Are Americans getting fed up with govt tilting the playing field toward special interest groups?

[Rotagilla]

In America today, everyone is assigned a legally-enforceable racial category by the government.

Rights and privileges are then granted or denied based on one's racial membership, with non-whites given preferences over whites.
The federal government does this in the name of anti-racism, of course..

here's a novel concept...you rise based on your own skills, knowledge and aptitude. No discriminatory laws to artificially advance a minority over a qualified white person because of their race.
How's that for a "level playing field"?

...or do you view them as inferior and incapable of achieving on their own without gvt interference?

It's actually money that makes the playing field unlevel, not race. Rich black kids have it easier than you.

Lots of people have it easier than me..So? That's how the real world works.I'm ok with it.

And if we had it your way things would get a lot harder for you and yours because unregulated free market capitalism only works for the guys who already got theirs.

Life sure sucked when healthcare and gas was cheaper and companies paid workers more.

Fdr and liberal policies created a big middle class and the rich hated it. They've always hated high wages. I don't blame them. I blame workers who think they are Republicans.

you've come completely unhinged.

She has absolutely no kinship with reality.

But hey... what Leftist does?

sounds like a freshman in college with no real life experience.

 

[konradv]

We need to do something different, voting for Democrats and Republicans hasn't worked. This is why I dislike McCain so much. He and Feingold screwed this country over.

Public financing of elections would break the power of the parties.

 

[sealybobo]

It's actually money that makes the playing field unlevel, not race. Rich black kids have it easier than you.

Lots of people have it easier than me..So? That's how the real world works.I'm ok with it.

And if we had it your way things would get a lot harder for you and yours because unregulated free market capitalism only works for the guys who already got theirs.

Life sure sucked when healthcare and gas was cheaper and companies paid workers more.

Fdr and liberal policies created a big middle class and the rich hated it. They've always hated high wages. I don't blame them. I blame workers who think they are Republicans.

you've come completely unhinged.

She has absolutely no kinship with reality.

But hey... what Leftist does?

sounds like a freshman in college with no real life experience.

44 year old masters degree saleman whos never been in a union but realize how much unions did for the American middle class.

I've probably got more money than the two of you combined.

 

[Rotagilla]

44 year old masters degree saleman whos never been in a union but realize how much unions did for the American middle class.

I've probably got more money than the two of you combined.

Oh, I'm sure you do..

You're probably an MMA fighter and an airline pilot and a Marine sniper with a black belt in karate and an indy car driver when you're not teaching your economics class at harvard....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Isn't it nice to come to this wonderful place (the internet) where anybody can be anything they desire?

Too bad more people don't look at our country the same way.

 

[g5000]

Rinos should make both parties laugh like hell. They whine about Trump, try everything they can to get rid of Trump, and yet...........THEY CREATED TRUMP! Were it not for all of them breaking most promises they made to the American people, Trump would have no traction at all.

Exactly. I am loving the pain Trump is causing in the spineless Republican party. It's awesome.

 

[imawhosure]

You know, the democrats.............not the lefties.........should be ashamed of themselves as much as the republican rinos. Pull up a policy speech from Obama how the wealthy are screwing someone, then pull up a speech from JFK. REAL democrats don't have a home either! Democrats used to be for blue collar AMERICANS! Who is shutting down coal mines? Obama and the left. Who is allowing illegals to flow in without resistance? Obama with the tacit approval of rinos. Who wants to give blue collar jobs away? Democrats with the help of rinos. Who keeps wanting to spend MORE money that we don't have, and tax everything that moves? The far left, and some rinos.

I am telling you people; REAL democrats are in a quandary. Who do they really have to vote for in their own party that even remotely resembles their values? Remember, REAL democrats are not these far lefty degrowthers. They are the JFK type democrat who when the democratic party got stupid, became Reagan democrats. 70% of people polled stated plainly that they didn't want another Obama type Presidency this time. That should tell everyone something! It is exactly why Trump and outsiders are leading in the republican polls, and Sanders is quickly closing the gap in the democratic polls.

For those of you from BOTH sides of the aisle supporting secondary candidates, this is YOUR time! With the extreme irritation of the American people, ANYTHING or ANYBODY could win this. If you sit there and do nothing, then you are losing your BEST chance in history to get someone you believe in elected. Neither party will like it, but the odds are close to 50-50 it could happen, IF you get off your asses and do something!

