Is a low IQ compulsory to be a Republican voter?.

No, of course not, silly.

I'll stand up for the odd friend or two, not horrible people.
Other wise, tell me about irish breakfast..

Unfortunately Irish brekkies and fry deups are forbidden fruit for me now.

What's with the temp?, get an office job, did we?.

I don't get it.

Point proven.

Actually IQ has nothing to do with it. If you look back to the Third Reich you'll see that they were very intelligent people. There's something else missing. What is it? That's the question.

I am a registered Republican and have been for over thirty years (less a couple of years as an Independent) It's got nothing to do with intelligence. What do you mean you were thinking about becoming a Republican? Were you thinking of registering as one or adopting their philosophies as your own? Changing your registration is easy: good luck trying to determine exactly what Republican values are. What you might find on the subject won't match what Republicans are doing politically. The hypocrisy you see isn't a part of it. Neither is rabid partisanship.

Ooh! Ooh! <raising hand as if in class>I know! I know!

Humanity? Is humanity the answer, teacher?

Your answer sounds fairly intuitive, except I tend to think that either party just attracts those that believe their respective party will "feather their own nest," so to speak. And, if you think a concern about "humanity" is a prerequisite for being a Democratic, how about those Democrats that are Democrats, since their main emotion is begrudging those who they perceive as "the haves" PERHAPS being Republicans, or Independent Conservatives? There really is a lot of begrudging those that may have more than others, be it in intelligence, material possessions, or something nebul0us called "white privilege."

From a sociological standpoint, many who are only a generation or two in the U.S., or in the northern urban areas, came from places where they were not a minority. They may have been poor, but they weren't social pariahs in the same sense as U.S. society might view them. This, I believe, is the root cause of much anguish that worsens any other underclass problems.

Lastly, any answers to the problems are not likely instant fixes. And, I have heard that our prior President did not really help masses of Black constituents, in the opinion of some. As it was said on a PBS interview, "having Black faces in high places" was not really helping the masses. So much for caring Democrats.

The thing about Republicans is that they'll screw you over without blinking and make no effort to hide it. The Democrats offer up programs which have all sorts of catches that'll keep you at the bottom of the barrel for as long as possible.

We need a new party, a third party that'll be both honest and compassionate.

Really McGentrix? I don't know if you are joking or not, but it isn't funny.

Killing sick kids isn't going to ever happen in the US. You have gone so far afield from American values that neither the left nor the right is going to support you. You have found a policy idea that would be opposed by pretty much everyone from Elizabeth Warren to Ted Cruz.

I imagined that you were pro-life. I guess I was wrong.

McGentrix, that is extremely loathsome even for you.

Who decides on the quality of a life and who decides whether a child should live or die?

All people have value, including those who you believe have no quality of life. The parents and others would likely disagree with you.

Years back my cousin John Ira was born blind and with Down Syndrome. His parents never abandoned him, they raised him, getting him dressed, cleaned and fed each and every day. To them and the entire extended family he had value. You'd probably disagree.

What next? Genetic selection so all babies are "perfect"? Sounds downright boring and dismal.

Pro-life? Me? Nah. Definitely pro-choice.

So, I give 3 examples and the two of you get disgusted by a single hypothetical? Do you at least even get the point I was trying to make? At all? Even a little bit?

I see your point on the second hypothetical... sort of... although helping people eat healthy and exercise seems better than letting people die of diabetes (I get that you didn't really suggest letting people die, but you suggested was raising premiums. At some point we need to help people who can't pay for life-saving treatment even if they have eaten doughnuts... or they will die).

Your first and third hypothetical seemed excessively cruel. Hint: it is best to leave children out of these hypothetical; killing children or ripping children away from their mothers aren't very good examples to use.

You want to decrease the cost of medical care, but you aren't willing to do the things necessary to make that happen? Why do you suppose that medical costs are so high? Is it because healthy people get checkups once a year and get their children vaccinated and taking care of accident victims?

Do you think that it is barbaric to choose to kill babies born with deformities? You do know that happens, right?

Do you think everyone should just pay the same amount for health insurance? Should people who have more health issues should pay more than people that don't?

Do you think welfare and public assistance should be a way of life or should there be a path to independence?

Do you think welfare and public assistance should be a way of life or should there be a path to independence?

The litany of a fat sloppy hog to to ones that are fenced out.

McGentrix, this is an absurd statement that you made (telling a mother that a child has already been killed without her consent in exchange for a tax rebate). It is impossible to take this seriously.

That being said.... sure, there are interesting issues about medical care. You have a point that we should give incentives for people to lower their own healthcare costs by healthy choices. But this point is completely derailed by the absurdity of your example.

Maybe you could step away from the grotesque.

I don't understand your reference.

One thing that could be changed is we could stop treating people that don't have insurance. Period. This way the insurance companies could have absolute control of costs. This would make premiums predictable and lower them. Would you like that? maybe we could give them the authority to refuse payments for self-inflicted conditions,( too many doughnuts) or refuse coverage for people with expensive to treat diseases. Or increase premiums for those who make claims. That would be great, eh Gent?