• 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!

In politics does Intent trump Outcome?

In politics does Intent trump Outcome?

  • Im a right leaning American, yes.

    Votes: 1 5.0%

  • Im a left leaning American, yes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Im not American, yes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Im a right leaning American, no.

    Votes: 11 55.0%

  • Im a left leaning American, no.

    Votes: 7 35.0%

  • Im not American, no.

    Votes: 1 5.0%
  • Total voters
    20
DA60 said:
In politics does Intent trump Outcome?

Huh?

In politics, self-serving greed trumps all.
Click to expand...

Politics isn't presented in this manner-though yes thats sometimes true. The specific scope is in the presenting of, and execution of political promises vs the objective outcome.
 
Summerwind said:
No, that's why policies like low taxes for the rich need to go, they were of good intent, but trickle down is now proven to not work, so we need to deal with the outcome of failure and move on to something else. This is just one topic that concept could be attributed to. MIC is another, privatizing prisons and schools, the war on drugs, the war on terror, leaving infrastructure to the states, and such would be others, I'm sure there're more.
Click to expand...

Low taxes for everyone is even better and trickle down is long since proven succesful sorry to burst your myth.

Privatizing schools and leaving infrastructure to the states also works better.

Fecderal control of sych things is the proven failure.

You are right about the war on drugs and terror although you ignore than absolute proven failure of the war on poverty
 
Soupnazi630 said:
Low taxes for everyone is even better and trickle down is long since proven succesful sorry to burst your myth.

Privatizing schools and leaving infrastructure to the states also works better.

Fecderal control of sych things is the proven failure.

You are right about the war on drugs and terror although you ignore than absolute proven failure of the war on poverty
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that local and highly responsive govt trumps one size fits all top down mandates from Washington? ;)
 
US Conservative said:
6890.jpg


In medicine, we quickly learn that what matters is outcomes-not intent to help. Things are too important to think otherwise.

In politics-that distinction is often blurred. Programs that claim to improve education but dont. The war on poverty that failed to lower poverty. The war on drugs.

Intent often is seen as somehow benevolent and superior to whatever the actual outcomes are. Rhetoric is used as a shield to objective failure, turning questions of fact into questions of motive, etc.

What do you say?
Click to expand...

Given the success of conservative states, the failure of liberal states and these poll results that say the we all believe outcome matters. seems like the progressives would have to admit that it's time to vote conservative despite their good intentions.
 
Voted, "I am a right leaning American and no".

I am reminded of an old proverb. "The path to hell is paved with good intentions.
 
johndylan1 said:
Given the success of conservative states, the failure of liberal states and these poll results that say the we all believe outcome matters. seems like the progressives would have to admit that it's time to vote conservative despite their good intentions.
Click to expand...

Not all conservative states are successful; not all liberal states are failures.
 
US Conservative said:
What you are suggesting is that my desire for objective success means I want things to work for a "privileged few". Silly on its face-I want things to work for everyone, note that this does not mean supporting failure because of good intentions.
Click to expand...

You want it to only work for those who believe in your values to validate your political philosophy.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Voted, "I am a right leaning American and no".

I am reminded of an old proverb. "The path to hell is paved with good intentions.
Click to expand...

You ever notice those with good intentions seem to know what's best for everyone else?
 
grip said:
You want it to only work for those who believe in your values to validate your political philosophy.
Click to expand...

Simply not true-you are projecting. I want everyone to do well, and I want them to keep their hard earned money, and I want them to be happy and self sufficient. Horrible stuff, huh?
 
US Conservative said:
Simply not true-you are projecting. I want everyone to do well, and I want them to keep their hard earned money, and I want them to be happy and self sufficient. Horrible stuff, huh?
Click to expand...

What if hypothetically you find out that liberal policies created the best overall outcome for the general population. Would you support them?

Now, I don't want to hear why it's impossible, only what if it were the case. Are you really a winner?
 
grip said:
What if hypothetically you find out that liberal policies created the best overall outcome for the general population. Would you support them?

Now, I don't want to hear why it's impossible, only what if it were the case. Are you really a winner?
Click to expand...

It would depend, your hypothetical would be presented (often with flawed/biased evidence) for political purposes (everything the left does is about politics). It would also question the intent compared to the outcome, and the role of the policy. I believe that while individuals and society has a role to help others, I dont see the GOVT as the primary means of said role.

