Would an American Colour Revolution be a good idea?

[K. A. Pital]

Dems want to move toward socialised healthcare

Do they? From what I saw the last few years, they don't. And maybe they really don't - they keep this dead horse as an electoral trick which they pull out and show to people: "Hey look, that universal healthcare thing's still on the table!" and then just shit on it all over. And nobody cares. In fact, universal healthcare is best for the Democrats that way: they can pander to insurance like lapdogs and at the same time keep saying to the populace: "Look, support us, we're pro-healthcare!" and get re-elected over and over.

Republicans want to cut spending and taxes

Republicans want to have exorbitant military spending and little taxes. That was the way since Bush. Republicans in office did not cut spending, so what they "want" is another lie that they pulled out - a dusty lie - to get some boons from the populace in the American electoral circus.

Dems favour unionisation - Reps oppose.

Perhaps the only point where I'd agree.

You might claim that the Dems, while left-er than the Reps, are still to the right of the population.

No, I'm not claiming such a thing. The decimation of the left is primarily a decimation of left-wing ideas in the minds of the populace, and that was carried out with terrific efficiency. Socialism is a swearword in the US of A. End of story. The population is unrepentantly right-wing.

[Lonestar]

Being in the military does not warrant a special group unless you will claim that the army tells its members how to vote or that all army personnel are almost completely like minded. Personally I think they are covered by the generic not so smart people tag I included.

.

Alright, I'll bit the troll bait.

Why?

[Samuel]

Do they? From what I saw the last few years, they don't. And maybe they really don't - they keep this dead horse as an electoral trick which they pull out and show to people: "Hey look, that universal healthcare thing's still on the table!" and then just shit on it all over. And nobody cares. In fact, universal healthcare is best for the Democrats that way: they can pander to insurance like lapdogs and at the same time keep saying to the populace: "Look, support us, we're pro-healthcare!" and get re-elected over and over.

They're scared from what happened when Clinton tried UHC in 1993.

Republicans want to have exorbitant military spending and little taxes. That was the way since Bush.

You mean Reagan- he was before Bush Senior.

[Purple]

Being in the military does not warrant a special group unless you will claim that the army tells its members how to vote or that all army personnel are almost completely like minded. Personally I think they are covered by the generic not so smart people tag I included.

.

Alright, I'll bit the troll bait.

Why?

Well it's simple. All members of the military or any organization can be divided into two groups. The first are those that are intelligent normal people with their own views and opinions not dependent of or at least not greatly dependent on those of the group (covered under the unless in: "unless you will claim that the army tells its members how to vote or that all army personnel are almost completely like minded"). The second group are those that give into the kind of herd mentality that is formed in groups and generally vote and even think what ever the group votes and thinks (covered under: "not so smart people").

[Lonestar]

Well it's simple. All members of the military or any organization can be divided into two groups. The first are those that are intelligent normal people with their own views and opinions not dependent of or at least not greatly dependent on those of the group (covered under the unless in: "unless you will claim that the army tells its members how to vote or that all army personnel are almost completely like minded"). The second group are those that give into the kind of herd mentality that is formed in groups and generally vote and even think what ever the group votes and thinks (covered under: "not so smart people").

So you're complaint is that a hierarchical "team first" organization creates people who tend to think in similar ways, therefore the people are stupid?

Let me ask you something:

Suppose you had two populations. In one population less than 70% had a High School Diploma or better, and less than 50% of that had a 4 year degree or better. In the other population 95% of it had a high school diploma or better and over 50% of that had a 4 year degree or better.

Knowing nothing else about these two populations, which one would you say is the smarter of the two?

[Purple]

So you're complaint is that a hierarchical "team first" organization creates people who tend to think in similar ways, therefore the people are stupid?

Let me ask you something:

Suppose you had two populations. In one population less than 70% had a High School Diploma or better, and less than 50% of that had a 4 year degree or better. In the other population 95% of it had a high school diploma or better and over 50% of that had a 4 year degree or better.