 

[Little-Acorn]

You know, the democrats.............not the lefties.........should be ashamed of themselves as much as the republican rinos. Pull up a policy speech from Obama how the wealthy are screwing someone, then pull up a speech from JFK. REAL democrats don't have a home either! Democrats used to be for blue collar AMERICANS!
I am telling you people; REAL democrats are in a quandary.

Are there even any of your "real Democrats" in office any more?

Nobody but snake oil salesmen who promise to "give" you more than the next guy.

Might Donald Trump's emergence, reflect the voters' dissatisfaction with recent trends in American government?

Voters realized that government's main purpose is no longer protecting people's individual rights. Govt has moved into the business of favoring one group over another.

With this change, it has begun imposing its rules and restrictions based not on the complete equality under law demanded by the Constitution, but on constantly-changing standards of "deserving". Such as whether they are minorities, whether they are in unions, whether they own land where the snail darter or spotted owl lives, whether they are poor, etc. (Needless to say, people who have earned and saved a lot of money, are at the bottom of this "favored-group" list.)

So, many of those voters have inserted another qualification on whom they will vote for, for President. Their preferred candidate must be one who will favor them above others.

Since such selfish (and even larcenous) desires are not socially acceptable, they couch it in innocent-sounding phrases such as "I want a candidate who understands me", or "I want a candidate who sympathizes with the problems I am facing".

Back when government's only functions were national defense, coining money, setting standards, dealing with foreign nations, prosecuting certain crimes etc., such "sympathizing" was unnecessary. People tended to vote for the candidate they thought could handle the actual, legitimate functions of government better. And they tended to vote for stern, fatherly figures such as George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland etc. Leaders whom they thought would enforce the laws impartially and deal with challenges sternly and with some degree of integrity.

But now, government's main function has changed. It spends more and more time and money (especially money) trying to relieve you of the everyday problems in your own personal life (distributing health care, controlling the people around you and regulating what they built, what they sold you, what they said in your hearing, planning your retirement savings for you, deciding for you what your children could eat in school, and generally saving you from your own follies and mistakes). And as a result, more and more voters have now decided that it is more important to have a President they can count on to favor them, more than he favors people not like them.

So we're getting candidates who fight to "give" them health care based on how much they need rather than how hard they work to pay for what they get. Candidates who favor those who "need more", over those who managed to provide their own without the assistance of government. And those candidates get voted for more often than candidates who promise to make sure nobody stops you from earning enough to pay for your own health care. Same for candidates who promise to get you into college due to your skin color or national origin, over candidates who promise to make sure you have the same (and no more) chance to get into college regardless of your skin color... but leave it up to you to pay for it yourself.

Back when such matters were none of government's business, there was no point in voting for the more "sympathetic" candidate. And people would even wonder what kind of slippery trick you were trying to pull if you wanted someone who promised to make sure a pound of grain would weigh more at your mill than at the next town's mill... weights and measures being one of the few legitimate functions of government the candidate would actually be able to influence, in obedience to the Constitution.

And people's response to these governments whose main job is to hand out favors, as they have always responded to socialistic governments throughout history (including govts with those characteristics long before the term "socialism" was invented), is inevitable. Even the people with personal integrity, who wanted to stick to the old rules of actual fairness and impartiality, have started to see that it is now a losing gambit. If they don't try to sway government into favoring them more than their neighbor, they will simply find government favoring them far less and oppressing them even more.

And so, one by one, honest people gradually release their fealty toward stern, impartial government that stays out of their lives. And one by one, they throw in their lot with the people already trying to cadge more favors from government, whether in the name of "making reparations for the wrongs done by previous generations" or "providing health care to those who don't have it (itself a misleading lie)". And they do their best to vote for the candidate who (they will righteously tell you) "understands my own plight a little better" or "sympathizes for people in my particular position". Of course, these are both phrases that boil down to "he will do more good things for me, and relax the regulations a little more for me, than he will for the other guy."

Some people wonder why politicians pushing such favoritism, get so many votes. One explanation sometimes offered, is "voter fraud".

But in a sense, voter fraud isn't just fraud perpetrated AGAINST voters. There's another kind: The subtle fraud perpetrated BY voters against their fellow men, in an attempt to get government "on my side and not on your side".

And though subtle, this other kind of fraud is the most pernicious in the long run, since it causes the remaining fair, upright voters to abandon, one by one, their dedication to truly impartial government, and go over to supporting corruptible, me-over-you government.

And as more people go over to this corruptible, me-over-you government, this puts more pressure on the remaining (and now dwindling) individual citizens who were trying to play fair and maintain their integrity, to give up that integrity, and follow.