Beyond that, your rosy hypothetical is not consistent with reality, and thats where I live. However, if you can provide examples with evidence I will gladly examine them and give you my opinion. Keep it brief Im not going to write a book.
 
US Conservative said:
It would depend, your hypothetical would be presented (often with flawed/biased evidence) for political purposes (everything the left does is about politics). It would also question the intent compared to the outcome, and the role of the policy. I believe that while individuals and society has a role to help others, I dont see the GOVT as the primary means of said role.

Beyond that, your rosy hypothetical is not consistent with reality, and thats where I live. However, if you can provide examples with evidence I will gladly examine them and give you my opinion. Keep it brief Im not going to write a book.
Click to expand...

Are you familer with the teachings of Herbert spencer.
 
US Conservative said:
It would depend, your hypothetical would be presented (often with flawed/biased evidence) for political purposes (everything the left does is about politics). It would also question the intent compared to the outcome, and the role of the policy. I believe that while individuals and society has a role to help others, I dont see the GOVT as the primary means of said role.

Beyond that, your rosy hypothetical is not consistent with reality, and thats where I live. However, if you can provide examples with evidence I will gladly examine them and give you my opinion. Keep it brief Im not going to write a book.
Click to expand...

Just what I thought, I gave you a straight up question to prove you honestly want progress above ideology and you dodged it. I'm a registered Republican from the south and voted twice for Reagan before you were probably legal, but even I will change my position when shown wrong.
 
`
Head Start was originally formed as a summer school progrram that got way out of control. As an investment, Head-Start is a complete failure.

Anecdotal - Head-Start is not a federally managed program. All the Feds do is hand out grants. It's the individual cities and communities that administer the funds. Case in point; Milwaukee, WI;
`

"The Social Development Commission, Milwaukee County's largest Head Start provider for more than 40 years, suffered a major blow Thursday when federal officials announced they had dropped it from the program." - source​
`

Social Development Commission or SDC turned into almost like a country club where only friends could be employed. Most of the Head-Start money went into it's administrative overhead like 6 figure salaries for an already bloated supposed not-for profit organization. Maybe 15 cents for every dollar it got actually went to help those who needed it.

I have little good to say about the program other than it should scale back it's funding and concentrate on its original purpose; summer school for kids who need it.
`
 
grip said:
Just what I thought, I gave you a straight up question to prove you honestly want progress above ideology and you dodged it. I'm a registered Republican from the south and voted twice for Reagan before you were probably legal, but even I will change my position when shown wrong.
Click to expand...

That is the difference between someone who can look at things, even their own beliefs, objectively and critically, and someone who can't or refuses to.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
That is the difference between someone who can look at things, even their own beliefs, objectively and critically, and someone who can't or refuses to.
Click to expand...

I believe if you honer the truth, it will honor you. I would rather try and make the world a slightly better place than have it serve me completely.
 
grip said:
I believe if you honer the truth, it will honor you. I would rather try and make the world a slightly better place than have it serve me completely.
Click to expand...

Going through life with blinders on causes one to miss a lot, and not see the context in what they do see.
 
US Conservative said:
6890.jpg


In medicine, we quickly learn that what matters is outcomes-not intent to help. Things are too important to think otherwise.

In politics-that distinction is often blurred. Programs that claim to improve education but dont. The war on poverty that failed to lower poverty. The war on drugs.

Intent often is seen as somehow benevolent and superior to whatever the actual outcomes are. Rhetoric is used as a shield to objective failure, turning questions of fact into questions of motive, etc.

What do you say?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




What matters is results.

If you start out with the intention to 'fix' a car and end up with a pile of junk that won't start you have accomplished nothing.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
Going through life with blinders on causes one to miss a lot, and not see the context in what they do see.
Click to expand...

I've always believed that was the profound difference in our nations founding fathers that they were willing to put the truth of higher reasoning and equality above their own personal interests. It's why they were able to come up with such amazing documents as the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, from having studied all the previous man made flaws of proceeding governance.
 
grip said:
What if hypothetically you find out that liberal policies created the best overall outcome for the general population. Would you support them?

Now, I don't want to hear why it's impossible, only what if it were the case. Are you really a winner?
Click to expand...

It would depend on the cost and I don't mean monetary cost either. EVERTHING has a price. There is no such thing as a free lunch. I would also ask what exactly do you mean when you say best overall outcome for the general population? The devil is always in the details. Presuming said cost was acceptable, and I agreed with the terms of best outcome, then I would probably support them regardless of the perceived liberalism of said policies.
 
