Trumpcare failed because not conservative enough

[JimL]

Like I told starlight in another thread feel free to create a progressive megacharity that deals with the issue. If you were actually interested in healthcare, that is. But you're not, you just want to put everybody at the mercy of international corporations.

Everybody at the mercy of international corporations? What?

[Darth Executor]

Everybody at the mercy of international corporations? What?

They own the government, who will then own you (I mean even more than they already do) when they can make all your healthcare decisions for you.

[JimL]

They own the government, who will then own you (I mean even more than they already do) when they can make all your healthcare decisions for you.

The people are the government, and Corporations can only own the government in so far as you knuckleheads on the right allow them to own it by electing republicans who act on behalf of those corporations rather than acting on behalf of the knucklheads that voted them into office.

[Starlight]

you just want to put everybody at the mercy of international corporations.

Um... dunno if you know this basic fact, but progressives are against international mega corporations, it's the right-wing free-market capitalists that like them. And if you go far enough Left to get to "democratic socialism", then we're exactly against everybody being at the mercy of international corporations (which is what makes us socialists).

Psychology, huh? Did I nail it or did I nail it?

Nah, wrong as usual, it's not in psychology.

You still have to put up with the odd absurdity but it's easy to tune out, especially if you've had a proper Internet education before you get to college.

Oh dear, "a proper internet education" huh... coming from you I guess that means "Alex Jones and Breitbart and others have indoctrinated me into believing facts are liberal hoaxes and that genocide of non-whites is the only true path forward for humanity".

[Darth Executor]

Um... dunno if you know this basic fact, but progressives are against international mega corporations, it's the right-wing free-market capitalists that like them. And if you go far enough Left to get to "democratic socialism", then we're exactly against everybody being at the mercy of international corporations (which is what makes us socialists).

Progressives are very much FOR international megacorporations in actual practice, the two collude with each other on a regular basis. It's just that a lot of progressives are really, really stupid, to the point where corporations can get away with selling them "Che" t-shirts made in Bangladeshi sweatshops.

The libertarian right will happily subjugate the population under corporations as long as they don't call themselves "the government". The progressive left will happily subjugate the population to the government as long as they don't have a ticker symbol and append "Inc." to their name.

In practice the corporate state effectively uses both to dismantle any real opposition (most of which comes from the right).

Oh dear, "a proper internet education" huh... coming from you I guess that means "Alex Jones and Breitbart and others have indoctrinated me into believing facts are liberal hoaxes and that genocide of non-whites is the only true path forward for humanity".

I've been around long before Breitbart existed and Alex Jones's newfound popularity, son. When I didn't have the Internet i believed everything my liberal peers and teachers told me. I didn't even realize there was another world out there. Once I had access to the greatest information network ever devised the delusion shattered almost instantly. Progressivism cannot handle scrutiny which is why it only allows ineffective opposition to exist. The Internet broke that monopoly. There is nothing you can do anymore except watch your entire system fall apart. ^_^

[Starlight]

Progressives are very much FOR international megacorporations in actual practice, the two collude with each other on a regular basis.

Apparently you don't understand what "progressive" means.

The libertarian right will happily subjugate the population under corporations as long as they don't call themselves "the government".

Well at least we agree on something.

The progressive left will happily subjugate the population to the government as long as they don't have a ticker symbol and append "Inc." to their name.

Sure, in the sense that "government by the people for the people" is a proverb that describes the progressive left well.

In practice the corporate state effectively uses both to dismantle any real opposition (most of which comes from the right).

In America your corporate corruption and it's control of government has indeed gone through the roof. Radical action is needed (like a constitutional amendment and various laws) to limit corporate influence in government and return power to the people. Unfortunately the current amount of corporate lobbying etc is getting the foxes appointed to guard the hen houses. We see this particularly under right-wing parties, and obviously under Trump we've seen him appoint the swamp to his cabinet with half a dozen Goldman Sachs people being put into the cabinet including the President of Goldman Sachs, and also the CEO of Exxon Mobil being appointed, so obviously the mega-corporations are being given free rein under his administration, which is not surprising for a right-wing party since making large businesses richer tends to be one of the right-wing's central tenets.

Progressivism cannot handle scrutiny which is why it only allows ineffective opposition to exist. The Internet broke that monopoly. There is nothing you can do anymore except watch your entire system fall apart.

I've said much the same thing to a friend about how the internet is causing progressivism to win across the board because the arguments against it are laughable, and people having access to more information makes them more progressive.

[Darth Executor]

Apparently you don't understand what "progressive" means.