Knowing nothing else about these two populations, which one would you say is the smarter of the two?

Trick question. Education has nothing to do with intelligence but with willingness to do hard work and study or cheat/pay your way through. I know plenty of college educated people who are very good specialists but are otherwise useless intellectually.

The real test would be what population produces more intellectually minded individuals. People who behave well, are well versed in many things and who form intelligent and reasonable opinions on the world around them based on empirical observation rather than things like group-think and indoctrination.

[HMS Conqueror]

Dems want to move toward socialised healthcare

Do they?

Yes - in fact they have done so. They have not completed the programme - due to opposition rather than lack of will - but they have moved towards it. Now you have every right to proclaim that the sky is green, but conversely I have no interest in trying to persuade you overwise.

Republicans want to cut spending and taxes

Republicans want to have exorbitant military spending and little taxes. That was the way since Bush. Republicans in office did not cut spending, so what they "want" is another lie that they pulled out - a dusty lie - to get some boons from the populace in the American electoral circus.

At the very least, spending on military rather than welfare is itself a right wing policy, not a left wing one, while Bush did indeed cut taxes.

You might claim that the Dems, while left-er than the Reps, are still to the right of the population.

No, I'm not claiming such a thing. The decimation of the left is primarily a decimation of left-wing ideas in the minds of the populace, and that was carried out with terrific efficiency. Socialism is a swearword in the US of A. End of story. The population is unrepentantly right-wing.

Well, ok, but the person I was arguing with previously claimed that the US was left-wing, and that its allegedly undemocratic system was the only cause for right wing policies being implemented.



This is really the sort of thing I am talking about:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/U ... _poll.html

Broad general mandate for efforts to ensure universal health care. ~60% agreement that costs are likely to become disturbingly high in the future, even if they aren't already, among those already insured.

The soundbite claim is "60% of Americans want UHC". But if you read the article, it becomes "In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system. That support, however, is conditional: It falls to fewer than four in 10 if it means a limited choice of doctors, or waiting lists for non-emergency treatments. "

So Americans have 60% support for UHC if the government doesn't decide how much healthcare you get or ration healthcare in any way and generally everything is just as good as it is for the winners under the present system, now except that everyone is a winner and the government pays for it all. Ok. But then you look at a real state healthcare system, like the one in the UK, and you realise that the government has to decide what it's going to offer you, and because there's no price mechanism, the government has to decide where doctors are and which you can see. And the way UHC is going to stop rising healthcare costs is precisely by rationing the statistically less useful services, to more the sort of level you would get in the UK. And the way the government will pay for it is by raising payroll taxes, so most people don't end up any better off. And then the support drops below 40%.

By comparison, if you asked either of those questions in the UK, you'd get >90% agreement. Probably people would even be confused by the implications of the questions, as if anyone doubted it was a good thing? That is a (by US standards) left wing majority. And since Britain, like US, is a mostly functional democracy, that is what the public gets.

[K. A. Pital]

Well, ok, but the person I was arguing with previously claimed that the US was left-wing, and that its allegedly undemocratic system was the only cause for right wing policies being implemented.

I am not as sure. For me as a left-winger, that would be an optimistic outlook, which I'm afraid is fundamentally wrong. Iit is clear that the society in America is far from being left-wing.

[Simon_Jester]

Trick question. Education has nothing to do with intelligence but with willingness to do hard work and study or cheat/pay your way through. I know plenty of college educated people who are very good specialists but are otherwise useless intellectually.

I've known a number of people who are flat out too stupid to succeed in college.

You may be defining intelligence too narrowly: "That's not really intelligence, that's just a talent for problem-solving or social skills or artistic ability!" I'd argue that all those things are part of intelligence, even if some specific person hasn't got them.

Of course, this does mean that some intelligent people fall prey to "group-think and indoctrination." This should not come as a shock to you, if you have a slightly realistic understanding of human nature.

