patrick.net

I'm a genius.I only vote for Rs & Ds.

The premise and the conclusion are bogus, because they don't factor in the contributions of both stupid and vicious.

People aren't merely stupid, they are an entire spread spectrum of degraded traits i.e. envy, greed, grandiosity, horniness etc.

Eesh that's a whole entire blog of nothing. It amounts mostly to "me hate people who disagree with me".

Stupid or not stupid starts with 1+1 = 2 and goes from there. With politics there's about a bazillion other factors involved and most of the people calling others stupid for their political views aren't accounting nearly for all the bazillion factors involved.

Ceffer says

they are an entire spread spectrum of degraded traits i.e. envy, greed, grandiosity, horniness etc.

Sure, human behavior is complex.
The essay approximates into 4 categories to illustrate the effect of stupidity, which is a clearly defined trait.
Obviously the approximation has its limits, but the point is to show the power of stupidity when it is pervasive.

dodgerfanjohn says

With politics there's about a bazillion other factors involved and most of the people calling others stupid for their political views aren't accounting nearly for all the bazillion factors involved.

I think these are factual statements:

Extreme wealth inequality exists in America.
This is because of a systematic redistribution of income and wealth upwards and extreme deregulation of the financial system.
This problem cannot be solved by more deregulation of the financial system (a.k.a. free markets, lol).

If a person disagrees to these factual statements due to their political views, they are stupid -- because they are causing losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.

uomo_senza_nome_0 says

2. The probability that a certain person be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.

Not true. Whether a person supports Trump or Sanders has a very high correlation to how intelligent that person is. As does the person's profession, college major, political beliefs, religious beliefs or lack thereof, etc.

dodgerfanjohn says

You're better than Marcus and Dan, but you still have a lot to learn.

This remark is a deflection from the point we are arguing, which is stupidity can be determined using factual statements.

I'm not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with the factual statements.

Dan8267 says

Whether a person supports Trump or Sanders has a very high correlation to how intelligent that person is. As does the person's profession, college major, political beliefs, religious beliefs or lack thereof, etc.

Good point.

uomo_senza_nome_0 says

Dan8267 says

Whether a person supports Trump or Sanders has a very high correlation to how intelligent that person is. As does the person's profession, college major, political beliefs, religious beliefs or lack thereof, etc.

Good point.

No, it's a false statement that you happen to agree with, and your praise indicates that you prefer agreement over objectivity. "Trump’s electoral strength—and his staying power—have been buoyed, above all, by Americans with authoritarian inclinations. And because of the prevalence of authoritarians in the American electorate, among Democrats as well as Republicans, it’s very possible that Trump’s fan base will continue to grow... My finding is the result of a national poll...sampling 1,800 registered voters across the country and the political spectrum. Running a standard statistical analysis, I found that education, income, gender, age, ideology and religiosity had no significant bearing on a Republican voter’s preferred candidate. Only two of the variables I looked at were statistically significant: authoritarianism, followed by fear of terrorism, though the former was far more significant than the latter.

Now, let us turn to the OP definition: "A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses." Can we please agree that a person who votes to bomb the country of another group of persons, and votes to pay for a ground invasion of that country (whether by uniformed military or religious fanatic militias) causes losses to another person or group of persons? Since recent history and current events provide a plethora of examples including both major parties, I will use two for illustration: America's military misadventures in Iraq and Syria, on behalf of Saudi Arabia. Neither Iraq nor Syria had ever attacked the United States, nor threatened to attack the United States, and it is difficult to discern how the average American voter has derived any benefit from our military actions and militia funding in those countries. In fact, American voters are generally worse off, because (a) we paid for those misadventures, and (b) our current administration and most likely candidates want to import the aggrieved victims of those invasions to wreak revenge upon us here, thus necessitating endless spying on us all. Anybody who supports such policies is either stupid (according to the OP) or maybe motivated by some other benefit, e.g. the prospect of Saudi gifts, but this particular comment is intended only to address the OP definition of stupidity. Our current President (a Harvard graduate with a Nobel Prize, for peace) supports our current campaign in Syria, as does our likely next President, a Yale graduate who voted to authorize our previous invasion of Iraq by our previous President, who is a graduate of both Harvard and Yale. If we count the % of Americans who have graduated from Harvard and/or Yale as a % of the total population, it would be tiny. Next, if we assume that persons who didn't graduate from Harvard or Yale tend to be even more stupid than persons who did, then I think we can conclude we are a nation of extremely stupid people, according to the OP definition. Alternatively, we can conclude that the OP definition of stupidity is useless, and you posted it because it gave you a feeling of agreement and superiority, which you prefer to objectivity.