Dumb, suicidal nujob sounds about right.

Sure, in the sense that "government by the people for the people" is a proverb that describes the progressive left well.

Everybody wants "government by the people for the people", they just never tell you who those people are.

In America your corporate corruption and it's control of government has indeed gone through the roof. Radical action is needed (like a constitutional amendment and various laws) to limit corporate influence in government and return power to the people. Unfortunately the current amount of corporate lobbying etc is getting the foxes appointed to guard the hen houses. We see this particularly under right-wing parties, and obviously under Trump we've seen him appoint the swamp to his cabinet with half a dozen Goldman Sachs people being put into the cabinet including the President of Goldman Sachs, and also the CEO of Exxon Mobil being appointed, so obviously the mega-corporations are being given free rein under his administration, which is not surprising for a right-wing party since making large businesses richer tends to be one of the right-wing's central tenets.

It's cute that you think appointing Goldman Sachs employees is anything other than a campaign slogan for rubes. America is probably the least corporate corrupt country in the West (not that it's saying much). Everywhere else corporations operate with impunity as long as they push progressive ideas that, in the long term, will subjugate those countries to international rule by unelected strangers. Pretty much all they need is to wait until they turn those countries into multicultural hellholes at which point they will never be removed from power. The regulatory leeway they get from Trump is nothing compared to the disaster he will be for them if he gets his immigration policies in place (a big IF given that progressives like John McCain and Lindsey Graham still control a huge part of the GOP).

I've said much the same thing to a friend about how the internet is causing progressivism to win across the board because the arguments against it are laughable, and people having access to more information makes them more progressive.

Just about every unmoderated site I visit has been turned into a wasteland full of white supremacists, alt right trolls and the like, and every attempt at debating them turns into a humiliating spectacle for the progressive, in no small part because progressives are extremely insualted from opposing viewpoints by choice, something that has been shown to be true over and over and over:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...views-politics

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/co...rticle/2563244

I mean, I don't even agree with progressives on much of anything and I still cringe when I see one of you sputtering to answer even the simplest of challenges.

There's only one reason why progressives insulate themselves, react crazily and violently to having some minor figure speak on their campus and seek to criminalize criticism of themselves and their policies and it's because you're scared (and if you're not scared you're completely out of the loop), and you should be, because your lies are about to come to an end.

There's nowhere to run fartlight. Your children will either Sieg Heil and recite the 14 Words or bow their head to Mecca and recite the Takbir. This is the future you made and the future that awaits you. And I hope you live a long, healthy life, so you can see your vile ideology obliterated before your eyes.

[Starlight]

Dumb, suicidal nujob sounds about right.

... America is probably the least corporate corrupt country in the West (not that it's saying much). Everywhere else corporations operate with impunity as long as they push progressive ideas that, in the long term, will subjugate those countries to international rule by unelected strangers. Pretty much all they need is to wait until they turn those countries into multicultural hellholes at which point they will never be removed from power. The regulatory leeway they get from Trump is nothing compared to the disaster he will be for them if he gets his immigration policies in place (a big IF given that progressives like John McCain and Lindsey Graham still control a huge part of the GOP).

Just about every unmoderated site I visit has been turned into a wasteland full of white supremacists, alt right trolls and the like, and every attempt at debating them turns into a humiliating spectacle for the progressive, in no small part because progressives are extremely insualted from opposing viewpoints by choice, something that has been shown to be true over and over and over:

...I mean, I don't even agree with progressives on much of anything and I still cringe when I see one of you sputtering to answer even the simplest of challenges.

There's only one reason why progressives insulate themselves, react crazily and violently to having some minor figure speak on their campus and seek to criminalize criticism of themselves and their policies and it's because you're scared (and if you're not scared you're completely out of the loop), and you should be, because your lies are about to come to an end.

There's nowhere to run fartlight. Your children will either Sieg Heil and recite the 14 Words or bow their head to Mecca and recite the Takbir. This is the future you made and the future that awaits you. And I hope you live a long, healthy life, so you can see your vile ideology obliterated before your eyes.

Okay, it was nice talking to you for a few posts, but it seems you've reverted to complete insanity and zero connection with reality. Catch you later.

[Tassman]

Progressivism cannot handle scrutiny which is why it only allows ineffective opposition to exist. The Internet broke that monopoly. There is nothing you can do anymore except watch your entire system fall apart.

The reverse is true.

Progressivism aims to represent the interests of the majority through political change via government actions to ensure a more equitable opportunity for all and the redistribution of resources including greater care for the disadvantaged.