Could Trump's in-your-face insistence on doing things the way HE wants them done (many of them matching what a lot of dissatisfied people want done), be a result of so many people being unhappy with the tilt-the-playing-field-toward-that-group function that government has taken on in the last dacade or two?

Many of the people pushing for big government "helping" people, don't intend for society to deteriorate, of course.

But the fact is, that is the inevitable result, when govt tries to "help" people.

1.) It turns into a pushing and shoving match, trying to get govt to help you more than it helps the other guy;
2.) Hardworking people who don't want govt favor, are persuaded one after the other to give up and seek favor anyway. While NO people are ever persuaded to go the other way. The result is a slow slide into dependence, with no particular urge to stop.

We are seeing the United States slide down this path, at an ever-increasing rate. Where people used to vote for Presidents based on how well they would defend the coutry, enforce our laws, and protect our rights, now the President's most ardent supporters crow over how popular he is, what a nice guy he is, and how "unfeeling" the opposing candidates were.

It is a sea change we can ill afford to ignore, and even less afford to indulge in. But is it one that can still be reversed?

 

[imawhosure]

You know, the democrats.............not the lefties.........should be ashamed of themselves as much as the republican rinos. Pull up a policy speech from Obama how the wealthy are screwing someone, then pull up a speech from JFK. REAL democrats don't have a home either! Democrats used to be for blue collar AMERICANS!
I am telling you people; REAL democrats are in a quandary.

Are there even any of your "real Democrats" in office any more?

Nobody but snake oil salesmen who promise to "give" you more than the next guy.

Might Donald Trump's emergence, reflect the voters' dissatisfaction with recent trends in American government?

Voters realized that government's main purpose is no longer protecting people's individual rights. Govt has moved into the business of favoring one group over another.

With this change, it has begun imposing its rules and restrictions based not on the complete equality under law demanded by the Constitution, but on constantly-changing standards of "deserving". Such as whether they are minorities, whether they are in unions, whether they own land where the snail darter or spotted owl lives, whether they are poor, etc. (Needless to say, people who have earned and saved a lot of money, are at the bottom of this "favored-group" list.)

So, many of those voters have inserted another qualification on whom they will vote for, for President. Their preferred candidate must be one who will favor them above others.

Since such selfish (and even larcenous) desires are not socially acceptable, they couch it in innocent-sounding phrases such as "I want a candidate who understands me", or "I want a candidate who sympathizes with the problems I am facing".

Back when government's only functions were national defense, coining money, setting standards, dealing with foreign nations, prosecuting certain crimes etc., such "sympathizing" was unnecessary. People tended to vote for the candidate they thought could handle the actual, legitimate functions of government better. And they tended to vote for stern, fatherly figures such as George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland etc. Leaders whom they thought would enforce the laws impartially and deal with challenges sternly and with some degree of integrity.

But now, government's main function has changed. It spends more and more time and money (especially money) trying to relieve you of the everyday problems in your own personal life (distributing health care, controlling the people around you and regulating what they built, what they sold you, what they said in your hearing, planning your retirement savings for you, deciding for you what your children could eat in school, and generally saving you from your own follies and mistakes). And as a result, more and more voters have now decided that it is more important to have a President they can count on to favor them, more than he favors people not like them.

So we're getting candidates who fight to "give" them health care based on how much they need rather than how hard they work to pay for what they get. Candidates who favor those who "need more", over those who managed to provide their own without the assistance of government. And those candidates get voted for more often than candidates who promise to make sure nobody stops you from earning enough to pay for your own health care. Same for candidates who promise to get you into college due to your skin color or national origin, over candidates who promise to make sure you have the same (and no more) chance to get into college regardless of your skin color... but leave it up to you to pay for it yourself.

Back when such matters were none of government's business, there was no point in voting for the more "sympathetic" candidate. And people would even wonder what kind of slippery trick you were trying to pull if you wanted someone who promised to make sure a pound of grain would weigh more at your mill than at the next town's mill... weights and measures being one of the few legitimate functions of government the candidate would actually be able to influence, in obedience to the Constitution.

And people's response to these governments whose main job is to hand out favors, as they have always responded to socialistic governments throughout history (including govts with those characteristics long before the term "socialism" was invented), is inevitable. Even the people with personal integrity, who wanted to stick to the old rules of actual fairness and impartiality, have started to see that it is now a losing gambit. If they don't try to sway government into favoring them more than their neighbor, they will simply find government favoring them far less and oppressing them even more.