A better question would be, why is authoritarianism prevalent? Could it be that voters have been sold down the river by smart politicians who enacted policies that made the voters feel stupid (i.e. causing harm and becoming worse off because of it) for electing them? Might voters have tired of politicians who try to deflect blame for the foreseeable consequences of their own decisions? Personally, I oppose authoritarianism, but I also oppose terrorism and domestic surveillance, and I can see how different people might disagree as to which is the frying pan and which is the fire: all they really know is they feel burned.

curious2 says

No, it's a false statement that you happen to agree with, and your praise indicates that you prefer agreement over objectivity.

Unfortunately I did not have the data to agree or disagree, simply noted that Dan raises a valid objection.
That doesn't mean I prefer agreement over objectivity, I can see why you might think that though.
Your link is quite useful and indicates that Trump has a wider base support across the country.

curious2 says

Can we please agree that a person who votes to bomb the country of another group of persons, and votes to pay for a ground invasion of that country (whether by uniformed military or religious fanatic militias) causes losses to another person or group of persons?

They do, but the bombing people stand to gain something though (oil, natural resources etc.).
So the bombing people are not stupid, they are bandits -- according to the classification in the original post. As they stand to gain something at the losers' expense.

curious2 says

If we count the % of Americans who have graduated from Harvard and/or Yale as a % of the total population, it would be tiny. Next, if we assume that persons who didn't graduate from Harvard or Yale tend to be even more stupid than persons who did, then I think we can conclude we are a nation of extremely stupid people, according to the OP definition. Alternatively, we can conclude that the OP definition of stupidity is useless, and you posted it because it gave you a feeling of agreement and superiority, which you prefer to objectivity.

LOL, the definition of stupidity actually comes from a professor of economic history at Berkeley.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_M._Cipolla
And I still don't see why the definition is useless, as you assumed that the offending leaders stand to gain nothing. This assumption is not true.

curious2 says

A better question would be, why is authoritarianism prevalent?

I think it's a relevant question to ask.
This essay is useful:
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism

I would say social change, as well economic changes (shafting of the wage class for decades now) are some of the activation triggers.

uomo_senza_nome_0 says

I would say social change, as well economic changes (shafting of the wage class for decades now) are some of the activation triggers.

Any valid theory has to fit the facts, including:
2008: Americans voted to elect Democrats
2010: Democrats enacted Obamneycare, which they had campaigned against when it was called "Hillary's Plan"
2010: Americans elected Republicans
2012: Faced with a "choice" between the only two candidates in the world who had ever signed Obamneycare, many Americans didn't vote. The Democrat became the first POTUS reelected with fewer votes than he got the first time, and the Republicans retained the legislature.
2014: Republicans
2016: ?

I have a theory that fits those facts, but the test will come this November, if voters have a choice between candidates who actually disagree about policy. Most Americans agree with most of the social changes that are occurring, but they disapprove rationally of policies that make them worse off.

uomo_senza_nome_0 says

So the bombing people are not stupid, they are bandits -- according to the classification in the original post. As they stand to gain something at the losers' expense.