Conversely, Conservatism seeks to maintain tradition and the existing status quo, including the existing gross imbalance between rich and poor, and resists providing care for the disadvantaged opting instead for a greater share of national wealth for the rich via lower taxes.

In short, the latter cannot handle scrutiny because it is revealed as essentially selfish and the embodiment of the "every man for himself, survival of the fittest", mentality.

[Starlight]

In short, the latter cannot handle scrutiny because it is revealed as essentially selfish and the embodiment of the "every man for himself, survival of the fittest", mentality.

You should have a read of this article about Ayn Rand to fully appreciate how much she idolized sociopathy and thought it was good to not care about others and for it to be every man for themselves. Her notes gush over news reports from her day about a psychopathic mass murderer who dismembered his victims, and she sees in him the ideal of what humanity ought to be and ideal complete lack of concern for others. He became the inspiration for the major characters in her books.

Paul Ryan is a big Ayn Rand fan.

And we see the same immoral and evil idealization of selfishness recurring in other conservatives, including some on this forum. BtC had this gem:

It's immoral to be selfish and not care about others in your society, period.

No it is not.

[Bill the Cat]

And we see the same immoral and evil idealization of selfishness recurring in other conservatives, including some on this forum. BtC had this gem:

Sorry, Capt. Keebler, but your wishy-washy idea of what is "immoral" and what actually IS immoral with an actual solid moral foundation are wholly different things. When you mentioned that it was immoral to "not care about others in your society", we were in the midst of discussing government handouts... or as you like to call them - "safety nets". It is thoroughly immoral to perpetually support someone without giving them the skills and the incentive to be self-sufficient. But you'd continue to facilitate their laziness and exploitation. That is why I said it is not immoral to not want to give government handouts to everyone.

[Sparko]

LOL. I have a PhD in a science field. I can like a one-panel cartoon if I want without feeling it threatens my intellectual manliness.

Have you even had any tertiary education at all? Or did you drop out of secondary school at age 15 after failing all your classes?

"women's studies" is not a science.

[JimL]

Sorry, Capt. Keebler, but your wishy-washy idea of what is "immoral" and what actually IS immoral with an actual solid moral foundation are wholly different things. When you mentioned that it was immoral to "not care about others in your society", we were in the midst of discussing government handouts... or as you like to call them - "safety nets". It is thoroughly immoral to perpetually support someone without giving them the skills and the incentive to be self-sufficient. But you'd continue to facilitate their laziness and exploitation. That is why I said it is not immoral to not want to give government handouts to everyone.

Who you trying to fool BtC, because your self serving argument about "lazy people" and "government handouts" isn't fooling anyone with an actual moral perspective. You say you want the government to give people the skills to be self sufficient, but I'll bet you don't support public education and free college, right.

[Bill the Cat]

Who you trying to fool BtC, because your self serving argument about "lazy people" and "government handouts" isn't fooling anyone with an actual moral perspective.

Sorry, Jimmy, but you have no moral perspective either. Wishy-washy based on nothing but your own say.

You say you want the government to give people the skills to be self sufficient,

Correct. No one is supposed to like leeches, but you lot seem to revel in their continued blood sucking parasitic behavior.

but I'll bet you don't support public education

You'd lose that bet. I support public education and would like to see teachers held accountable for their classrooms and students held accountable for their actions. I have an autistic son in public schools right now, and had 2 daughters who went. I know what good teachers are and I know what poor ones are. I know they teach material they are forced to teach that is an utter waste of time, and I know the "well rounded education" is a waste of time and resources. Public education CAN work, it just doesn't work right now.

and free college, right.

That you'd be right on. Free college is a pipe dream, and a waste for many. I support apprenticeships and OJT far more than wasting 4 years learning about 18th Century Russian Basket Weaving.

[Starlight]

When you mentioned that it was immoral to "not care about others in your society"

I was stating a general moral principle. You disagreed with it.

we were in the midst of discussing government handouts... or as you like to call them - "safety nets".

What is it with you and being gratuitously wrong? I don't like to call them "safety nets". Why do you make wrong statements for the sake of it? I just did a search and couldn't find a single post on this site of me ever using the term "safety net", so goodness only knows what wires are crossed in your brain to come up with that idea.

It is thoroughly immoral to perpetually support someone without giving them the skills and the incentive to be self-sufficient. But you'd continue to facilitate their laziness and exploitation.

There have been plenty of scientific studies on the subject as I've previously discussed: Welfare almost never "makes people lazy". Your argument is a stupid one made up by stupid people and is as wrong as your claims that I like the term "safety nets".