Jump to content

Voting against your interests: Why does it happen so often?


EHK for Darwin

Recommended Posts

How was I being irrationally biased? A lot of people support a certain party just because. The same goes for some Democrats.

For the love of God, read the whole post.

I was agreeing with your example of this kind of irrationality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the love of God, read the whole post.

I was agreeing with your example of this kind of irrationality.

Wah! Sorry! I just got up and my eyes are still blurry! (Yes, I'm well aware it's the afternoon. I inadvertently stayed up way too late.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EHK - why don't you look at the other side and look at people who voted Democrat when it was against their best interests, financially? (which to me, is a top interest that matters, and if all else is equal, I'll vote with my pocketbook).

There are a lot of those people out there, and will they desert the Democratic party if taxes rise significantly?

Amen sister. And I'm doubly interested - my clients all care deeply as well (no matter what their ostensible affiliation).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: EHK

I've encountered similar things, too. On the economic issue, at least, I get the feeling that a lot of people are indulging in wishful thinking.

Take, for example, the "death tax" discussion a couple years ago. Several of my co-workers at the time were horrified by the barbaric act of having their assets taxed when they bequeath it to their children. The reality is that unless they win a lottery, their accumulated assets will not get near to the level that would be taxed. But they would like to think that they might make it and so, just in case, they don't want that tax to go into effect, notwithstanding any potential benefit to them now.

It's a kind of "Well, I plan on/might become/will get to be that rich and when/if I do, I certainly wouldn't want that kind of tax rate!"

Re: Blaur Dragon

Third, (and this may relate more to the point above) the right to keep and bare arms is the 2nd amendment for a reason. There was only one right that was important enough to come before it. If we let any of those first 10 amendments go away, then we might as well toss the entire constitution out the window. It never would have been ratified without any one of them. The messed up thing is that the 1st amendment is all but dead today.

Your words, and your unclothed arms, and your troops of primates with weapons, are so pretty!!

I was almost convinced, until I realize that your entire list of reasons seems to be predicated on a false premise, that people advocating for gun control laws seek to restrict all forms of guns. That is manifestably not true. The majority of gun control laws have to do with restricting some types of handguns and weapons, or requiring safety features on some, etc. Not to mention, the line of reasoning for most of the opposition to gun control laws is inherently flawed, because most people will agree that allowing people to own ICBMs in their own backyards is a bad idea. So the line is not one drawn over yes and no, as their argument would suggest, with regards to control of arms, but on what kinds to restrict. The self-styled champions of the Second Amendment are, for the most part, false prophets (and that's not an entirely bad thing for I shudder to think what society we'd be in if 60% of Americans think it's okay for people to build missile silos in their own backyard).

I could probably go on, but the argument becomes even less ration and logic based and even more emotion and sentiment based from here.

Well, at least that saved me from having to point out the obvious. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: EHK

I've encountered similar things, too. On the economic issue, at least, I get the feeling that a lot of people are indulging in wishful thinking.

Take, for example, the "death tax" discussion a couple years ago. Several of my co-workers at the time were horrified by the barbaric act of having their assets taxed when they bequeath it to their children. The reality is that unless they win a lottery, their accumulated assets will not get near to the level that would be taxed. But they would like to think that they might make it and so, just in case, they don't want that tax to go into effect, notwithstanding any potential benefit to them now.

It's a kind of "Well, I plan on/might become/will get to be that rich and when/if I do, I certainly wouldn't want that kind of tax rate!"

Or perhaps it's based on principal? Surely, a person can think something is right even if they don't benefit from it.

I don't own a gun. I have never touched a gun. I have absolutely no desire to even hold a gun. But I am as firm a believer in the second amendment as they come. I realize that I am more likely to be shot becasue I believe people have a right to own guns. It is against my interest, yet I still believe in it. Shocking, I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To go slightly off-topic for a second:

There's no such thing. War is an extension of politics by other means. There's no point in fighting a war if it does not achieve some kind of political goal.