OK, so which candidate(s) said we should stop bombing Syria? The only one I saw say that was Donald Trump, i.e. Putin's candidate, who said we should let Putin sort it out. The current administration continues bombing and funding militias and inviting migrants, while most of the likely successors other than Trump are calling for a ground invasion. So, at best, voters' choice is between an authoritarian and the bandits, though the two categories are not mutually exclusive. If your fear of authoritarians outweighs your fear of terrorists, then you vote for the bandits and import terrorists who say expressly that they believe you should be killed. If your fear of terrorists outweighs your fear of authoritarians, then you vote for the authoritarian. That isn't stupidity, it's self-preservation.

BTW, "phobia" means paranoia, and it isn't paranoia if they are actually out to get you. If people say expressly that they believe they must cut off your head, or kill you in an even worse way, then it is rational to want to prevent them from ever having a chance to do what they believe they must do. That isn't paranoid or phobia, it's merely an objective assessment of what Islam actually says, and what the people who say they believe it are saying they believe.

Let's see: Majority of the Americans disapprove Obamacare. The ACA has a private sector mandate which in reality is a long-standing Republican proposal, originally conceived in the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank, to use the private sector to try to manage healthcare costs, rather than the single payer option. And as you point out, the largest implementation of the same private mandate approach was achieved and lauded in Massachusetts by guess who. So Republicans liked Obamacare, just that they did not like Obama implementing it. LOL. Hypocrisy much?

As Amy Goodman rightly points out:
The fundamental issue, at the core of the health-care dispute, is typically ignored and goes unreported: The for-profit health-insurance industry in the United States is profoundly inefficient and costly , and a sane and sustainable alternative exists—single-payer, otherwise known as expanded and improved Medicare for all. Just change the age of eligibility from 65 to zero.

The ACA can be summarized as turning health care industry monopolies into managed utilities.
True progressive voters want expansion of a single-payer, Independent voters desire lower healthcare costs.
There is no freaking chance with significant misinformation spread by the "think tanks" and "outside groups" LOL.

The only presidential candidate in 2016 talking about the fundamental root-cause behind high health care costs is Bernie Sanders.
How the heck do Americans think that health care costs will go down with Republicans in Congress?

curious2 says

OK, so which candidate(s) said we should stop bombing Syria?

Bernie Sanders

curious2 says

If your fear of authoritarians outweighs your fear of terrorists, then you vote for the bandits and import terrorists who say expressly that they believe you should be killed. If your fear of terrorists outweighs your fear of authoritarians, then you vote for the authoritarian. That isn't stupidity, it's self-preservation.

LOL, your statement here reminds me of Lindsey Graham saying 'it's like being shot or poisoned. What does it really matter?' when asked about choosing between Cruz and Trump. Among the candidates, the only logical choice is Sanders. He clearly understands costs of war and has been endorsed by Tulsi Gabbard (resigned as DNC Vice-chair and is an Iraq combat veteran.)

Again, I understand the delegate math is not on Sanders' side - just calling it as I see.

uomo_senza_nome_0 says

So Republicans liked Obamacare, just that they did not like Obama implementing it. LOL. Hypocrisy much?

Republicans controlled all three branches of the federal government from 2001-2007. They never enacted Obamneycare. So, your assertion is disproved by empirical evidence. Nevertheless, despite its obvious falsehood, I have seen it repeated by various partisan meme repeaters: usually, Democrats trying to blame Republicans for the legislation that Democrats enacted on a party-line vote over unanimous Republican opposition. I did have this particular example in mind when writing earlier about authoritarians vs bandits: the bandits refuse even to take responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of their own actions.

uomo_senza_nome_0 says

How the heck do Americans think that health care costs will go down with Republicans in Congress?

According to federal government projections, Obamneycare increased spending above the trajectory of prior law. Democrats kept talking about "bending the cost curve," and they did bend it, upward. Also, while projections can be wrong, spending has definitely increased, while life expectancy has flatlined. I don't know how Americans in general think what they do, but clearly the costs have increased contrary to the promises that Democrats made. I like your Lindsey Graham quote, but I think also of the Seinfeld "opposite" episode. Since Democrats enacting Obamneycare made matters worse, I suppose many people might think the opposite (Republicans repealing it) would be less bad.

Alas poor Senator Sanders voted for Obamneycare, despite saying he should have opposed it. It would be ironic if he gets called a flip-flopper or inconsistent, and besides his longstanding support for Clintoncare/Obamneycare/Hillary's Plan didn't win him any love from Hillary, who couldn't even remember that he was literally standing right behind her as she tried to impose Clintoncare, which by that time had basically become the same thing as HeritageFoundationCare. I suppose you associate the Heritage Foundation with Republicans, but as I noted above, Republicans did not enact HeritageFoundationCare, even though they could have done so if they liked it. The Democrats did, with the vote of your beloved Bernie Sanders.

uomo_senza_nome_0 says

curious2 says

OK, so which candidate(s) said we should stop bombing Syria?

Bernie Sanders

That was in 2013, when most Americans opposed intervening in Syria. In 2015, he said, "I support President Obama’s effort to combat the Islamic State in Syria while at the same time supporting those in Syria trying to overthrow the brutal dictatorship of Bashar Assad." I would love to see Senator Sanders debate Donald Trump on this issue, each as the Presidential nominee of a major party.

curious2 says

They never enacted Obamneycare.

LOL, Sure that's great but they did much worse things such as waging a very costly and now commonly agreed as a fabricated war.

curious2 says

So, your assertion is disproved by empirical evidence.

hmm, my point was to show that a similar model was implemented by Mitt Romney on a smaller scale. He flip-flopped on the issue in 2012.
So I am not sure what is the falsehood. I never said Republicans implemented Obamacare at the federal level.

curious2 says

The Democrats did that, with the vote of your beloved Bernie Sanders.

LOL. Corporations are people, my friend.

uomo_senza_nome_0 says

curious2 says

The Democrats did that, with the vote of your beloved Bernie Sanders.

LOL. Corporations are people, my friend.

Corporations have been associations of people since the 19th century. If they are your friend, then I hope they are not your only friend.

uomo_senza_nome_0 says

my point was to show that a similar model was implemented by Mitt Romney on a smaller scale.

I had already accounted for that in my theory of the elections since 2008. I am not sure why you thought you were scoring a point, or even making a point, when I had already written:

"2012: Faced with a "choice" between the only two candidates in the world who had ever signed Obamneycare, many Americans didn't vote. The Democrat became the first POTUS reelected with fewer votes than he got the first time, and the Republicans retained the legislature."

I appreciate though that you thought you were being helpful. At least we agree that Romney signed the same thing, which is why I call it Obamneycare. BTW, Democrats comprised 80% of the Massachusetts legislature that voted for Romneycare, just like 100% of the federal legislators who voted to enact it were also Democrats. So, it seems disingenuous for Democrats to try to blame the legislation on Republicans: they can blame Romney for signing Romneycare in Massachusetts, but even there they would have to blame also the Democrat legislators who voted for it.

1. stupid people trust the government, and politicians
2. stupid people trust universities, and professors
3. stupid people trust their employers, and managers
4. stupid people refuse to build their own wealth, and instead rely on 1, 2, and 3 above
5. stupid people, while adhering to 4 above, build the wealth of 1, 2, and 3 above
6. stupid people, in an act of desperation, post a bunch of horse shit socialist propaganda and bernie sanders drivel on the internet

curious2 says

Corporations have been associations of people since the 19th century. If they are your friend, then I hope they are not your only friend.

I'm not sure what is the point you are making. Human systems are inherently subject to entropy and deterioration, so there is a need for constant reform to ensure the average citizen does not get completely shafted. Even though corporations existed, there are laws, regulations and policies to prevent monopolies -- but it requires honesty, integrity and knowledge in the public office to maintain and keep up these checks and balances. This honesty and integrity has mostly eroded. Change can happen for the better in a democracy only if the majority agree on the correct root-cause for an issue.

curious2 says

I am not sure why you thought you were scoring a point, or even making a point, when I had already written:

"2012: Faced with a "choice" between the only two candidates in the world who had ever signed Obamneycare, many Americans didn't vote. The Democrat became the first POTUS reelected with fewer votes than he got the first time, and the Republicans retained the legislature."

I don't buy the theory that Mitt lost the election because of Romneycare.
He flip-flopped on so many other issues and was shown out to be very inconsistent.

uomo_senza_nome_0 says

I'm not sure what is the point you are making... Change can happen for the better in a democracy only if the majority agree on the correct root-cause for an issue.

You seemed to believe, at least until recently, that Citizens United had more of an effect than it did. People who blame the Republicans for Obamneycare tend also to blame Citizens United for corporate personhood. Both are discrete concepts, but both of those partisan assertions of root causes are equally incorrect.

uomo_senza_nome_0 says

I don't buy the theory that Mitt lost the election because of Romneycare.

I'm not selling anything. After enacting Obamneycare, Democrats suffered the worst midterm losses of any major party in more than 70 years. Since then, they have been reduced to their lowest point in more than a century, while Republicans have soared higher than ever before. Whatever your theory, it must fit those facts. I have my theory, you seem to have none, but having none doesn't mean you want any. Some people prefer to recite slogans rather than think analytically. Whatever, it goes to your question of how most people think, or refuse to think.

Here is a fine example of stupidity:

curious2 says

Both are discrete concepts, but both of those partisan assertions of root causes are equally incorrect.

Citizens United has legitimized the concept of corporate personhood and money as free speech.
Should it be overturned? Yes. Is this the ONLY problem? No.

The financial system itself is unrestrained and the banking system is a cartel.
It must be reformed for a real, sustained economic recovery.

curious2 says

I'm not selling anything.

I got the impression (from your post about rationalizing Democrats' loss, as well as Mitt Romney's loss) that the reason is overwhelmingly Obamacare.
And by posting these links here, I see it as your attempt to convince me of it.
Hence the remark that I don't buy this reasoning.

zzyzzx says

Here is a fine example of stupidity:

I never said Stupidity is limited to any particular political leaning. :)

uomo_senza_nome_0 says

I don't buy this reasoning.

What is your theory then, if anything?

jazz music says

Stupid persons are frequently manufactured via LUCRATIVE investments in disinformation and broadcasting.

Manufacturing Consent is not new though. How do you explain why people elected Democrats by the widest margin in decades in 2008, then dropped Democrats like a hot potato following the enactment of Obamneycare?

curious2 says

What is your theory then, if anything?

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Here is where Obama and Romney stood on the issues related to government spending, of which Affordable Care Act is one component.

In terms of social issues, Obama was liberal (for example: pro-choice, pro-LGBT).
Romney has flip-flopped on many issues but took the conservative side.

We now know that Nate Silver correctly predicted all 50 states in 2012 Elections. This is what he wrote a few days before the election:

Mr. Obama is leading in the polls of Ohio and other states that would suffice for him to win 270 electoral votes, and by a margin that has historically translated into victory a fairly high percentage of the time.

So I think in the key battleground states (of which Ohio is an important one), voters decided Obama as the choice.

On the issue of financial regulation, I think Obama has been more of a Hoover than an FDR.
The people who were intricately involved in creating or worsening the financial crisis were put in charge again.
It's like a fox guarding the hen house.
Nevertheless he passed the Dodd-Frank, which has at least some provisions to reduce risk posed by large financial institutions.

These I think are the facts.
As the astute Stephen Colbert says, Facts don't matter at all. Perception is everything.

uomo_senza_nome_0 says

These I think are the facts.

And they are entirely consistent with my theory. You seem to ignore the actual question, while choosing to imagine disagreement where there is none. I wrote on PatNet in 2013:

I agree that President Obama is much better than his Republican opponents. But the drug war, including slaveprison labor to compete with paid workers, is fundamentally about controlling what people do with their own bodies and is undoing the 13th amendment and the Voting Rights Act. Similarly, Obamacare (ne Romneycare) says living people must pay corporations for the rightprivilege to continue breathing, on pain of penalty from a government that has been captured by those same corporations. To Americans' credit, given the choice between the Obamneycare crap sandwich with or without a side order of bigotry, Americans rejected the side of bigotry. But that isn't a reason to look forward to the sandwich.