And so, one by one, honest people gradually release their fealty toward stern, impartial government that stays out of their lives. And one by one, they throw in their lot with the people already trying to cadge more favors from government, whether in the name of "making reparations for the wrongs done by previous generations" or "providing health care to those who don't have it (itself a misleading lie)". And they do their best to vote for the candidate who (they will righteously tell you) "understands my own plight a little better" or "sympathizes for people in my particular position". Of course, these are both phrases that boil down to "he will do more good things for me, and relax the regulations a little more for me, than he will for the other guy."

Some people wonder why politicians pushing such favoritism, get so many votes. One explanation sometimes offered, is "voter fraud".

But in a sense, voter fraud isn't just fraud perpetrated AGAINST voters. There's another kind: The subtle fraud perpetrated BY voters against their fellow men, in an attempt to get government "on my side and not on your side".

And though subtle, this other kind of fraud is the most pernicious in the long run, since it causes the remaining fair, upright voters to abandon, one by one, their dedication to truly impartial government, and go over to supporting corruptible, me-over-you government.

And as more people go over to this corruptible, me-over-you government, this puts more pressure on the remaining (and now dwindling) individual citizens who were trying to play fair and maintain their integrity, to give up that integrity, and follow.

Could Trump's in-your-face insistence on doing things the way HE wants them done (many of them matching what a lot of dissatisfied people want done), be a result of so many people being unhappy with the tilt-the-playing-field-toward-that-group function that government has taken on in the last dacade or two?

Many of the people pushing for big government "helping" people, don't intend for society to deteriorate, of course.

But the fact is, that is the inevitable result, when govt tries to "help" people.

1.) It turns into a pushing and shoving match, trying to get govt to help you more than it helps the other guy;
2.) Hardworking people who don't want govt favor, are persuaded one after the other to give up and seek favor anyway. While NO people are ever persuaded to go the other way. The result is a slow slide into dependence, with no particular urge to stop.

We are seeing the United States slide down this path, at an ever-increasing rate. Where people used to vote for Presidents based on how well they would defend the coutry, enforce our laws, and protect our rights, now the President's most ardent supporters crow over how popular he is, what a nice guy he is, and how "unfeeling" the opposing candidates were.

It is a sea change we can ill afford to ignore, and even less afford to indulge in. But is it one that can still be reversed?

Well Acorn, your points are very well articulated, and accurate. Problem is though, the left has done such a great job of subdividing our country, that every citizen (and non-citizen to be fair) has been placed in a special interest group by them. The left has been very intelligent in the way they have gone about doing it also.

CONSIDER: To grow the economy and put people back to work, we both know the government has to make it more than viable for people to put money at risk. And what does the left say? The republicans are doing it to cater to rich business owners. In other words, business owners are NOT a special interest group the lefties want; but they DO want CEOs of large corporations, which is exactly why Washington is all about crony capitalism.

The lefts policies are destructive; but I tell everyone to never think for an instant, that the people who are actually in charge of the lefties are stupid. They are not, they are highly intelligent, and in fact, it is why we call them pointy headed libs! The difference between the 60s, 70s, 80s, and now is................the left has stopped trying to convince Americans that their policies were the correct ones because Americans intuitively knew it was all bad.

Instead, they have changed course. Instead of telling everyone how wonderful their policies are, they lie about the policies, implement them, then blame everyone else for their failure while they continue to divide the country. It is working, and now they are importing more voters from the 3rd world. It is now or never for us, it really is.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Problem is though, the left has done such a great job of subdividing our country, that every citizen (and non-citizen to be fair) has been placed in a special interest group by them.

Interestingly, there is a command in the Constitution that forbids spending tax money on special interest groups (what the Founders called "the local welfare", as differentiated from "General Welfare"). It's called the "Uniformity Clause", sometimes mislabeled as the "Welfare Clause".

 

[Little-Acorn]

Are there even any of your "real Democrats" in office any more?

Nobody but snake oil salesmen who promise to "give" you more than the next guy.

Might Donald Trump's emergence, reflect the voters' dissatisfaction with recent trends in American government?

Voters realized that government's main purpose is no longer protecting people's individual rights. Govt has moved into the business of favoring one group over another.

With this change, it has begun imposing its rules and restrictions based not on the complete equality under law demanded by the Constitution, but on constantly-changing standards of "deserving". Such as whether they are minorities, whether they are in unions, whether they own land where the snail darter or spotted owl lives, whether they are poor, etc. (Needless to say, people who have earned and saved a lot of money, are at the bottom of this "favored-group" list.)

So, many of those voters have inserted another qualification on whom they will vote for, for President. Their preferred candidate must be one who will favor them above others.

Since such selfish (and even larcenous) desires are not socially acceptable, they couch it in innocent-sounding phrases such as "I want a candidate who understands me", or "I want a candidate who sympathizes with the problems I am facing".

Back when government's only functions were national defense, coining money, setting standards, dealing with foreign nations, prosecuting certain crimes etc., such "sympathizing" was unnecessary. People tended to vote for the candidate they thought could handle the actual, legitimate functions of government better. And they tended to vote for stern, fatherly figures such as George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland etc. Leaders whom they thought would enforce the laws impartially and deal with challenges sternly and with some degree of integrity.

But now, government's main function has changed. It spends more and more time and money (especially money) trying to relieve you of the everyday problems in your own personal life (distributing health care, controlling the people around you and regulating what they built, what they sold you, what they said in your hearing, planning your retirement savings for you, deciding for you what your children could eat in school, and generally saving you from your own follies and mistakes). And as a result, more and more voters have now decided that it is more important to have a President they can count on to favor them, more than he favors people not like them.

So we're getting candidates who fight to "give" them health care based on how much they need rather than how hard they work to pay for what they get. Candidates who favor those who "need more", over those who managed to provide their own without the assistance of government. And those candidates get voted for more often than candidates who promise to make sure nobody stops you from earning enough to pay for your own health care. Same for candidates who promise to get you into college due to your skin color or national origin, over candidates who promise to make sure you have the same (and no more) chance to get into college regardless of your skin color... but leave it up to you to pay for it yourself.

Back when such matters were none of government's business, there was no point in voting for the more "sympathetic" candidate. And people would even wonder what kind of slippery trick you were trying to pull if you wanted someone who promised to make sure a pound of grain would weigh more at your mill than at the next town's mill... weights and measures being one of the few legitimate functions of government the candidate would actually be able to influence, in obedience to the Constitution.

And people's response to these governments whose main job is to hand out favors, as they have always responded to socialistic governments throughout history (including govts with those characteristics long before the term "socialism" was invented), is inevitable. Even the people with personal integrity, who wanted to stick to the old rules of actual fairness and impartiality, have started to see that it is now a losing gambit. If they don't try to sway government into favoring them more than their neighbor, they will simply find government favoring them far less and oppressing them even more.

And so, one by one, honest people gradually release their fealty toward stern, impartial government that stays out of their lives. And one by one, they throw in their lot with the people already trying to cadge more favors from government, whether in the name of "making reparations for the wrongs done by previous generations" or "providing health care to those who don't have it (itself a misleading lie)". And they do their best to vote for the candidate who (they will righteously tell you) "understands my own plight a little better" or "sympathizes for people in my particular position". Of course, these are both phrases that boil down to "he will do more good things for me, and relax the regulations a little more for me, than he will for the other guy."

Some people wonder why politicians pushing such favoritism, get so many votes. One explanation sometimes offered, is "voter fraud".

But in a sense, voter fraud isn't just fraud perpetrated AGAINST voters. There's another kind: The subtle fraud perpetrated BY voters against their fellow men, in an attempt to get government "on my side and not on your side".

And though subtle, this other kind of fraud is the most pernicious in the long run, since it causes the remaining fair, upright voters to abandon, one by one, their dedication to truly impartial government, and go over to supporting corruptible, me-over-you government.

And as more people go over to this corruptible, me-over-you government, this puts more pressure on the remaining (and now dwindling) individual citizens who were trying to play fair and maintain their integrity, to give up that integrity, and follow.

Could Trump's in-your-face insistence on doing things the way HE wants them done (many of them matching what a lot of dissatisfied people want done), be a result of so many people being unhappy with the tilt-the-playing-field-toward-that-group function that government has taken on in the last dacade or two?

Many of the people pushing for big government "helping" people, don't intend for society to deteriorate, of course.

But the fact is, that is the inevitable result, when govt tries to "help" people.

1.) It turns into a pushing and shoving match, trying to get govt to help you more than it helps the other guy;
2.) Hardworking people who don't want govt favor, are persuaded one after the other to give up and seek favor anyway. While NO people are ever persuaded to go the other way. The result is a slow slide into dependence, with no particular urge to stop.

We are seeing the United States slide down this path, at an ever-increasing rate. Where people used to vote for Presidents based on how well they would defend the coutry, enforce our laws, and protect our rights, now the President's most ardent supporters crow over how popular he is, what a nice guy he is, and how "unfeeling" the opposing candidates were.

It is a sea change we can ill afford to ignore, and even less afford to indulge in. But is it one that can still be reversed?