Forum Thread

Let's Put All Democrats in Jail

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 20 1 2 Next
  • Brooks, AB
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Franklin D. Roosevelt, the 32nd president of the United States, has been regarded as the architect of the welfare state in America. His New Deal has been criticized by the politically right as a one-way ticket to socialism. Welfare, in their minds, has taken the drive out of the American people. Why was this supposed madman allowed to hold office to effect this change in the USA?

    The Great Depression set the stage for the 1932 election. Republican Hoover campaigned on allowing market forces to rectify this economic disaster. Democrat Roosevelt campaigned on government intervention. Both sides had their opportunity to make their case to the American public. Roosevelt bested Hoover in the popular vote by 22m to 15m voters. Roosevelt trounced Hoover in the electoral college by 472 to 59. If there ever was an American president who received a mandate to govern, it was Roosevelt.

    And govern he did. He used all of his deal-making skills, media skills, and authority given to his office within the American Constitution to push forward on the New Deal. In essence, he delivered on his promises to his base supporters.

    If the man behind the New Deal was such a flawed character and the New Deal was such a flawed social agenda, then we should conclude that the 1932 election was a flawed process. The margin of victory was so wide that we cannot even claim the election was rigged. So it must be the democratic process itself that failed the American people.

    If the welfare state is indeed so bad, the Republicans have had ample opportunity to reverse the direction of the New Deal. Two effective Republican presidents--Eisenhower and Reagan--had the mandate, popularity, and skills to reverse the social agenda of the New Deal. They did not effect this change. And there were a few less effective Republican presidents who wouldn't or couldn't reverse it as well. In other words, there hasn't been the political will to undo Roosevelt's work.

    So if the New Deal and its evolution into the welfare state is so flawed and the Republicans have been stymied to reverse it, what is the problem? The answer is clearly that the American people are still electing too many Democrats into Congress who depend on welfare votes to put them into Congress.

    Pay attention to that last sentence! Effective solutions are better found when the problem has been properly identified. This last sentence identifies the problem. So a logical solution would be to dismantle the Democratic Party. Here are some ideas on how to do that:

    1) Put a thousand or so high ranking Democrats in jail. This will make their leadership impotent and their members scared.

    2) Forbid any Democrat candidate to be printed on a ballot.

    3) Shut down any media outlet with a liberal/progressive bias. This can be justified in that they are spreading lies and false ideologies.

    4) Make a list. Scour the internet discussion groups to identify all citizens with a left-wing bias and put them on this list.

    5) Make sure anyone on this list cannot attain a public or private sector job that pays more than $100,000 a year. Make it clear that being on this list means a life with fewer career opportunities.

    6) Fire all high school teachers who are on this list. They should not be in a position to influence young people. Same for university professors.

    7) If someone on this list has or starts a business, use all the regulations to make it difficult for this person to continue doing business.

    Let's take our solution a step further:

    The founding fathers allowed only rich, white men the right to vote. Let's go back to that principle. For sure, there will be far fewer votes for any kind of welfare state with this demographic. To minimize careerists from entering the Republican Party and later influencing it in the wrong way, let's raise the standards to get into the Party. Applicants would now have to study and pass a Republican civics test. Topics would include the evils of socialism, liberalism, and progressivism. Of course, anyone already on the list would not be allowed to apply.

    If dismantling the welfare state is a high priority to creating a better society, a one-party state (with the one party being of a sound ideology) is preferable the two-party state where one of the parties can bribe voters with a welfare state.

    AREN'T ALL THESE SUGGESTIONS SO COMMUNIST?

    These suggestions are very typical of a communist party. Would America, the champion of modern democracy, ever evolve to this state? It seems many right-wing thinkers would prefer an oligarchy to their political leaning than today's democracy.

    And to be fair, many many left-wing thinkers are so appalled that someone like Mr. Trump could become president that they too must be thinking it is time to for them to take power completely away from those who think differently. The left's version of the world would have the right's political leaders working at at the recycling plant sorting plastics.

