Conversation Between Von Kinger and NightTrainLayne

20 Visitor Messages

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
  1. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/20/u...imes&smtyp=cur

    It never ceases to amaze me.

    I opted out of P and R, but at this point, you're essentially a liberal. Welcome to the team, baaaaaaaaaaaabbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbyyyyyyyy
  2. Good luck getting folks to vote the way you want them to by telling them you know better for them, and ignoring their feelings.

    It won't work, but good luck.

    We're on the same side on free trade. We're on the same side on immigration. We're close to being on the same side on healthcare. We're on the same side when it comes to our overactive police state and how they treat minorities. I say this just to highlight that we don't disagree much on major policy initiatives.

    If you want to attract rural white folks to vote in a way that fits with your worldview, you can't just tell them, "these things are better for you." Because they don't see it. The guy in Ohio who lost his job at the auto parts factory in the last financial crisis feels like the world is conspiring against him. Bankers and Elites got bailed out. Meanwhile, his family left him because he can't support them anymore.

    What sounds better to that guy? What's in his best interest? Walls, and leaving trade agreements, and tariffs against cheap foreign goods all sound more in his interest. You can't just tell him, "trust us, we know better". He doesn't trust anyone. Not democrats, not republicans. Trump is the dummy crazy enough to tell him what he wants to hear, and it's different than what he's heard from either party for decades.

    There are millions of folks in similar situations that all switched from voting for Obama to voting for Trump in this last election. Were they voting against their interests when they voted for Obama? They're still under-employed. They're surrounded by drug addicts whose drug dealers are Doctors pushing them pain pills etc., paid via medicaid. They're families are disintegrating because they can't support them. The schools are falling apart. etc. etc.

    Trump's the only guy who has even flirted with these folks.

    Their own self interest begins with having someone who at least acknowledges their problems.
  3. No, they don't. The populace you're talking about wanted to appeal Obamacare but they loved the ACA. They want tough criminal sanctions but want help on the opioid epidemic. They want help from the government but distrust others from getting that same help. They live in cognitive dissonance.

    Blue states elect the Dems who vote for those programs because blue state liberals believe in a society that tries to help people. On a fundamental level, a Democrat tends to be someone who is a 'great society' kind of person. Who isn't scared of some inefficiencies or waste. It's sort of the point. On the macro level, if I want subsidized healthcare on the federal level just to be redundant, of course I know aid is going to red states. A more philosophical approach would be that liberals take the Rawlsian way of thinking. So I hate to sound elitist, but I do have a better idea of what the poor family in Missouri needs than average person living that life. And I live in Illinois, which has a very large rural population. I often side with that populace in regards to how Chicago runs things.

    Do you feel me, NTL? Do you feel me?
  4. Damn it King. They understand what their best interests are! Your interests for them, are not their own. They may appear stupid to you, but that doesn't matter because they are not you and you are not them.

    If red states constantly vote against their best interests and elect Republicans, then by the same argument blue states vote against their best interests in electing Democrats. Why are blue states always electing these Democrats who send all of the Federal budget to red states and pay huge taxes that never come back to their benefit because they get paid out in welfare benefits to folks in Mississippi?

    It's silly to make that argument. Don't be silly.
  5. It's perceived. You're right. It's not a lazy argument - it's understanding that they don't actually understand what their best interests are. Everyone knows you need to eat. But it goes deeper than that. I lived around these people my entire life, NTL. Why is it so hard to accept it?
  6. Nobody votes against their own perceived self interest. Stop making that lazy argument. It inhibits you from understanding anything. Just because you don't understand their self-interests, or prioritize interests in the same way doesn't mean that they are voting against their own self interest.
  7. FWIW, I didn't ban you. I abstained from the vote. And I know you didn't blame me, no worries.
  8. FWIW, I know that you did not ban me out of trying to censor me. You banned me because I knowingly broke the rules, and I did.
  9. That MHS did make me smile a bit. But dammit the context is different! I maintain my innocence!
  10. I truly believe that the establishment conservatives are either going to ignore it, weakly refute it, or stand solely on ideological grounds on the matter. NTL, I just get frustrated with it because it's doesn't even look to be appear debatable at this point: torture doesn't yield results. It's possible that the best argument for it is that in the most extreme circumstances it stands as a proverbial Hail Mary, but that's about it.
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 10 of 20
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
status.broncosforums.com - BroncosForums status updates
dedicated servers
Partner with the USA Today Sports Media Group