Jump to content

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


EHK for Darwin

Recommended Posts

OoN,

Why would that piss off all self described conservatives? I couldn't care less.

;)

Damn. I'll have to come up with some other nefarious plan to get all of you! (Because that's what "liberals" do.) Bwahahahahaha!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe that the argument is actually being raised, in anything like a serious manner, that the US is a Christian nation because of the dating convention used in the Constitution. I will admit to being completely unable to understand when El-ahrairah is and is not being serious.

Regarding religious tolerance in Britain vs the colonies, I'm not at all certain that people in Britain were less or more religious than they were in the colonies. Joseph Priestley was, after all, run out of Birmingham for preaching Universalism not long before the Revolution and had to flee to America. Where he then ended up having rather a large influence on certain thinkers (like Jefferson).

I'm not sure where this argument comes from, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone took those daydreams to heart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZWhQDEMH4Y

I remember that now. I wouldn't be a nutter like that guy was though; giving people "the look" from a tank would suffice for my purposes, I think. I guess that'd be a two person operation, someone would have to be available to pop the hatch. My husband would effin love it. :lol:

Plus I'd like to drive it downtown and see if the crackheads still tried to charge me for free parking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am waaay late to this topic (and glad of it, I got to miss the gun control section). I think the OP raises an interesting point. I think there are 4 things that the people in question value more highly than the all the government services in the world. The democrats could be trying to pass a constitutional amendment granting free blowjobs from Scarlett Johansson clones to every american and these folks would still vote against them because of:

Guns: Sorry folks, you may not like it, you might think it's stupid and illogical but these folks will sell their kids before their guns. You might say that it doesn't matter if a populace is unarmed or not etc etc, but history shows that before tyranny, there is disarmament. Every time.

The Military: Not all democrats, but enough to stick in their minds, want to cut military funding, or at least pay lip service to the idea. To these folks, the military ranks up there with Jesus in things you should worship. Anyone who does not offer immediate and unmitigated support for the US Army is a traitor and they will never vote for them.

Abortion: you may not like it, you may think that its weak science etc etc. These people believe that life begins at conception. Just like you would not vote for any politician, no matter their other views, who wanted to legalize shooting your kid up until age 5, these folks will never vote for someone who thinks its ok to murder (what are, in their mind) babies.

Jesus: Face it, when someone wants to take down the ten commandments off the school wall, it probably isn't a republican. Also, you have to recognise the difference between Christians and Christians. Most folks will see someone going to church and say "Christian" QED. To these folks, someone who goes to church, but votes pro-choice is the highest form of heretic. These folks go to church 3 or 4 times a week. They pray together daily as a family. Church is not a part of their life, their lives are part of church. They see democrats as the one-day-a-week types, if anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe that the argument is actually being raised, in anything like a serious manner, that the US is a Christian nation because of the dating convention used in the Constitution.

Well look at it this way. Even though the calendar is universal, particular term of it are not. Do you think the Israeli Constitution would say "in the year of Our Lord 1949"? Or the Soviet Constitution "in the year of Our Lord 1917"? Most rational people would agree this term would not be used by these countries, as they are "not Christian nations". Why, then, is the phrase in the U.S. Constitution considered understandable?

I will admit to being completely unable to understand when El-ahrairah is and is not being serious.

Neither could King Darzin, to his unending regret.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel that you're avoiding the issue of separation of church and state as established by the first amendment in your comments. Does the simple use of the complete writing out of the phrase A.D. bear more weight than that? Seriously? I feel that this take cherry-picking to new heights. Perhaps out of a desire to reach the fruit at the top of the tree?

I still cannot believe that anyone is actually making the argument that guns protect them from tyranny. Danes certainly don't consider themselves under any threat of tyranny, nor do the British. Yet they have far more strict gun control laws than the US. However, this is dangerously close to bringing us back to the discussion of gun control. And I meant to start another thread about that, but am currently mustering the strength.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is an ideological divide which is often misunderstood.

I am totally blue-collar, working poor, yada, yada, yada. People don't seem to realize that there is a dividing line between the poor and the working poor. Every time that someone who behaves irresponsibly gets the advantage over someone who works hard and is responsible, the working people get pissed.