    In both such left-wing and right-wing oligarchies, the career path in politics is through the parties, but never being accountable to the general public because the public is just too foolish to make a good choice--just like in a communist society.

    A one-party USA should be preferable to the current two-party America. Currently, not many Americans are satisfied with the direction their country is going. With a one-party USA, a significantly minority will be reasonably satisfied.

    In my previous article on WB "Robert's Rules of Order", General Robert based his rules for non-legislative bodies on three basic principles of democracy:

    1) Efficiency in reaching a decision.

    2) Letting the minority voice having a fair say.

    3) Abiding by the will of the majority.

    Looking at these principles and seeing how they are applied to many volunteer organizations, we see how General Robert allowed us to speak our minds at these meetings, make a decision and move on. If we found ourselves in the minority; i.e., we didn't get our way at the meeting; we at least stepped out of the way to let the majority carry out its work. Sometimes we might have even helped the majority strive to attain its objective. But because we had the chance to speak, we were somewhat content that we had the opportunity to change other minds.

    But for our national politics, we really don't want the majority to have its way when its way conflicts with our way. We have lost principle #3. And if we hold on to strong opinions, we do our best to shout louder and longer than our opponents, lest our opponents play this game better than we. It really doesn't matter anymore whether we won or lost with the due democratic process. Just shout anyways! So we have lost Principle #2. Even if there is free speech, is it still a societal virtue when there is no free listening?

    Because we have lost #3 and #2, we have also lost Principle #1. Today's legislators are less effective in creating new legislation (or amending or rescinding old legislation) than in FDR's time. Even FDR, with all his skills and talents and connections and intuition, would be hard pressed to move America in any direction in today's political climate.

    Is the USA drifting to a one-party state?

  • Brooks, AB
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    This article was originally published on Writerbeat.com on May 21, 2018.

    WB is a collection of left-wingers, right wingers, and moderates giving their perspectives on issues. There are a few quasi-trolls in this forum, but many writers here are civil to others with differing opinions. It's a great place to test one's thinking.

    I have been occasional active promoting my book on alternative governance on the internet since 2000. When I first started, I would get many comments like: "I disagree with you, but I defend your right to say it." These days, I'm not hearing that phrase anymore.

  • Strongly Liberal
    Independent
    Ohio
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Or a three party state. ? Four ? The liberataian so are absolutely in hundreds of state and local office. They will probably get a seat in the house eventually maybe two. The milenials are indipendent as are like 50 % of all voters. Why don't we have an indipendent party ? Why ?

    You are talking about insanity prevailing. Its so crazy , it might just work. Criminals, in charge of our government . What could go wrong ? It always worked in the past in other countries. " Look at Cuba. Why we be like Cuba and have nice weather and drive 1950 s cars ? We could get our hotels back " drump 2017 speech in pine bluff.

    Just kidding.

    I fear the green party has been corrupted by the Russians also . Jill Stien was in Russia also, probly getting some kashe . Maybe some sumpn sumpn. But the Greens have some kashae and they have a base. So that's like five . I would like an indipendent candidate like Bernie or the rock or Oprah or Arnold ,or Jessie Ventura my favorite candidate for president is Al Franken.

    Al Franken for president.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Party Control of the Presidency and Congress, 1933-2010

    Getting legislation passed is so much easier when a party controls all three branches of government and with a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. People can laud FDR's skills in getting the New Deal passed, but would he have been able to do that with any of the post World War II Congresses from 1947 onwards? Not so easy. FDR enjoyed solid Democratic majorities in the 73rd, 74th, 75th, 76th, 77th, 78th and 79th Congresses...his entire four terms in office. And for four of those Congresses (eight years) he enjoyed filibuster proof majorities in the Senate as the above link show.