I agree. However, I think it's worth drawing a distinction between "national interest" politics and electoral/party politics. Being hamstrung by the needs of the national interest isn't really being hamstrung at all, because soldiers fight in furtherance of the national interest. However, I can see where the complaint might come from that the military was being hamstrung by the electoral needs of the party in power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take, for example, the "death tax" discussion a couple years ago. Several of my co-workers at the time were horrified by the barbaric act of having their assets taxed when they bequeath it to their children. The reality is that unless they win a lottery, their accumulated assets will not get near to the level that would be taxed. But they would like to think that they might make it and so, just in case, they don't want that tax to go into effect, notwithstanding any potential benefit to them now.

As usual, TerraPrime took the words out of my mouth. Many, many voters who condemn big government are blithely unaware of the benefits they derive from that government...it's easy to oppose something you don't think helps you. For example, I know a guy who rails against government subsidies, but who is quite happy to use public transportation, the interstate highway system, Amtrak, and the myriad of other services that Uncle Sam funds. When I pointed this out he grew appropriately shamefaced and allowed that perhaps some subsidies were OK. It's the same ignorance (willful or otherwise) that allows people who benefit heavily from Democratic policies to happily vote Republican.

Of course, there are always the single-issue voters who'd turn down a candidate with a cure for cancer in his right pocket and a clean source of fusion energy in his left because he was pro-choice or pro-gun-control or whatever. You can never reach those people, really; you just have to hope that selective breeding keeps their numbers to a minimum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, those damn breeders.
To be fair, Tracker isn't railing against all breeders. He's fine with those who produce kids who when thinking out loud "What would George Bush do when faced with the swine flu epidemic" reply "He'd declare war on it, and then on Mexico". (yes, this happened, and yes, I laughed for a good 15 minutes)

He's just rallying against the asshat breeders. So if you're not an asshat breeder, that doesn't apply to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EHK - why don't you look at the other side and look at people who voted Democrat when it was against their best interests, financially? (which to me, is a top interest that matters, and if all else is equal, I'll vote with my pocketbook).

There are a lot of those people out there, and will they desert the Democratic party if taxes rise significantly?

Best interest financially in what way?

A rich persons wealth in our society is built on the backs of the rest of the people and the services and such they provide and the crimes they don't commit.

Paying more taxes to fund social programs can easily be seen as in someones best financial interest.

And that's only talking about the financial side of things. For some people, best interest =/= best financial interest. For almost everyone I'd say.

On the other hand, you get people ranting against the US federal government and vote for smaller government parties, who's state depends on federal money being handed to them.

Slightly different ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kalbear,

To be fair, Tracker isn't railing against all breeders. He's fine with those who produce kids who when thinking out loud "What would George Bush do when faced with the swine flu epidemic" reply "He'd declare war on it, and then on Mexico". (yes, this happened, and yes, I laughed for a good 15 minutes)

He's just rallying against the asshat breeders. So if you're not an asshat breeder, that doesn't apply to you.

There's a certian irony to your pithy statement regarding Bush and the Swine Flu outbreak given the fact Pres. Obama took the time to praise the past adminstration for the groundwork it laid in allowing a rapid response to this outbreak.

Check out first of the audio clips in the block next the article in this link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As usual, TerraPrime took the words out of my mouth. Many, many voters who condemn big government are blithely unaware of the benefits they derive from that government...it's easy to oppose something you don't think helps you. For example, I know a guy who rails against government subsidies, but who is quite happy to use public transportation, the interstate highway system, Amtrak, and the myriad of other services that Uncle Sam funds. When I pointed this out he grew appropriately shamefaced and allowed that perhaps some subsidies were OK. It's the same ignorance (willful or otherwise) that allows people who benefit heavily from Democratic policies to happily vote Republican.

That remind something a friend of mine brought up. A good number of business execs vote Republican and complain about having to pay the system high taxes and neglect to realize that it's the system that allows them to make that astronomical assload of money to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, there are always the single-issue voters who'd turn down a candidate with a cure for cancer in his right pocket and a clean source of fusion energy in his left because he was pro-choice or pro-gun-control or whatever. You can never reach those people, really; you just have to hope that selective breeding keeps their numbers to a minimum.