PirateMk1 said:
It would depend on the cost and I don't mean monetary cost either. EVERTHING has a price. There is no such thing as a free lunch. I would also ask what exactly do you mean when you say best overall outcome for the general population? The devil is always in the details. Presuming said cost was acceptable, and I agreed with the terms of best outcome, then I would probably support them regardless of the perceived liberalism of said policies.
Click to expand...

I was trying to get him to admit that political philosophy wasn't as important as everyone's well being. It's a primary concept necessary to success of the country. I meant to include the best possible scenarios for the outcome. It's probably not realistic but just a hypothetical question.
 
Last edited:
grip said:
Just what I thought, I gave you a straight up question to prove you honestly want progress above ideology and you dodged it. I'm a registered Republican from the south and voted twice for Reagan before you were probably legal, but even I will change my position when shown wrong.
Click to expand...

Where are your examples, and how did we get on your life's story? Me thinks you wanted to emote instead of discuss. Hypotheticals to reality. Questions of fact into questions of motive.
 
grip said:
I was trying to get him to admit that political philosophy wasn't as important as everyone's well being. It's a primary concept necessary to success of the country. I meant to include the best possible scenarios for the outcome. It's not probably realistic but just a hypothetical question.
Click to expand...

The problem even with hypotheticals is what is best for one is often not best for another. And there lies the rub. The real question is what are you willing to live with? What are you willing to compromise on and keep compromising on, not just a temporary compromise to get an agreement, but a permanent compromise to keep it.
 
US Conservative said:
Where are your examples, and how did we get on your life's story? Me thinks you wanted to emote instead of discuss. Hypotheticals to reality. Questions of fact into questions of motive.
Click to expand...

Still no honest answer? Will you or will you not support liberal solutions that prove positive outcomes? It's that simple.



PirateMk1 said:
The problem even with hypotheticals is what is best for one is often not best for another. And there lies the rub. The real question is what are you willing to live with? What are you willing to compromise on and keep compromising on, not just a temporary compromise to get an agreement, but a permanent compromise to keep it.
Click to expand...


I'm not debating the probability of compromises being possible or correct, just the ideological reasoning that someone can't take their blinders off for a moment.
 
Last edited:
Paxaeon said:
`
Head Start was originally formed as a summer school progrram that got way out of control. As an investment, Head-Start is a complete failure.

Anecdotal - Head-Start is not a federally managed program. All the Feds do is hand out grants. It's the individual cities and communities that administer the funds. Case in point; Milwaukee, WI;
`

"The Social Development Commission, Milwaukee County's largest Head Start provider for more than 40 years, suffered a major blow Thursday when federal officials announced they had dropped it from the program." - source​
`

Social Development Commission or SDC turned into almost like a country club where only friends could be employed. Most of the Head-Start money went into it's administrative overhead like 6 figure salaries for an already bloated supposed not-for profit organization. Maybe 15 cents for every dollar it got actually went to help those who needed it.

I have little good to say about the program other than it should scale back it's funding and concentrate on its original purpose; summer school for kids who need it.
`
Click to expand...

More evidence of the failure of big govt-and the fact that power takes care of itself. Head Start, is a dhhs program started with the intent of improving the outcomes of poor children. Its was a lie that snowballed over decades (and generations) and here we are with over a million kids WHO DO NO BETTER as a result. Now its about taking care of illegal immigrant children and redistributing money-thats what the left does.

LAUSD is the poster child, and in the roughest neighborhoods they were spending 16k per year per child. Scores remained low, grad rates remained low, but a bunch of nice admin buildings and new admin employees were hired. They spend very little on public education in Utah, and it always has one of the best achievement rankings in the US-because its not about money-its about the home environment, the decisions of parents, etc. Income is mentioned as a predictive factor for success and it is-but not how many assume-that money will equate to better outcomes-but because the type of person who makes the right decisions, tends to do the same with their children.

You say we should scale back its funding, currently at 8 billion a year-8 thousand dollars per year. I say it should be dissolved and the funds used on things demonstrably proven to work. How many hours of one on one tutoring does that buy? How many laptops? Books? English lessons? I recommend Khan Academy to my students and its free.


The outcome is what matters here, not the intent to help.
Head Start Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom