Politics The Left vs. The Right...Where does the hatred lie?

[THE HCP]

In my opinion there’s enough hate tossed around on here daily. Impossible for me to add to it. I don’t hate.

 

[Orion Bailey]

So we have CEOs and chip eaters, and no universal care, or CEOs and chip eaters and universal coverage. I think the one where everyone has coverage is certainly better than the other one, no?

Possibly, but it depends on how much more of the pie gets eaten up by CEO and chip eaters? Say they eat 20% now. If we make it universal, will they eat up to 50% because now even more people have coverage that dont need it, more people are paying into it but not getting anything out of it? That extra isnt going to get trickled down based off the current system, it will get gobbled up by the greedy.

 

[Orion Bailey]

In my opinion there’s enough hate tossed around on here daily. Impossible for me to add to it. I don’t hate.

Then may I ask you to please be more of a part of the solution than the part of the instigator? calling peoples posts in here BS?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

but your first sentence I don't think is accurate. Its not a need for me to want to save money. Its a want for me to hold others responsible for their behavior so I don't have to pay for their repeated poor decisions.

How can you look me in the eye and tell me i'm responsible to have to pay into a system that enables someone to sit on the couch and eat potato chips all day knowing someone else will pay for their health issues?

To me, the only way to help you feel equal is to individualize most everything. If we blanket sweep and generalize all people who have a certain view along with others who have the same view on one topic, but a different one on another, is not going to solve anything.

So when we say a group of people this large is evil,. I just don't buy that. There is no objective by conservatives to oppress or hold back minorities. There are extremes in all sects, and dems and liberals have them too, but to just generalize all as evil, well then we would need to do the same with the democratic party based on their outlying extremists as well.

With that said, I would love to know which of your rights have been denied by voting republican?

What is this thread about again? you just destroyed whatever you're trying to make this thread about. You want people to have a dialogue don't throw out very inaccurate and stupid statements. So retired people, children, anybody that owns a couch and eat potato chips and doesn't do what you feel they should be doing according to you they don't deserve healthcare. Not sure where we can go with that as far as discussions about left and right. Who do you think's paying for people without health insurance right now? You are through the inflated costs hospitals and medical providers charge your insurance company. A lot of stores charge a 6-7% markup to offset shoplifting why are you shopping at the stores? Why are you supporting stealing? if you want to have meaningful and productive discussions with people on a different side of the political aisle than you then it's up to you not to put out tired and inaccurate half-truths about the cost of healthcare and other things. If you take out potato chips couches and get right down to it what you want and are failing to say as that you want cheaper health Care with the same coverage or better coverage. If you can get that and people who eat potato chips and sit on couches can also get that does it really matter to you?

 

[RR7]

Possibly, but it depends on how much more of the pie gets eaten up by CEO and chip eaters? Say they eat 20% now. If we make it universal, will they eat up to 50% because now even more people have coverage that dont need it, more people are paying into it but not getting anything out of it? That extra isnt going to get trickled down based off the current system, it will get gobbled up by the greedy.

I don't see the 50% happening, and it's then getting into an argument or discussion where we're pulling out random numbers to support your side, with no basis of it. without private insurance, there's no CEO skimming off the top though, no?

 

[wizenheimer]

"they have eyes, but cannot see"

 

[Orion Bailey]

What is this thread about again? you just destroyed whatever you're trying to make this thread about. You want people to have a dialogue don't throw out very inaccurate and stupid statements. So retired people, children, anybody that owns a couch and eat potato chips and doesn't do what you feel they should be doing according to you they don't deserve healthcare. Not sure where we can go with that as far as discussions about left and right. Who do you think's paying for people without health insurance right now? You are through the inflated costs hospitals and medical providers charge your insurance company. A lot of stores charge a 6-7% markup to offset shoplifting why are you shopping at the stores? Why are you supporting stealing? if you want to have meaningful and productive discussions with people on a different side of the political aisle than you then it's up to you not to put out tired and inaccurate half-truths about the cost of healthcare and other things. If you take out potato chips couches and get right down to it what you want and are failing to say as that you want cheaper health Care with the same coverage or better coverage. If you can get that and people who eat potato chips and sit on couches can also get that does it really matter to you?

Okay, lol. Im trying to comply with the direction of the thread and not be an ass and bitch at it going off topic.

I didn't say anyone who owns a couch and eats potato chip . I have and do both. I said all day. If we are goin to twist things to meet a narrative, that isnt very productive discussion. Ill admit, I didnt read much further, because you turned my post into hyperbole. with the couch potato chip thing.

 

[Orion Bailey]

I don't see the 50% happening, and it's then getting into an argument or discussion where we're pulling out random numbers to support your side, with no basis of it. without private insurance, there's no CEO skimming off the top though, no?

No CEO's, just money hungry politicians.

And I dont think we are arguing, I think we are debating.

However I have to bow out for a while. Work is getting busy. Not dodging anything and will come back later.

 

[RR7]

No CEO's, just money hungry politicians.

And I dont think we are arguing, I think we are debating.

However I have to bow out for a while. Work is getting busy. Not dodging anything and will come back later.

We already have money hungry politicians. Except with UHC, they wouldn't be taking bribes from medical corporations.

 

[RR7]

No CEO's, just money hungry politicians.

And I dont think we are arguing, I think we are debating.

However I have to bow out for a while. Work is getting busy. Not dodging anything and will come back later.

I also don't see how money hungry politicians is an argument against universal health care.

 

[THE HCP]

Then may I ask you to please be more of a part of the solution than the part of the instigator? calling peoples posts in here BS?

Here is my opinion, you support ANY aspect of Trump, you support ALL aspects of him. Plain and simple. I'd rather have a shit economy and less hate in this world. And YES I can blame the amount of hate and racism that's freely now tossed around on him. He gave all these people a green light. You can't "KINDA'" support him.

 

[THE HCP]

And why even start this thread on here, just add your opinion to the other 45 threads about this douche.

 

[julius]

I think some people hate things you can control, and other times people hate things you cannot control.

Example:

Bob hates Joe because he is black and gay.

Joe hates that Bob hates gays and black.

The two are not the same. One you can control (I can chose not to hate people who are gay and black). The other you can't (I can't control if I'm black or gay).

 

[Orion Bailey]

Here is my opinion, you support ANY aspect of Trump, you support ALL aspects of him. Plain and simple. I'd rather have a shit economy and less hate in this world. And YES I can blame the amount of hate and racism that's freely now tossed around on him. He gave all these people a green light. You can't "KINDA'" support him.

Fair enough. Im n ot a supporter of Trump. I get people want to tie the hate back to him, but again, its been here before him, so where did it start then?

And why even start this thread on here, just add your opinion to the other 45 threads about this douche.

Because it wasn't supposed to be about Trump if you read the op. It was about party divide and hate of the opposing opinions and viewpoints. I felt this discussion could use its own thread since many are already about Trump and i'm trying to create a separation of the hate trump and the hate the opposite party or viewpoint, but it keeps getting steered back to Trump.

If a mod thinks its not worthy of its own thread I suppose they can merge into a thread of thier choice....

 

[Minstrel]

Thats the Trump administration. Not the convervative mindeset.


Also you seem to think that I voted for Trump? If so, you are wrong. And thats my issue. My conservative views have you sweeping me, or lumping me in the same box as those in the Trump admin or those that support it.

That's the standard Republican mindset. When you vote Republican, pre-Trump as well, you're voting for people who's position is to deny transgender people rights. The so-called "bathroom bills" weren't anything to do with Trump--they were Republicans.

 

[Minstrel]

No CEO's, just money hungry politicians.

The difference is, private companies (being short-cutted here as "CEOs") have a profit motive. They need to make money on top of socializing health costs. Government doesn't need to make a profit, because there aren't share-holders who get that profit. Government just needs to socialize the health costs. So either way you pay in (premiums or taxes) but premiums have a built-in price addition to get the company a profit (otherwise, what are they in business for?) in addition to covering health costs whereas the taxes for UHC just need to pull in enough to cover health costs.

 

[Orion Bailey]

That's the standard Republican mindset. When you vote Republican, pre-Trump as well, you're voting for people who's position is to deny transgender people rights. The so-called "bathroom bills" weren't anything to do with Trump--they were Republicans.

So you think ALL republicans are in favor of denying alternative lifestyle people rights? I'm not going to say you are wrong without researching, but that just sounds silly and asinine to me.

Also, bills that come into congress are there based off of some support, not all. It doesn't require a 100% party unity to get something passed through congress?

I think the hate is ill aimed at all based on this type of mindset.

Why cant I agree with Trump regarding, China for example, but not agree with him regarding domestic affairs, or handling of corona?

Why cant I agree with Biden on his corona virus take, but disagree with his socialist takes?

Why does it have to be either or and if not agreed, its hatred aimed at the disagreer?

 

[Minstrel]

So you think ALL republicans are in favor of denying alternative lifestyle people rights?

No...I never said that. I said that when you vote Republican, whether you are for that or not, you're voting for a political institution that has shown that it has no interest in protecting the rights of transgender people. Why should transgender people like or respect you if you're voting for a party that marginalizes them? You're furthering that.

 

[Orion Bailey]

The difference is, private companies (being short-cutted here as "CEOs") have a profit motive. They need to make money on top of socializing health costs. Government doesn't need to make a profit, because there aren't share-holders who get that profit. Government just needs to socialize the health costs. So either way you pay in (premiums or taxes) but premiums have a built-in price addition to get the company a profit (otherwise, what are they in business for?) in addition to covering health costs whereas the taxes for UHC just need to pull in enough to cover health costs.

Okay, makes sense. So then we believe the government, will be more efficient in saving costs compared to private entities? How efficient has the government been on most other things like this they have control of? How is welfare working out? Has it helped minimize poverty? I see politicians grabbing at the funds and reallocating to fit thier motives, etc. So thats where the greed comes in I think.

 

[jonnyboy]

Sorry, but @barfo is 100% correct. The current GOP does not believe in limited government, or smaller government, or fiscal conservatism, or any oof those other things that they used to believe in. And that is why, yes, it is all about Trump.

You seem to be the one who cant have a meaningful discussion if you fail to see this isn't the Bush or Reagan Republican Party. Not even close. Pretending that it is is a non-starter for any meaningful discussion.

That’s fair, but liberal Democrats are no longer of the same ideology they once we’re either. They are more about putting up the old front of ‘peace, love and understanding’, while continuing to rape the taxpayers, expand corporatism and inflate the military industrial complex right along side the Republicans. The two parties themselves have moved closer together while the people who follow them have moved farther apart. I say it’s by design, but I’m also one of the unhinged conspiracy theorists of the forum so who knows.

 

[Orion Bailey]

No...I never said that. I said that when you vote Republican, whether you are for that or not, you're voting for a political institution that has shown that it has no interest in protecting the rights of transgender people. Why should transgender people like or respect you if you're voting for a party that marginalizes them? You're furthering that.

Okay, but then IF I vote Democratic, then i'm voting for a party that has shown no interest in protecting the rights of Black people through history.
There is always going to be a faction of everything that isnt aimed at the best for all.

Yes there is a portion of republicans that believe man and woman only. But that isnt all, and there are republican politicians that are not what you describe. So how do I vote for a republican who IS for all rights, but not support the others?

This is where I have issues with blanketing people like this.

 

[Minstrel]

Okay, makes sense. So then we believe the government, will be more efficient in saving costs compared to private entities? How efficient has the government been on most other things like this they have control of? How is welfare working out?

Which private "welfare company" are you comparing government to?

Has it helped minimize poverty?

Of course it's "helped." Before social security, for example, the poverty rate among senior citizens was far, far higher. Different welfare systems have different levels of effectiveness because they target different demographics and try different tactics. Welfare isn't a great thing to use, though, because as I alluded to in my question earlier in the post, this isn't something private industry does--because there's no profit in it. So government has to do something that only they can do.

 

[Minstrel]

Okay, but then IF I vote Democratic, then i'm voting for a party that has shown no interest in protecting the rights of Black people through history.

Through history? That's a meaningless statement, considering the two parties essentially switched racial platforms through the 1900s, largely culminating with the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s, when the Dixiecrats (the Southern Democrats who were proudly and openly racist but Democrat for traditional reasons) switched en masse to the Republican party out of disgust for the Democratic party adopting the Civil Rights Act as part of its platform. That's when the South became staunchly Republican in their voting.