This is really the sort of thing I am talking about:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/U ... _poll.html

Broad general mandate for efforts to ensure universal health care. ~60% agreement that costs are likely to become disturbingly high in the future, even if they aren't already, among those already insured.

The soundbite claim is "60% of Americans want UHC". But if you read the article, it becomes "In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system. That support, however, is conditional: It falls to fewer than four in 10 if it means a limited choice of doctors, or waiting lists for non-emergency treatments. "

So Americans have 60% support for UHC if the government doesn't decide how much healthcare you get or ration healthcare in any way and generally everything is just as good as it is for the winners under the present system, now except that everyone is a winner and the government pays for it all. Ok. But then you look at a real state healthcare system, like the one in the UK, and you realise that the government has to decide what it's going to offer you, and because there's no price mechanism, the government has to decide where doctors are and which you can see. And the way UHC is going to stop rising healthcare costs is precisely by rationing the statistically less useful services, to more the sort of level you would get in the UK. And the way the government will pay for it is by raising payroll taxes, so most people don't end up any better off. And then the support drops below 40%.

By comparison, if you asked either of those questions in the UK, you'd get >90% agreement. Probably people would even be confused by the implications of the questions, as if anyone doubted it was a good thing? That is a (by US standards) left wing majority. And since Britain, like US, is a mostly functional democracy, that is what the public gets.

Personally, I think the answers to a lot of questions like this depend on what people are familiar with.

In the US, if you say "rationed health care," people will not have a frame of reference to describe what rationing means. They may well assume it means "I will die of Exploding Butt Syndrome while waiting on hold to talk to a doctor for eight months" when in fact it means "It's pretty hard to get just-in-case CT scans because lots of people are waiting to use the machines," which are something a lot of Americans couldn't afford anyway. Likewise, how many Americans who claim to oppose universal health care if it hurts their choice of doctor are already on an insurance program that limits their choice of doctor?

There's a lot of potential here for simply not knowing the details of how another system would work. That's one of the reasons you see a lot of people here who think the American people are 'really' somewhere to the left of what their politics would indicate. Because what they want is often not something right-wing politics has given them, or will ever give them.

Aside from a few babbling cretins who are full of nonsense like "get your socialist government out of my Social Security!" I think there are very few people who are welcoming the real consequences of the stated agenda of the Republican Party reaching its logical conclusion. Most of the people who vote for them vote because of a perceived alignment of values that have little to do with policy: "these people are the real America, chock-full of responsibility and good old-fashioned values and determination, and they're not power-hungry, I know that because they want small government!"

The average voter is not a policy wonk; they have always and will always vote in large part based on their perception of personalities and values. Where democracy works, it uses this to its advantage; where it doesn't work, it fails to do so.

I think the "right-wing" or "left-wing" nature of America is largely a question of trust, not of intellectual agreement with right or left-wing policies. The Republican Party is simply better at maneuvering to gain the trust of chunks of the American people, and at making sure they distrust anyone else who comes along. At the same time, American history leads to intense distrust of "socialism" in various guises, and of the far left, because we had H-bombs pointed down our throats by the USSR for thirty years.

Combine those and you get a nation which would probably be far more comfortable with the actual policies of the left than it is with the rhetoric of the left, and which is far more comfortable with the rhetoric of the right than it is with the actual policies of the right.

[HMS Conqueror]

I'm not necessarily saying UHC is bad. What I'm saying is that when you explain the disadvantages of such a policy in reasonably similar terms to the advantages, support isn't >50%. And in a large public debate on such an issue, the downsides will also be aired, as we saw in 2009. "Death panels" may well be a sensational phrase, but it's basically true that in Britain there is a panel that decides when the government will let you die, and it does so at a much lower $ value than the US insurance companies, which is why British healthcare is so much cheaper. Here, it isn't much of an issue. There have been a couple of scandals, but nothing that has shaken general support for the NHS. In America, it is a huge issue.