You wrote in 2016 essentially the same thing about Romney and Obama, but you presented it as if it were a disagreement, and you missed the question. Why did fewer people vote for President Obama in 2012 than in 2008? Why did Democrats in 2010 suffer the worst midterm losses of any major party in more than 70 years, and lose again in 2014? And why did Democrats lose at the state level also during this period, including some states they had previously controlled for decades? What changed between November 2008 and November 2010?

The deal was that Romney was such an awful GOP candidate that many republican voters didn't care enough to vote for him. Obama was the devil we knew, and it wasn't worth even going to the polls for many of us. I did but I always do, and I cast a ballot for a third party. Romney is just horrid, and I can't stand Obama. Now we are faced with perhaps the same choice, and that galls tremendously. Clinton is going to keep things rolling along the same as Obama has, with a side order of rabid gun control. She'll probably do something to totally hose black people as well, since her husband was known for that (except, ironically, by black people who were completely fooled and still are). If the GOP rolls out Romney v.2 in a brokered convention, Trump will run third party and probably get more delegates than anyone else, but there will be a split decision leaving it going to Congress to decide our next President. GOP controls Congress, but the elite bastards will give it to either Clinton or the GOPe candidate, most likely Clinton so they can seem "impartial."
Either way it's Clinton.
Only two ways it won't be Clinton:1) she's indicted and forced to drop out, leaving Sanders to go to the General election, or 2) Trump is the GOP nominee and picks up enough independents to gain the presidency.

curious2 says

Why did fewer people vote for President Obama in 2012 than in 2008?

The exit polls on Election day indicated that economy was the number one issue among the voters in 2012. Health care came a distant second. Wall Street clearly backed Obama and they continued to play an integral role in his cabinet. Banking reform was watered down, and the system remained utterly corrupt in 2012 and continues to remain that way.

curious2 says

Why did Democrats lose in 2010 and 2014 after winning in 2008? And why did Democrats lose at the state level also during this period, including some states they had previously controlled for decades? What changed?

Perhaps the Democrats were seen for what they really are, which is that their neoliberal policies protect the privileged few and allows crony capitalism to flourish. Health care, with the private sector mandate is a component in this for sure, but I don't think it is the deciding factor. Obama with his centrist, grand bargain strategy has failed the middle class, which he vowed to protect. The political right has used this centrist strategy to their advantage, demonizing Obama, which is laughable.

I like this continuum diagram from blogger Jesse when thinking of the political spectrum.

Not sure if this answers your question directly, but this is my view.

Quigley says

She'll probably do something to totally hose black people as well, since her husband was known for that (except, ironically, by black people who were completely fooled and still are).

This is a crucial point. Black voters don't know the history as much as the symbolic language that Hillary Clinton has. We got a neoliberal black political class who is on the Clinton bandwagon and the gravy train. They are trying to convince a large number of black voters. - Cornell West

uomo_senza_nome_0 says

The exit polls on Election day indicated that economy was the number one issue among the voters in 2012. Health care came a distant second.

Thanks, those are good points.

An issue with exit polls though is they poll the people who voted, not the people who didn't. The turnout difference between 2008 and 2012 (-3%) was less than I had expected, but still amounts to at least 4 million people. President Obama's total in 2012 was likewise at least 4 million fewer than what would be expected for re-election: he got nearly 70 million in 2008, then 66 million in 2012. Democratic voters tended to be younger, so operation of time should have increased his total further, but instead it fell.

Also, commercial media say almost always that "the economy" was the number one issue. They seldom specify which candidate was for "the economy," and which candidate was against "the economy."

