but that is where they would have placed decisions about the healthcare industry.
 
Why anyone would allow these reprobates in any position of power is beyond me at this point.

Becaise the Amerian electorate really is stupid?
 
It only took 10 pages for someone to point this out. How many posts is that? All the rhetoric and finally there is a post about the real future of ACA. :applaud

Mornin NBD. :2wave: Well you know how the left is when it concerns that concept by Marvin Gaye and, whats goin on. Just sayin!
 
1) What?
2) The economy was crashed when he inherited it. Job growth has occurred in every quarter since the recovery.
3) He made the decision. Sorry if that bothers you.
4) Sorry if you get hit with a drone strike
5) How much have you taxes risen, specifically?

1) He swore an oath to protect The Constitution and faithfully execute the laws of The United States of America. He's done neither.

2) Part times. In the mean time, he's shut down more jobs than have been created.

3) The decision to kill UBL, once he was located, had already been made. It had been made when Obama was still a community organizer, rubbing elbows with a Left Wing terrorist.

4) There's no way in hell that Obama has, "insanely", attacked terrorism.

5)Full List of Obama Tax Hikes | Americans for Tax Reform
 
Back
Top Bottom