Take two high school girls who aren't especially academically gifted or ambitious. One gets a minumum wage job and works hard to take care of herself, the other gets pregnant. Girl A (working girl) has to make her way on her own. Girl B (pregnant girl) has people falling all over themselves to make sure she has adequate nutrition and pre-natal care; making sure she has a place to live and electricity.

I don't want to see people (especially children) suffer but when all the advantages and benefits are handed to people who fucked up, that can be really frustrating.

Or take two factory workers: they both make the same money but one has nicer clothes and drinks on the weekend, but also has roaches and drafty windows; the other keeps his home immaculately maintained but has no money for clothes and beer. The one with the drafty windows cries that although he works full-time, he can't afford the heating bill. The one with poor clothes just gets scorned for dressing shabby.

Minimum wage workers: you can be a model employee, get perfect performance reviews and climb $.75 an hour above minimum, then they raise the minumum wage but your wage is not raised accordingly. Suddenly your years of work are all for nothing, you get the same pay as some high school kid who is working for CDs and pot. It would be more appropriate to blame the company who doesn't raise your wage accordingly but you have no power over the company so you look with disdain on the high school kid and the people who raised the wage: "thanks for nothin'."

Education responds to supply and demand just like any other business. When you increase funding for education, educational institutes raise their prices. But all people see is that despite the millions of dollars of extra funding, they are not accomplishing the increase of education so they say 'we need more money for education.' The more you need an education to get along in the world, the more people will charge for giving you an education. People talk about rising tuition like there's no avarice involved, it's just natural inflation. I don't think it is.

Personal Freedom: I think a lot of people could give a shit about someone listening in on their phone conversations. I think the general sense is 'if someone is listening to me they need to get a life and stop wasting taxpayer money.' But the same people are more than likely sad that their kids will never know the freedom of riding in the bed of a pick-up truck--that's illegal. They won't be able to ride downhill really fast on their bikes with the wind in their hair--they have to wear helmets.

Some people believe in taking their lumps when they screw up and getting benefits when they do right. They may complain about the credit card company's sneaky shenanigans but they would be offended by a world that said 'you poor thing. You're too stupid to handle finances, let us regulate those mean credit card companies for you.'

It is understood that the company wants their profit margin to either stay the same or increase. In some sense, money spent to increase safety or reduce harm to the environment is money that is not spent on raises for the employees.

I used to work at a casino, setting up the lights and sound for the concerts there. We were hired by a labor company who charged the casino one price for providing labor and paid us a portion of that fee. At one point, someone stepped in and declared that the labor company had to provide worker's comp insurance for us. The labor company immediately declared that our wages would have to be reduced to compensate.

Now there are three ways that the additional expense could be integrated: 1) charge more to the casino; 2) labor company takes a smaller cut; 3) reduce wages. I know now (and didn't know then) that the labor company was charging something like $350 and paying us $175. I never imagined that the guy who made the phone calls to staff the show was making as much from my labor as I was. Do you see the fucked-up-edness of this? Someone has to take a hit from this government regulation and who is it? Me.

The government can only apply a formula: income = xx, cost of living = yy--here's your check. 'Rednecks' in small communities know the people as people. They know who is really struggling and needs help and who is just squandering their lives. They would rather give their money, spare clothes, and time to their church and help the people they know need help. They find the idea of a faceless government taking their money to give it without regard for who is honestly struggling to be offensive. When they help people directly they have the satisfaction of having done the right thing and when they are taxed they just feel robbed.

They are happy with Social Security because they have paid into the system and they are just getting their own money back.

A lot of poor working class people don't want the pity and the condescension of elites who make excuses for poor ignorant people who can't get along in life. They will accept a bag of potatoes from a neighbor with grace and help that neighbor clear some brush in return.

Frankly, like the OP, I am amazed that people don't understand this. A lot of the resistence to the Democrats' ideals is based on pride. The democrats often come off as 'oh look at the poor suffering masses! Let us take pity on them and be benevolent to them in their ignorance.' Why would it be surprising that they often get a resounding 'Fuck you!'?

Frankly, I think it all comes down to: Democrat is for poor people who are "on the take" and condescending elites and Republican is for rich people and poor people who say "damn your charity, I can make it on my own."