Or pro-life, or opposed to gay rights.

I suspect, at the end of the day, MOST people have some issues which are non-negotiable, and will negate their ability to support a candidate with whom they otherwise agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your words, and your unclothed arms, and your troops of primates with weapons, are so pretty!!

I was almost convinced, until I realize that your entire list of reasons seems to be predicated on a false premise, that people advocating for gun control laws seek to restrict all forms of guns. That is manifestably not true.

Thanks for pointing out that I should not post so late at night. I did not intend to bear my arms in bare arms.

The premise is not entirely false. It's a slippery slope, and there certainly are those that want to do away with all guns. Some of them have made appearances here in these forums.

The primary reason why the "gun nuts" like me object to even the most basic forms of gun control is simply because we'd rather not give a little here and a little there

and get whittled away. It is easier (and safer) to stop all gun control than it is to concede that gun type A is dangerous, and gun type B should not be sold to the public, and gun type C is probably not necessary. It is a fight that cannot be won if you seek to find a middle ground. It just can't. If I give some reasonable, well meaning bureaucrat the ability to take away assault rifles, then he'll ask to restrict the availability of handguns. Then the next politician will be clear to go after abolishing hand guns. If that succeeds, the next politician can go after eliminating hunting rifles. If that is successful, then... You get the point. And for those of us that see an armed populace as not only being safer, but being able to fight for their freedom if the need should ever arise, that is a horrifying prospect. Just try envisioning a future where the wealthiest 2% are the only ones that get to take part in politics, are the only ones with their needs adequately met, and rule over a country where the other 98% are dirt poor and living like subjugated slaves. Does that thought appeal to you? It does not appeal to me. Am I saying that it will absolutely happen if we pass a few gun control laws? No. Am I saying that it would even happen if we totally disarmed? No. Am I saying that having guns will prevent it from happening anyway? No. What I am saying is that having guns makes the possibility a little less likely and provides the opportunity to fight it should the time come. That's all.

Now, back to the topic at hand, I think the economic issue is a major part of the equation. The whole "better living through taxing the snot out of everyone and everything" line is something that most people are wary of. The way a lot of people see it, electing a Democrat President during a time when we have a primarily Democrat Congress will most likely mean that there are skyrocketing taxes in our very near future. Still, I may not like the choice we made, but I'm glad we did not elect McCain.

Well, at least that saved me from having to point out the obvious. Thanks.
You're welcome! :cheers:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a certian irony to your pithy statement regarding Bush and the Swine Flu outbreak given the fact Pres. Obama took the time to praise the past adminstration for the groundwork it laid in allowing a rapid response to this outbreak.
Yes, but the point was that my kids were funny AND would be saved from the culling that the Gay Agenda led by Trackerneil would be heading.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Tempra

Or perhaps it's based on principal? Surely, a person can think something is right even if they don't benefit from it.

Surely.

That's why I said "a lot," not "every single one of those people." I grant that there are principled objections out there. Never denied it.

Shocking, I know.

It's only shocking if you presume I said something that I didn't.

Re: Blauer Dragon

It is easier (and safer) to stop all gun control than it is to concede that gun type A is dangerous, and gun type B should not be sold to the public, and gun type C is probably not necessary. It is a fight that cannot be won if you seek to find a middle ground. It just can't. If I give some reasonable, well meaning bureaucrat the ability to take away assault rifles, then he'll ask to restrict the availability of handguns. Then the next politician will be clear to go after abolishing hand guns. If that succeeds, the next politician can go after eliminating hunting rifles. If that is successful, then... You get the point.

Yeah, I get it. And I find it ludicrous. First, you're undercutting your own slippery slope argument in saying that step A will not inexorably and inevitably lead to step B, and so on. Without that certainty it's reduced from an argument to a fallacy.