    Only Lyndon Johnson enjoyed that kind of support (88th, 89th and 90th Congresses), and of course he is known for passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    This is off-topic somewhat, but I wanted to make that point.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Party Control of the Presidency and Congress, 1933-2010

    Getting legislation passed is so much easier when a party controls all three branches of government and with a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. People can laud FDR's skills in getting the New Deal passed, but would he have been able to do that with any of the post World War II Congresses from 1947 onwards? Not so easy. FDR enjoyed solid Democratic majorities in the 73rd, 74th, 75th, 76th, 77th, 78th and 79th Congresses...his entire four terms in office. And for four of those Congresses (eight years) he enjoyed filibuster proof majorities in the Senate as the above link show.

    Only Lyndon Johnson enjoyed that kind of support (88th, 89th and 90th Congresses), and of course he is known for passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    Facts: pesky things a solid chunk of individuals refuse to believe.

    What many of us forget is that even with a super majority, many of the bills FDR signed into law were struck down by “the Four Horsemen” (soon to be five with Owen Roberts choosing to end his swing vote status and joining the four die hard conservatives to create a majority). Who nominated Roberts? The person almost solely responsible for the economic crash of 1929.

    Elections have consequences.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Getting back to Dave Volek's original post. Yes one of the weaknesses of a democracy like ours is that the electorate is not informed...or is misinformed or apathetic. Those that are informed at least in part are typically one issue voters.

    Jobs of course is a strong emotional issue, and for those candidates planning to bring back jobs to an impoverished area or state, then they have the upper hand, no matter how poor the prospect of getting such legislation passed. Health care is another issue. And free education.

    However, for many Republicans right now, immigration is the central issue. For the religious right, abortion and LGBT rights are negative issues as much as they are positive issues amongst the left. The gun crazies are married to the Second Amendment rights or what they perceive them to be.

    In summary, for many voters it's more about "What's in it for me" and less about the empathy for others.

    I mentioned jobs as an emotional issue. That's the other point. So many people vote their emotions and do not think critically about the whole host of issues affecting our supposed democracy. The words in the Preamble to the Constitution have been forgotten if they were ever studied at all.

    "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

    We tend to blame the parties, the government, the Constitution, our religious affiliations, our schools and more...but our democracy is only as good as the people we elect. And that requires an informed electorate.

    My opinion...mentioned before at times in this website...

  • Brooks, AB
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Party Control of the Presidency and Congress, 1933-2010

    Getting legislation passed is so much easier when a party controls all three branches of government and with a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. People can laud FDR's skills in getting the New Deal passed, but would he have been able to do that with any of the post World War II Congresses from 1947 onwards? Not so easy. FDR enjoyed solid Democratic majorities in the 73rd, 74th, 75th, 76th, 77th, 78th and 79th Congresses...his entire four terms in office. And for four of those Congresses (eight years) he enjoyed filibuster proof majorities in the Senate as the above link show.

    Only Lyndon Johnson enjoyed that kind of support (88th, 89th and 90th Congresses), and of course he is known for passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    This is off-topic somewhat, but I wanted to make that point.

    After I had wrote that article, I found out that FDR created much of his NEW DEAL via executive orders, not through acts of congress. Still he had to tread carefully and thoughtfully before implementing all those executive orders--and not offend too many of his congressional supporters. He still worked within the system. His four terms terms prove he was a very skillful political player.
  • Brooks, AB
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Getting back to Dave Volek's original post. Yes one of the weaknesses of a democracy like ours is that the electorate is not informed...or is misinformed or apathetic. Those that are informed at least in part are typically one issue voters.

    Jobs of course is a strong emotional issue, and for those candidates planning to bring back jobs to an impoverished area or state, then they have the upper hand, no matter how poor the prospect of getting such legislation passed. Health care is another issue. And free education.

    However, for many Republicans right now, immigration is the central issue. For the religious right, abortion and LGBT rights are negative issues as much as they are positive issues amongst the left. The gun crazies are married to the Second Amendment rights or what they perceive them to be.

    In summary, for many voters it's more about "What's in it for me" and less about the empathy for others.

    I mentioned jobs as an emotional issue. That's the other point. So many people vote their emotions and do not think critically about the whole host of issues affecting our supposed democracy. The words in the Preamble to the Constitution have been forgotten if they were ever studied at all.