Also, while I agree some people vote for tribalism or vague values, this is true of the left as well. If you are born into a family where every generation has been in a particular union, you're probably going to vote democrat. If you're a college kid who sees himself as a bit of an intellectual who cares about the poor, you're probably going to vote democrat. These people haven't examined all the policies this way or that. But what else do you do? Most people don't have time or inclination to be policy wonks - but democracy says they get a say anyway, because they're still governed by those policies that they don't know anything about.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, what is important is that people who aren't wonks vote for politicians on the basis of things like personal honor and policy-competence. Unfortunately, that's getting left behind by both parties, insofar as it was ever embraced.

Ultimately, it matters a lot less what someone thinks is best for the country as long as they feel an obligation to do what is best for the country- not just what they think best, but what really is best, to strive after excellence in government. When your policy platform is set by "we must appeal to our voter base!" that gets lost

[Lonestar]

Trick question. Education has nothing to do with intelligence but with willingness to do hard work and study or cheat/pay your way through. I know plenty of college educated people who are very good specialists but are otherwise useless intellectually.

The real test would be what population produces more intellectually minded individuals. People who behave well, are well versed in many things and who form intelligent and reasonable opinions on the world around them based on empirical observation rather than things like group-think and indoctrination.

Oh, phsaw.

There's a reason education is used as a measurement of intelligence, because you have demonstrated that you have met certain criteria(including problem solving and critical thinking, both of which are valued highly in the US military) that indicates a knowledge level. You also dodged answering the question, perhaps because you suspected your honest answer would have been deterimental to your position.

I might add that there are probably more than a few posters on this board who will be a teeny bit offended at your assertation that anyone can get their degree so long as they "work hard and/or cheat/pay their way through".

I might add that you appear to be starting from the assumption that "groupthink and indoctrination" is always bad, all the time. The military is not a fucking democracy, and requires a degree of indoctrination in order for it to work.

[Purple]

There's a reason education is used as a measurement of intelligence, because you have demonstrated that you have met certain criteria(including problem solving and critical thinking, both of which are valued highly in the US military) that indicates a knowledge level. You also dodged answering the question, perhaps because you suspected your honest answer would have been deterimental to your position.

Criteria that you are willing to spend tens and hundreds of hours studying yes. But that hardly equates with intelligence. A very intelligent person might go and study things like say law where you have to memorize a billion things and just break under the work load whilst an average but persistent person would have no such problems. I know that becouse I know plenty of people who you would consider about average that have excelled at it while at the same time knowing many people who you would call super intelligent who were lazy and newer managed it. Plus, the only ones that get to study in the first place are the ones that worked hard through high school in the first place. So you simply end up with the fact that in most cases outside of certain limited fields like theoretical mathematics and physics higher education is something like 20% intelligencerandom made up percentage to illustrate the point and the remainder is hard work.

Furthermore and perhaps more importantly you and I have different views on what makes up an intelligent person. As far as my opinion goes intelligence has nothing to do with a random IQ number or how high a person goes in education but how much the person is an intellectual. As in a person who reads books, appreciates art, has an intellectual analytical mindset and is generally intellectually minded. You can complete all the education you want and be a good enough expert in a billion fields without ever being anything more than that or becoming an intellectual. Especially if you graduate from say The Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.

For refrence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelectual

I might add that you appear to be starting from the assumption that "groupthink and indoctrination" is always bad, all the time. The military is not a fucking democracy, and requires a degree of indoctrination in order for it to work.

Appearing only to you as I said no such thing. You need to sit back and cool off a bit my good man. Before this turns into a flame war. What I am saying is that once that continues on to the personal level of who you vote for it is bad. Like, obeying indoctrination while in boot camp = good. Obeying indoctrination while in a war zone = very good. Voting for whom ever the other guys vote for on your own spare time = bad. That's why I could say any organization and not focus on the military.