Second, we've banned convicted felons from owning guns, even though in the 2nd Amendment there was no language for this restriction. Have we since then deteriorated into nobody being allowed to own any firearms at all? No? That's what I thought.

Also, you're not addressing the failure of the advocacy against gun control to tackle the issue of restricting other types of weapons. If, as you propose, restriction on any guns/weapons will likely lead to the restriction of all firearms, then are you going to be okay with removing all regulations on all firearms and weapons? You really want white separatist groups like the ones that McVeigh belonged to to have access to missiles and other high-caliber firearms?

But, in the end, it's all moot, because you've already conceded that a large part of your stance is based on emotion and sentiments, neither of which are subject to argumentation. All of these reasons you gave are just window-dressings, when the true core of your conviction is not even rational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the OP though. I frankly dont know why you bothered to ask the question. It is obvious that in your mind anyone who doesnt agree with the democratic party is just an idiot who doesnt know how bad they are screwing themselves over.

Ummm...quite the bit of nonsense. I asked the question because a small group of people who demographically represent a contingent that the Democrats can't seem to reach actually DID AGREE with the Democrats on every damned issue they themselves raised, yet seemed virulently opposed to the party nonetheless.

As to your question though I know that most of the people around where I grew up didnt want any help from the government. Most people have at least some pride and a desire to not suck on the tit of the system.

Yeah, there is that sentiment. But why is universal healthcare sucking the tit, but social security isn't? Why are say...8 hour workdays fine, but mandated maternity leave and paid vacations not? Public schools not leaching, but welfare is? I think Annelise has something in that its only socialism until we use it and it works for a while. Seems we need to find a way to package these things as being no different than the other forms of 'socialism' that people readily accept, expect, and demand.

The democrats are all for personal freedoms, yet if I want to say have a public prayer session at my school I get castigated. Now I can have a rally all day long for athiesm at my school, but I mention god once and I can just start counting down to when I get suspended.

I've never heard of a rally for atheism, so I'm calling bullshit. And students can generally pray all they like in school, its when they try to induce the rest of the damned school to join in that they run afoul. At that point it stops being an expression of personal freedom and starts being using the schools to pontificate to other students who may not share those views or values. Other students should also have the 'freedom' not to be exposed to that shit as a requirement of their 'required' education.

First up, people tend to believe what they want to believe and then find evidence to support it:

Horza, all that shit makes sense. And that makes it no less depressing. Thanks.

EHK, did these folks make any comments about Republicans, the GOP? Just curious if they were pro or generally disgusted with both parties.

Didn't really come up, but just going by demeanor and past experiences, I'd say that's pretty likely. Though the lions share of their disgust was definitely reserved for Obama, Democrats, and 'socialism'.

3) The government is associated with inefficiency. "Socialism" is a short-hand in this country for "government control and intervention." Keep in mind that the average American interacts most frequently with the government at their local DMV. Government means long lines, rude, non-responsive customer service, and unresolved concerns.

I still hear this to this day and it is sooo outdated. At least in my area. My interactions with the DMV the last couple of years have all been smooth, quick, and efficient. Really, I was quite shocked. Even though there was a decent crowd, last time I got my license renewed I was in and out in 5 minutes without hassle. The DMV is no longer a hellhole. Its actually more efficient and responsive than most private businesses I deal with. On the larger issue, this default presumption of government inefficiency remains a largely unproven perception. Its so well propagated that even Democrats will go along with it, but that doesn't make it true. In the last several years several toll roads and parking meters in the area have been sold (99 year lease) to private business. The result has been substantially higher prices and nothing approaching 'better, more efficient service.'

EHK - why don't you look at the other side and look at people who voted Democrat when it was against their best interests, financially?

Against their interests financially? The people making $250,000+ aren't exactly gonna be broken financially if they have to pay some more taxes. I can see prioritizing other interests. The family forced into bankruptcy due to medical bills? Not so much. Further those $250kers make of a tiny percentage of the voting population, I'm not actually that worried either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...