    "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

    We tend to blame the parties, the government, the Constitution, our religious affiliations, our schools and more...but our democracy is only as good as the people we elect. And that requires an informed electorate.

    My opinion...mentioned before at times in this website...

    Schmidt

    My first version of my book got me a role as a social/political columnist in a rural newspaper. Trying to explain a complicated issue with a 600-word limit really tightened up my writing.

    One column started as my position of implementing a few private enterprise features into Alberta's public health care system. I had a strong opinion on this topic, and set off to inflict my readers with my version of a building a better world. As I was putting the pieces together, I came to a stunning conclusion: "I don't know a damn thing about how to run a public or private health care system".

    Despite being a reasonably informed citizen, I just did not have enough knowledge, experience, or wisdom to create a "wise" position on this issue. Of course, I could become better informed, but that would take a lot of time and energy--which I just didn't have. If we add all the other issues facing Albertans, Canadians, and the rest of the world, I would need 200 hours a day to qualify myself as a truly informed citizen.

    My column then took an interesting twist. Rather than trying to become better informed, we should elect honest and capable people to work full-time and sift through all the pros and cons of alternative solutions, come to a decision, implement that decision, monitor that decision, and make changes as needed.

    We just don't have time--and skills--to become better informed as you suggest. And if both you and I invest a lot of time to become better informed AND come to different conclusions, then logic says one of us has wasted his time and energy.

    ------

    In the TDG, I ask voters to consider two characteristics when making their voting decision: 1) Good character, and 2) Capacity for Governance. Each voter will define for him- or herself what constitutes those characteristics. But the TDG will find better people and move them up the ladder than any version of western democracy.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Dave -- Yes I agree that being informed on all the issues while also holding down a full time job, being a parent, and more is difficult. When I was working, I too was "less informed", but I would not say I was uninformed, at least on the issues that mattered. The social issues of the day (e.g. abortion, LGBT rights) should not consume a lot of a person's time, but issues like immigration and health care are vastly more complicated, and I hate to say it, but money is also a big factor.

    We had four Democrats running for the party's nomination for Colorado governor this year. I didn't know any of them until I browsed their websites, and only one stood out to me as being not only honest but with common sense solutions. That was Mike Johnston, and I canvassed for him for almost three months. However, he lost the primary to Jared Polis, who self funded his campaign. Polis net worth according to Wikipedia is $400 million, and he spent big time to buy the election. Not only that his selling points on the issues (a Bernie light) just didn't seem honest and practical to me (I'm a retired engineer).

    Polis is also the candidate that the Republicans wanted to run against the most, and with an open primary, Republican leaning unaffiliated voters chose to vote strategically in the Democratic ballot for the candidate that Republicans wanted to run against...Polis.

    This is what frustrates me with Democrats. We don't elect our best candidates in primaries that can win the general election. However, while that seems obvious to me, I agree it is not obvious to many of the other hard working Coloradoans. My choice for Johnston was based on honesty, character and competence after doing my research. That seems to be missing in our political discourse more often where emotions trump critical thinking.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Dave -- Yes I agree that being informed on all the issues while also holding down a full time job, being a parent, and more is difficult. When I was working, I too was "less informed", but I would not say I was uninformed, at least on the issues that mattered. The social issues of the day (e.g. abortion, LGBT rights) should not consume a lot of a person's time, but issues like immigration and health care are vastly more complicated, and I hate to say it, but money is also a big factor.

    We had four Democrats running for the party's nomination for Colorado governor this year. I didn't know any of them until I browsed their websites, and only one stood out to me as being not only honest but with common sense solutions. That was Mike Johnston, and I canvassed for him for almost three months. However, he lost the primary to Jared Polis, who self funded his campaign. Polis net worth according to Wikipedia is $400 million, and he spent big time to buy the election. Not only that his selling points on the issues (a Bernie light) just didn't seem honest and practical to me (I'm a retired engineer).

    Polis is also the candidate that the Republicans wanted to run against the most, and with an open primary, Republican leaning unaffiliated voters chose to vote strategically in the Democratic ballot for the candidate that Republicans wanted to run against...Polis.

    This is what frustrates me with Democrats. We don't elect our best candidates in primaries that can win the general election. However, while that seems obvious to me, I agree it is not obvious to many of the other hard working Coloradoans. My choice for Johnston was based on honesty, character and competence after doing my research. That seems to be missing in our political discourse more often where emotions trump critical thinking.

    Schmidt, Schmidt, Schmidt; just one sentence in your story says it all: "Polis net worth is 400 million and he spent big time to BUY the election" Sorry the system here is TOTALLY CORRUPTED BY "MONEY". I've said a zillion times as they do in Europe only like about $150,000 "max" can be spent by any candidate. Thus looking at your story then our total government consists of corrupt bastards; thus no wonder all of the present situation is an self inflicted wound.

    So Schmidt, as an engineer you should know if you are an "missing a bolt" somewhere in an aircraft that the thing may self destruct; that is the case here; also the "design" and "drawings" may have errors like the Constitution; that "plane" has crashed" ask pilot Trump.

  • Brooks, AB
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Dave -- Yes I agree that being informed on all the issues while also holding down a full time job, being a parent, and more is difficult. When I was working, I too was "less informed", but I would not say I was uninformed, at least on the issues that mattered. The social issues of the day (e.g. abortion, LGBT rights) should not consume a lot of a person's time, but issues like immigration and health care are vastly more complicated, and I hate to say it, but money is also a big factor.

    Schmidt

    Going back to public and private health care example, I do have an in-law who is a high level bureaucrat in Alberta's public health care system. I don't see her often, but it is always interesting to hear her perspectives on what is happening. The media really cannot report on complexities of our health care system that she is seeing and how they are being resolved or not resolved.

    Because of my in-law, I have a superior angle to the issues facing public health care. But this angle is still limited. Most Albertans have none of this angle. The "masses" have no possibility of being well informed enough to come to any kind of reasonable conclusion, which then can be expressed in a vote every four years.

    I don't know your position on abortion or LGBT rights, but given you are a member of this forum I would say they are on the liberal side. An evangelical Christian too would not need much time to find the "right" answers to these issues. So who is indeed right?

  • Brooks, AB
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    We had four Democrats running for the party's nomination for Colorado governor this year. I didn't know any of them until I browsed their websites, and only one stood out to me as being not only honest but with common sense solutions. That was Mike Johnston, and I canvassed for him for almost three months. However, he lost the primary to Jared Polis, who self funded his campaign. Polis net worth according to Wikipedia is $400 million, and he spent big time to buy the election. Not only that his selling points on the issues (a Bernie light) just didn't seem honest and practical to me (I'm a retired engineer).

    Polis is also the candidate that the Republicans wanted to run against the most, and with an open primary, Republican leaning unaffiliated voters chose to vote strategically in the Democratic ballot for the candidate that Republicans wanted to run against...Polis.

    This is what frustrates me with Democrats. We don't elect our best candidates in primaries that can win the general election. However, while that seems obvious to me, I agree it is not obvious to many of the other hard working Coloradoans. My choice for Johnston was based on honesty, character and competence after doing my research. That seems to be missing in our political discourse more often where emotions trump critical thinking.

    This story brings back memories of my six years in the back rooms of party politics. The party system often picks inferior candidates. And yes, people of other parties do join their enemy to help pick the worst candidate. I would say that many R's could have used exactly the wording as you, just change the D to R.

    Even if "reasonable" expenses are somehow legislated and enforced, there are ways of getting around that. There is no shang-ra-lai in Canadian and European elections where spending limits are imposed and sometimes enforced. Elections can still be bought--especially for internal party elections. And there is no evidence that superior people are elected.