Personally, I can't help wondering about voting rights. Democrats got control in 2009 for the first time since the 2000 election debacle, and I expected they would ensure nothing like that could ever happen again. Instead, to the contrary, they allowed the same system to continue, including paperless ballots in Ohio (established by Republicans at Diebold). In fact, they may have worsened matters by promoting the "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact" at the state level, where only "blue states" (Democrats) have approved it. If that compact becomes law, then Ohio's 10 trilliion paperless ballots could award the Presidency to whoever those Diebold machines say. Democrats tend also to support absentee voting, where ballots can more easily be sold to the highest bidder, who might perhaps more likely be a Republican financed by a Super PAC. Ironically, Republicans then took the initiative regarding electoral reform, talking about voter fraud, which they attributed (surprisingly) to illegal aliens. The Chicago Democrats denied voter fraud ever happened, even though President Carter had written about proving his opponents had engaged in it decades before. Instead of seizing the opportunity of electoral reform, Democrats thus became the defenders of the entrenched electoral players, in addition to defending the entrenched players in the other two sectors you mentioned.

jazz music says

: The Republicans have been authoritarian since forever now. Republicans passionate and authoritarian style has proven an effective sales tool for the small comforts they have to sell, which are all things that cost nothing to businesses. Republicans gain traction by manufacturing a scandal, touting law-and-order, if they can manage a spectacular boogie-man to defeat. --like a former CIA agent leading a country that competes with the Saudis in OPEC, or debts which Republicans create but attribute to the poor, or a ghost-enemy like WMD, terror, drugs, crime. Just any fabrication to cause never-ending vainglorious speeches and to get the electorate to feel obliged to prove themselves by cooperating in self-denial.

That seems accurate to me. Add to that a recent habit of blaming obama for driving us apart. Due to changing norms, currently 1/3 of whites see the regressive wing of the Republican party as racist and backwards. They blame this trend on Obama, when it has nothing to do with him.

jazz music says

I do not connect 2012 with ACA, especially since Obama won, and because of ACA electorate....

By "ACA electorate," I assume you mean people who turned out to vote primarily on Obamneycare, but exit polls cited above by uomo_senza_nome_0 showed most of them voted against it. That is consistent with polls showing most people have always opposed it.

The points that uomo_senza_nome_0 made were other factors in 2012 counted for more: exit polling showed Obamneycare cost 5% of 18%, i.e. 1% net. Exit polling showed 60% of turnout voted primarily on "the economy," and while the policy implications of that term may be amorphous, I can believe that Romnesia's record of offshoring jobs counted heavily against him. There aren't polls of non-voters, i.e. people who stayed home rather than turn out to vote for either of the two people in the history of the world who had ever signed Obamneycare, so I can't prove whether they would have changed the outcome. I can believe though that other factors counted for more, at least among voters who turned out to vote.

IOW, Obama won in spite of the Obamneycare electorate (most of whom opposed it), not because of them. Also, I do think its enactment reduced turnout, though I cannot prove how much. He became the first POTUS re-elected with fewer votes than he got the first time, and that was particularly ironic because his voters tended to be younger and thus were more likely still around the second time. Turnout definitely fell, but I can't prove exactly why non-voters didn't vote. Likewise, I can't prove how it affected the President's coattails, and the prospect of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi regaining the Speakership, though the numbers suggest a net negative effect.

jazz music says

Many of these hospitals STILL have these elevated fee provisions in place

because they can, and because Obamneycare created even more opportunities for that. Insurance companies bought hospitals and raised prices in order to shift profit from the insurance side of the business to the hospital side, while capturing overcharges from competitors, and overcharging everyone. The higher they raise the price, the further customers fall, even if they have Obamneycare. Only a partisan or a hostage with Stockholm Syndrome could side with the hospital corporations on this issue. ALL hospitals can opt out of EMTALA if they find it's unprofitable; most CHOOSE to stay in because they want to profit from the ridiculous Medicare overpayments, and EMTALA is a condition of Medicare. Total Emergency Department costs (paid plus unpaid) are less than 10% of hospital budgets, often less than advertising and marketing and lobbying, and besides the ER is ultimately a profitable vector for fraudulent admissions, boosting profits still further.