The modern Democratic party can fairly be criticized for not doing "enough" for the rights of black people, but between them and the Republicans, they're the party that has worked to protected minority voting rights, housing rights, employment rights, fought for hate crime legislation, fought for equal employment legislation. There's plenty more they could have done, or not done, but it's absurd to try to draw a parallel between the Democrats with black people and the Republicans with transgender people based on what the party was in the 1800s. When you vote for a party, you vote for their current platform and priorities, not their 1800s platform and priorities.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Which private "welfare company" are you comparing government to?



Of course it's "helped." Before social security, for example, the poverty rate among senior citizens was far, far higher. Different welfare systems have different levels of effectiveness because they target different demographics and try different tactics. Welfare isn't a great thing to use, though, because as I alluded to in my question earlier in the post, this isn't something private industry does--because there's no profit in it. So government has to do something that only they can do.

Senior citizens are typically less able to fend for themselves though. SS is not welfare.

I never compared welfare to a private, simply stating I dont think Welfare has done anything to improve the poverty level of those getting the help.

 

[Minstrel]

Senior citizens are typically less able to fend for themselves though.

How is that a counterpoint? Welfare is meant for the people who are struggling to fend for themselves.

I never compared welfare to a private

You asked how government has done with poverty right after asking "So then we believe the government, will be more efficient in saving costs compared to private entities?" which implied you were comparing government programs to private industry.

As far as how much it's helped "poverty levels," there's a good argument to be made that it hasn't helped poverty levels because we don't provide enough of it. Many conservatives fight to keep welfare as low as possible and then point out how the poverty level is unchanged. It's like saying "cleaning doesn't fight dirt" and then running a dry cloth lightly over a muddy service and saying, "See, still muddy. Told you cleaning does nothing."

 

[barfo]

but your first sentence I don't think is accurate. Its not a need for me to want to save money. Its a want for me to hold others responsible for their behavior so I don't have to pay for their repeated poor decisions.

Not sure you are making sense here. You don't want to pay, but not because you want to save the money?

barfo

 

[Stevenson]

That’s fair, but liberal Democrats are no longer of the same ideology they once we’re either. They are more about putting up the old front of ‘peace, love and understanding’, while continuing to rape the taxpayers, expand corporatism and inflate the military industrial complex right along side the Republicans. The two parties themselves have moved closer together while the people who follow them have moved farther apart. I say it’s by design, but I’m also one of the unhinged conspiracy theorists of the forum so who knows.

I agree the Dems are different today, but truly, they have very little in common with the Trumpist Republicans.

I know you will hate this, but the Dems are the party of fiscal conservatism for one. Clinton created and left a surplus. W blew it on tax cuts and wars. Obama and Biden fixed W's mess, and then Trump again blew a hole in the deficit with a 2 trillion tax cut.

Similarly, the Dems are the party that still believes in the rule of law, and supporting allies and alliances. NATO kept the peace. Russia is not our friend. Trumpist Republicans think the opposite.

We really have nothing in common with the GOP at this point, other than we both have to take corporate money.

 

[Orion Bailey]

How is that a counterpoint? Welfare is meant for the people who are struggling to fend for themselves.



You asked how government has done with poverty right after asking "So then we believe the government, will be more efficient in saving costs compared to private entities?" which implied you were comparing government programs to private industry.

As far as how much it's helped "poverty levels," there's a good argument to be made that it hasn't helped poverty levels because we don't provide enough of it. Many conservatives fight to keep welfare as low as possible and then point out how the poverty level is unchanged. It's like saying "cleaning doesn't fight dirt" and then running a dry cloth lightly over a muddy service and saying, "See, still muddy. Told you cleaning does nothing."

Because Welfare is intended to , doesnt mean thats what happens. some on Welfare take advantage of the system where I dont think senior citizens really do.

entities meaning individuals. Not companies. but if we go companies, yes, I also beleive the government isnt very efficient in overhead costs. compared to private companies.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Not sure you are making sense here. You don't want to pay, but not because you want to save the money?

barfo

Makes perfect sense.

Im happy to pay for those truly in need. why is itr contradictory to not want ot pay for those NOT in need? or taking advantage of a system which enables downhill behavior?

 

[GhostOfPGA]

It’s all a horseshoe of hate, the dark fringes of both hate, the average person on the spectrum left or right don’t hate. They have disagreements, but ultimately it’s just that, a disagreement.

problem is, the dark fringes are growing on both sides, and becoming more common.