This is my favorite post of the thread and I largely agree.

I'd also add that loaded phrases like, "voting against your interests" are designed to be inherently unfair, imo. Perception is everything, and the certainty of democrats that they are right and their certainty that they know what is best for everyone else is ultimately what kills democrats time and time again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my favorite post of the thread and I largely agree.

I'd also add that loaded phrases like, "voting against your interests" are designed to be inherently unfair, imo.

I agree, and I agree.

When I first saw the thread topic "Voting against your interests: Why does it happen so often?" (before I came in and started reading anything), my immediate thought was, "Well, first one administration pisses you off, then some slick politician with virtually no experience what-so-ever and every news outlet (except for Fox) in his pocket comes along offering you unsupported promises of hope and vague, undefined promises of change..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, and I agree.

When I first saw the thread topic "Voting against your interests: Why does it happen so often?" (before I came in and started reading anything), my immediate thought was, "Well, first one administration pisses you off, then some slick politician with virtually no experience what-so-ever and the every news outlet (except for Fox) in his pocket comes along offering you unsupported promises of hope and vague, undefined promises of change..."

To be honest, I think Bill Gates et. al. are voting against their interests too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Galactus,

Should be noted that even if the Treaty of Paris made the US a christian nation the Treaty of Tripoli would revoke that status.

Nah, the ratification of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does that before the Treaty of Tripoli.

Litechick,

Great post. In a way it can be summed up as those who simply believe in equal opportunity v. those who believe equal opportunity cannot be reached without government help to make conditions more equal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my favorite post of the thread and I largely agree.

Huh? A bunch of false premises not remotely related to anything written previously? To each their own I guess.

I'd also add that loaded phrases like, "voting against your interests" are designed to be inherently unfair, imo. Perception is everything, and the certainty of democrats that they are right and their certainty that they know what is best for everyone else is ultimately what kills democrats time and time again.

It is a loaded term. That was only used for summary purposes in the title. Any actual reading of my first post should make it clear that I was talking about something more than that. Not voting against your interests, which are often victim of priorities and perception. But of voting directly against the very issues and positions these people staked out without any prompting. Essentially labeling half the White Sox starting lineup as your favorite players in baseball, expressing your hatred for the entire Cubs pitching staff, than declaring yourself a Cubs fan. There's something wrong with that picture.

'Voting against your interest' was simply a catchier phrase than 'saying one thing and doing another'. It also made the political implications clear at the outset.

"Well, first one administration pisses you off, then some slick politician with virtually no experience what-so-ever and the every news outlet (except for Fox) in his pocket comes along offering you unsupported promises of hope and vague, undefined promises of change..."

Just when people are starting to compliment you on your improved posting. This is shit Blauer. You know it, I know it. We both know (or should know) the reasons why. And I'm not gonna waste anytime ripping it apart. Skip the damned nonsense rhetoric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EHK,

Huh? A bunch of false premises not remotely related to anything written previously? To each their own I guess.

How are Litechick's premises false? People don't get upset about people who game the system? People don't perceive government as inefficent and unfair because it doesn't really know who it's giving taxpayer money to? I think she made some very good and cogent points regarding your original topic. Pride does play a roll for those who might benefit from government redistribution of wealth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh? A bunch of false premises not remotely related to anything written previously? To each their own I guess.

So this thread isn't really about asking the question--Why do people vote this way?--it's just an excuse to talk about how stupid you find these people to be. Big surprise there. It seems like your favorite topic is always about how stupid people are.

Even if you think that every point I made is a 'false premise' you're missing the point. I wasn't arguing why these people were right, I was trying to explain to you (since you asked) why they think like they do.

not remotely related to anything written previously You mentioned credit card companies, social security and saftey/environmental issues in the OP. I tried to explain to you how people might be concerned for these issues but still not agree with the Democrats.

When I refer to the democrats as elitists who are condescending to lower class people you make my point for me by dismissing everything I have to say without thought, without discussion. Your mind is closed and you just say "you're wrong." That's helpful.

Maybe the answer to your original question can be found within yourself. Why do you vote for democrats when they are the main force behind bans on smoking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...