21
   

QUESTION:: WHY DOES THE MIDDLE CLASS VOTE AGAINST ITS INTERESTS?

 
 
Rickoshay75
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2012 04:43 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

The use of such words as "simplistic terms" by rosborne really doesn't answer why "people vote against their own interests." I think "lazy, clueless, brainwashed, and ignorance" fits much better.


The problem is voters don't have the time or and inclination to check all the details. The only thing they relate with is -- who they like and don't like -- mostly don't like.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.
John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2012 05:01 pm
@Rickoshay75,
You said,
Quote:
voters don't have the time or and inclination to check all the details. The only thing they relate with is -- who they like and don't like -- mostly don't like.


You have confirmed what I said; they are lazy, clueless, brainwashed, and ignorant.
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2012 05:40 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

You have confirmed what I said; they are lazy, clueless, brainwashed, and ignorant.

Or just busy working two jobs, helping the kids with homework, trying to carve out a little time with the spouse, you know, living life.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2012 05:44 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
they are lazy, clueless, brainwashed, and ignorant.


The pronoun you were searching for, CI, was 'we'.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2012 06:13 pm
@engineer,
If they are "too busy" to get involved in the political system of this country, but still vote, they become the problem, not the candidates.
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2012 07:33 pm
@cicerone imposter,
OK, but then don't complain about low turnout in elections. Not everyone has the time or resources to dig into all the issues and this makes them susceptible to manipulation, but it doesn't make them stupid.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2012 07:36 pm
@engineer,
If they listen to the lies of Romney-Ryan and don't listen to all the challenges from the media, then they are stupid.
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2012 09:09 pm
Interesting read.

Quote:
Why do poor white voters reject the Democrats? Well, why shouldn't they?

The white working class is said to 'vote against its own interests'. This only exposes the patronising assumptions of their accusers


Gary Younge
guardian.co.uk, Friday 25 May 2012


So white people who are struggling financially are going to vote Republican. And not by a narrow margin. Asked in a recent Washington Post poll which candidate would do more to advance their families' economic interests, middle-class white voters who said they were struggling to maintain their financial positions chose Mitt Romney. And not by a small margin. In this category he beats Barack Obama by 58% to 32%.

Such news is generally greeted on the left by a mixture of despair and ridicule. Here is a group of people, it seems, who simply do not understand what's good for them. Whites without college degrees, as reasonable if flawed an indicator of "class" in this country as exists, backed John McCain by 58 to 40 in 2008 and George W Bush in 2004 and 2000 by similar amounts. Failing to sense the liberation the Democrats have in store for them, they have been seized by a collective bout of false consciousness and are once again set to vote against their own interests. Having thus infantilised them as ostensible adults in need of protection against themselves, progressives will then wonder why this particular group of people do not flock to them at the polls.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/may/25/poor-white-voters-reject-democrats
hingehead
 
  2  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2012 09:27 pm
@JTT,
Gary Younge is usually food for thought. This bit was interesting

Quote:
Nonetheless, time and again during the Republican primaries Republicans evoked racial themes in the whitest places. "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money," said Rick Santorum in Sioux City. "I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money."

"Right," said one audience member, as another woman nodded.

"And provide for themselves and their families," Santorum added.

The black population of Sioux City is 2.9%. In Woodbury County, in which Sioux City sits, 13% of the people are on food stamps, an increase of 26% since 2007, with nine times as many whites as blacks using them.

Just a few days later, in Plymouth, New Hampshire, Newt Gingrich said: "I will go to the NAACP convention and explain to the African-American community why they should demand paychecks [instead of] food stamps." African-Americans make up 0.8% of Plymouth's population. Food stamp use in Grafton County is 6% – a 48% increase since 2007.

Those who are struggling and believe Romney will improve their economic lot are wrong, regardless of their race. Eight years of George W Bush proved that. But it does not follow automatically from that that their home should be supporting Democrats under whom things have gotten less bad less quickly. True, those are the only two choices on offer. But if you're poor they are not great choices. What they need is a party that represents their interests. In a country where corporate money chooses the candidates and therefore shapes the debate that will demand a change in politics, not just politicians.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 05:00 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
ora wouldn't know pre and post if he was provided with all the facts and evidence on anything.