    If we were to take things to a higher level, the rough-and-tumble nature of party politics prevents many great people from participating in politics. Politics is an exclusive club: the initiation fee is the time and hassle to rise in the party machine. Money is actually secondary--even in American elections.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dave Volek Wrote:
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Dave -- Yes I agree that being informed on all the issues while also holding down a full time job, being a parent, and more is difficult. When I was working, I too was "less informed", but I would not say I was uninformed, at least on the issues that mattered. The social issues of the day (e.g. abortion, LGBT rights) should not consume a lot of a person's time, but issues like immigration and health care are vastly more complicated, and I hate to say it, but money is also a big factor.

    Schmidt

    Going back to public and private health care example, I do have an in-law who is a high level bureaucrat in Alberta's public health care system. I don't see her often, but it is always interesting to hear her perspectives on what is happening. The media really cannot report on complexities of our health care system that she is seeing and how they are being resolved or not resolved.

    Because of my in-law, I have a superior angle to the issues facing public health care. But this angle is still limited. Most Albertans have none of this angle. The "masses" have no possibility of being well informed enough to come to any kind of reasonable conclusion, which then can be expressed in a vote every four years.

    I don't know your position on abortion or LGBT rights, but given you are a member of this forum I would say they are on the liberal side. An evangelical Christian too would not need much time to find the "right" answers to these issues. So who is indeed right?

    Dave, as you know I did live in Edmonton had a crash in the winter and broke my jaw etc. all was paid for by the healthcare system. My daughter still lives there and got an collapsed lung because of an ski-ing accident, also all paid for. About abortions, it never should be an government issue; your body is your own and does not belong to any government; you can do with it whatever you like even tatoe it or screw an pig.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Kenosha, WI
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Is the USA drifting to a one-party state?

    Democrats were still the largest political party with more than 42 million voters (compared with 30 million Republicans and 24 million independents). But in 2011 Democrats numbers shrank 800,000, and from 2008 they were down by 1.7 million, or 3.9%.[22]

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties…

    Let's Put All Democrats In Jail

    What would the charge be? Simply being or voting for democrats? Want to go back to the days when Nazis rounded up people? How to identify a democrat? Interrogation in a dark room with one hot lamp shining in a face? I've heard waterboarding is a useful technique.

    Are the people who wish to incarcerate all of us sure they have a big enough prison or jail? I know arresting all of us will be a monumental task, because some of us believe the second amendment would apply in that situation, my prerogative would be, come and take us, if you think you can. Bring on your gestapo!

    A couple of words about "welfare".

    IMO, there are two types. "Social programs" which are supposed to benefit the poor and working class by offering low income housing, food for the hungry and needy, healthcare for those who are ill and cannot afford to buy HC insurance, most of the time, these programs are called entitlements.

    The second type is corporate welfare, IMO, this is defined as tax cuts given to the wealthy who are supposedly the job creators, as history shows, these tax cuts are anything but job creators, because the wealthy hordes the money they received in the form of tax cuts. Tax cuts are called incentives, as Wisconsinites have witnessed in recent months, a large rich manufacturer has received $4B in incentives, they are supposed to create lots and lots of jobs, but, the corporation has been released of all liability for spoilage of our environment, plus, the state cites eminent domain as a tool to steal a property owner's land and not pay them a fair price for it, a land grab is now occurring in southeastern Wisconsin.

  • Brooks, AB
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:
    Dave, as you know I did live in Edmonton had a crash in the winter and broke my jaw etc. all was paid for by the healthcare system. My daughter still lives there and got an collapsed lung because of an ski-ing accident, also all paid for. About abortions, it never should be an government issue; your body is your own and does not belong to any government; you can do with it whatever you like even tatoe it or screw an pig.

    Dutch: I lived in Edmonton for 12 years in all. There were a couple of winters where the sidewalk snow was about chest high and stayed that way most of the winter.

    I used to read The Economist quite religiously. They had more than a few articles that public health care systems are actually more efficient with society's resources than any private enterprise inspired systems. Americans actually spend twice the per capita than Canadians.

    As for abortion, there is no resolution in as far as "being more informed" goes. Both sides have their mind made up. Smarter voters will not solve this issue.