• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Do you kind of feel this way?

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
If you vote Democrat, everyone will be provided for until eventually there's no one to provide?
If you vote Republican, people will quit being provided for until no one gets provided for?
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
The Republicans are for the top 1% wealthiest people in the country -- they provide for them.

The Democrats are for the top 10% wealthiest people in the country -- they provide for them.

In America, the bottom 90% are represented by no one. Not really.

That's how I see it. Your mileage may vary.
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The Republicans are for the top 1% wealthiest people in the country -- they provide for them.

The Democrats are for the top 10% wealthiest people in the country -- they provide for them.

In America, the bottom 90% are represented by no one. Not really.

That's how I see it. Your mileage may vary.
Please quote me if you reply to me so I can find you and respond afterward.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
If you vote Democrat, everyone will be provided for until eventually there's no one to provide?
If you vote Republican, people will quit being provided for until no one gets provided for?

That is a reductio ad absurdum argument as well as ignoring real world ideas at least from the left.

Equal opportunity does not mean guaranteeing equal results. And removing the power imbalance that the super rich enjoy does not mean everyone's wealth would be exactly the same.

It would means such things as having all schools equally funded with well-paid good teachers, proper supplies and the like.

It would mean having equal access to quality health care with rational pricing for drugs as the civilized world enjoys to a great degree.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
The Republicans are for the top 1% wealthiest people in the country -- they provide for them.

The Democrats are for the top 10% wealthiest people in the country -- they provide for them.

In America, the bottom 90% are represented by no one. Not really.

That's how I see it. Your mileage may vary.
You mean that money has corrupted politics which I accept.

We of course failed to heed the wise council of that extreme far left ideologue:

Teddy Roosevelt

All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law; directors should not be permitted to use stockholders' money for such purposes; and, moreover, a prohibition of this kind would be, as far as it went, an effective method of stopping the evils aimed at in corrupt practices acts. Not only should both the National and the several State Legislatures forbid any officer of a corporation from using the money of the corporation in or about any election, but they should also forbid such use of money in connection with any legislation save by the employment of counsel in public manner for distinctly legal services.
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
That is a reductio ad absurdum argument as well as ignoring real world ideas at least from the left.

Equal opportunity does not mean guaranteeing equal results. And removing the power imbalance that the super rich enjoy does not mean everyone's wealth would be exactly the same.

It would means such things as having all schools equally funded with well-paid good teachers, proper supplies and the like.

It would mean having equal access to quality health care with rational pricing for drugs as the civilized world enjoys to a great degree.
I'm lost and scared.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
If you vote Democrat, everyone will be provided for until eventually there's no one to provide?
If you vote Republican, people will quit being provided for until no one gets provided for?
As always, things will be more complicated than what
can be said in a single sentence about each party.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
That is a reductio ad absurdum argument as well as ignoring real world ideas at least from the left.

Equal opportunity does not mean guaranteeing equal results. And removing the power imbalance that the super rich enjoy does not mean everyone's wealth would be exactly the same.

It would means such things as having all schools equally funded with well-paid good teachers, proper supplies and the like.

It would mean having equal access to quality health care with rational pricing for drugs as the civilized world enjoys to a great degree.
And then we forgot that being Progressive meant not being friendly towards corporations and busting them up and taking a strong stance for the working class and unions, and lump them in with Liberals so they won't stand up to bust up the near monopolies of corporations like the few media and communication corporations that exist and are buying up everything else.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Just to register what I'm in favor of:

record.jpg
 

PureX

Veteran Member
If you vote Democrat, everyone will be provided for until eventually there's no one to provide?
If you vote Republican, people will quit being provided for until no one gets provided for?
No. There is no logical reason to assume the most extreme result.
 
Top