You trash shouldn't run around falsely accusing your betters of your own stupidity.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 05:29 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
The use of such words as "simplistic terms" by rosborne really doesn't answer why "people vote against their own interests." I think "lazy, clueless, brainwashed, and ignorance" fits much better.


Funny how you stupid people keep falsely accusing your betters of your own stupidity.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 05:30 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
Except the claim was NOT correct. Saddam was not holding onto those shells They were discovered discarded in the desert and they were declared as lost by Saddam. For you to try to argue Saddam had those shells and was lying about it is not borne out by any facts.

But feel free to make up whatever you want if it makes your reality better for you.


You don't know for sure that Saddam was not secretly stashing those shells intentionally.

But in any case, so what? The fact remains, we found stockpiles of WMD in Iraq.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 05:31 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
You have confirmed what I said; they are lazy, clueless, brainwashed, and ignorant.


You trash shouldn't run around falsely accusing your betters of your own brainwashed clueless ignorance.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 05:32 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
parados wrote:
I have to love your logic oralloy.

So do you think I can take your guns away because of the shooter in Aurora? It makes as much sense as the argument that 9/11 justifies attacking Iraq.


My logic? Surely you don't think I am Newt Gingrich.


One normally doesn't post something claiming it justifies something unless they agree with it.


I do not feel that any justification is required.



parados wrote:
But then you are not a normal person, I guess.


Indeed. I am quite exceptional.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 05:33 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
If they listen to the lies of Romney-Ryan and don't listen to all the challenges from the media, then they are stupid.


You trash shouldn't run around falsely accusing your betters of your own stupidity.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 06:05 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
So the invasion had nothing to do with weapons?


There were a lot of reasons for invading Iraq. Not everyone supported the invasion for the same reasons as everyone else.



parados wrote:
That's an interesting argument since you are trying to justify that Saddam had such weapons


I'm just pointing out the fact that we found a stockpile of WMDs in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 06:06 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
I was just trying to explain to ora-how I concluded that Bush lied from the get-go.

If the Admin wasnt lying, then they were really gullible and stupid enough to believe their own tripe.


Sometimes people make mistakes. Mistakes aren't lies.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 06:08 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Yes. And one of the Bush Administration's claims was that Saddam was still holding chemical weapons from before 1991


Thqt statement would only make some sense if it were used to justify the war plans before our little adventure.


And it was. One of the reasons for the invasion from the beginning was the claim that Iraq was still holding WMDs from before 1991.

It wasn't the only claim. They also claimed that Saddam was trying to build new WMDs. But the "pre-1991" claim was there too.



farmerman wrote:
AS it was , qe were already in Irag for 3 years when they found the IED and the piles of mustard shells (hich they wrroneously claimed "Could" have also contained sarin.


Quite a few reports that they actually found shells with sarin.

But regardless, mustard gas is just as much a WMD as sarin is.



farmerman wrote:
So, it appears they were scrambling around post facto to justify why they were already in Iraq.


No justification was required to begin with.



farmerman wrote:
IF WE COULDNT POINT TO ANY WMDS BEFORE WE WENT IN< WHY AGAIN WAS THE WMD CARD USED TO GO IN?
Dontya think e were lied to?


Nah. I think they were merely mistaken.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 06:56 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
Sometimes people make mistakes. Mistakes aren't lies.


The history of the US clearly illustrates that the lies are myriad. Every illegal invasion has been prefaced with lies. The lies are so transparent that anyone who isn't a complete fool would realize it.

Oh wait, we're talking about Oralboy, one of the greatest ever slurpers of Uncle Sam's cum. And dog knows that there are lots of slurpers.

Two illegal invasions of two sovereign nations, hundreds of thousands of deaths, myriad war crimes, the typical US brutality towards the very people they make a grand pretense of helping.

It's a scene that has been repeated numerous times and it goes on and on and on because of amoral scum the likes of you, Oralboy.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 06:57 am
@oralloy,
Quote:

You don't know for sure that Saddam was not secretly stashing those shells intentionally.

The people that found them said as much. The pictures of them show them to be damaged. The declared list from Saddam said it. The evidence is pretty strong that Saddam was not hanging on to these shells to use since they were unusable.

Of course we found WMD in Iraq. It was under UN lock and key for the most part. Not a single WMD was found under Saddam's control. We only found some damaged shells abandoned in the desert that you want to argue were reason for billions of dollars and lost lives.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/23/2022 at 09:33:51