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

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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."

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

Who said me? I didnt. I think there should be more investigate steps to determine need over just filing for something and the government trusting whats put on the request for aid.

Everything needs oversite, including the military.

 

Well that's kinda a vague sweeping statement too, but yes. It it stops selfish greedy people from taking advantage, id do it, because I don't think the oversite would need to maintain the level it starts out as once the truly bad people are weeded out. They go on a list and then when they ask for aid, the records and investigation is already there, so it wouldn't be a forever thing. It would be a transition thing to ... drain the swamp.

To me, as long as we allow loopholes we aren't really fixing or improving anything. Just a different type of running in circles.


But again this wasnt about money expenditures. Its about hatred of opposing views.

Do you hate me now because I have disagreed with you? IF not, do you have any idea why others might?

 

Sure. once caught they wont be doing it again.

 

It just seems like you want to, at least initially, spend more money, have more control, oversight, etc. because a few people might be taking advantage of the system? But what of UHC? We send people to people's houses to make sure they're not eating chips all day? Is there a BMI threshold you have to maintain to keep insurance? What of those that drink or smoke? Is there a stipend or kick back to healthy people who don't use it? Is it better to not have UHC, get private insurance companies huge profits, bankrupt people, and have others get sick and die untreated just to make sure that there isn't someone being lazy and ALSO getting health coverage?

Let's say each pay check I get currently, $50 is taken out to go to my health insurance. Or, that same amount is taken out to cover UHC. I still just fail to have seen anything you've said to support the first one over the second. Because of chip eaters? Of fraud? Of big government?

 

got it. so we are back to not having a constructive conversation and asking ridiculous questions again... I think you should reread the thread again and see what others have already said about hating those who disagree with thier viewpoint.

If you are going to deny this and converse about it and instead twist and weave like you just did, then we wont get anywhere.

One person, who i have much respect for basically said as much and then said they are leaving the forum. Because my conservative views differ from theirs.