If you Voted for Bernie Sanders or wrote him in or

ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Everybody votes in their own self interest. Always

From what I read in your little diatribe, you think you know better than the Mississippi voter. Are you saying the Mississippi voter should be disenfranchised? I don't think you are. I posed that question because that's a natural outcome from this idea that people are unable to decide what is in their own self interest.

People are not cattle either. We are highly socialized and intelligent primates. We don't live in herds and we are extremely competitive with each other. Also, the average person is pretty damn smart. We know that our family and social support group is important to our ability to successfully compete, thrive and reproduce. Threats to that group will naturally draw concerns. For example, when the white Mississippi farmer hears that more environmental regulations are on the way, they not only become fearful for their own well being but also their community. I use this as an example of how your ideals aren't necessarily important to people elsewhere. We aren't a dumb herd that can be influenced by a dog's stare. We are people who are trying to live a good life and sustain the loved ones around us. And so, I can't just write off the poorly educated rural voter who chose Trump. He voted in his own self interest, which is an amalgam of values that are very different from yours.

The game to me is to understand how to convince enough of those voters to switch away from the Republican party. I hear you dismiss that farmer and support the idea that the country needs fewer choices. I'm hearing that you can tolerate only the choices you would make. That rural Mississippi farmer won't be very convinced by your ideals. Yours is an undemocratic, authoritarian and losing strategy in this country.
Click to expand...
PERCEIVED self interest, because prefect knowledge doesn't exist. That blows a big fat hole right through your logical argument.

Humans are absolutely susceptible to a herd mentality; ever heard of 'groupthink'?
 
st0wandgrow

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Everybody votes in their own self interest. Always

From what I read in your little diatribe, you think you know better than the Mississippi voter. Are you saying the Mississippi voter should be disenfranchised? I don't think you are. I posed that question because that's a natural outcome from this idea that people are unable to decide what is in their own self interest.

People are not cattle either. We are highly socialized and intelligent primates. We don't live in herds and we are extremely competitive with each other. Also, the average person is pretty damn smart. We know that our family and social support group is important to our ability to successfully compete, thrive and reproduce. Threats to that group will naturally draw concerns. For example, when the white Mississippi farmer hears that more environmental regulations are on the way, they not only become fearful for their own well being but also their community. I use this as an example of how your ideals aren't necessarily important to people elsewhere. We aren't a dumb herd that can be influenced by a dog's stare. We are people who are trying to live a good life and sustain the loved ones around us. And so, I can't just write off the poorly educated rural voter who chose Trump. He voted in his own self interest, which is an amalgam of values that are very different from yours.

The game to me is to understand how to convince enough of those voters to switch away from the Republican party. I hear you dismiss that farmer and support the idea that the country needs fewer choices. I'm hearing that you can tolerate only the choices you would make. That rural Mississippi farmer won't be very convinced by your ideals. Yours is an undemocratic, authoritarian and losing strategy in this country.
Click to expand...
I'm on the fence with this whole "self interest" thing. I do see what you're saying, but I think there are some distinctions to be made between self interest and best interest. People have issues that are important to them, and typically cast their vote based on those interests. This is not always voting in ones best interest though, and does not take in to account other factors. For example, I would imagine that Trump received votes simply because of name recognition and his celebrity status. Some people may have liked his "tough guy" rhetoric, and voted for him simply because of that. Some people may have voted for Trump solely because they hated Clinton. In those examples people certainly have reasons why they cast their vote the way they did, and those reasons are in their own self interest. Are those reasons in their own BEST interest though? There are some tangible metrics that can be used to determine ones best interest such as tax implications, healthcare access, pay increase due to minimum wage being raised, college tuition, social justice, etc. Voting for Trump just because you hate Mexicans, while at the same time losing your job due to his policy positions would not be voting in your own best interest.

I've been ripped repeatedly on here for not voting for Clinton. I voted for someone that I felt best represented my views, but as a result of myself and others not voting for Clinton, we're being blamed (in part) for a Trump presidency. Using me as an example, would you say that I voted in my own self interest? What about my own best interests?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
PERCEIVED self interest, because prefect knowledge doesn't exist. That blows a big fat hole right through your logical argument.
Click to expand...
OK, so let's play your idea out for a bit.

Let's just say that you in fact have the ability to decide what is best for another person, regardless of their location, personal history, level of education and occupation. In other words, you have the ability to know which decisions will result in the best results for other people in spite of their own idea of what that would be. Would those people still has the right to vote or would you take it away and impose your solution?

I'm getting at the usefulness of your hypothesis that there is an actionable difference between the hypothetical objective self interest and perceived self interest. I don't think there is. I think that any imposed solution on a population will be resisted and fail. I think that people who see their own solutions considered in a vote will be more likely to cooperate even if their choices aren't the one decided in a vote.

ttystikk said:
Humans are absolutely susceptible to a herd mentality; ever heard of 'groupthink'?
Click to expand...
Interesting that you would call mainstream Democratic voters as behaving in a manner that could be described as group think. Democratic Party is a coalition of several groups. Sanders supporters are one group with almost perfect alignment. All moving in lock step. They've moved past what Bernie Sanders is preaching. But don't tell anybody I said they were caught up in group think hysteria or anything like that.
 
Last edited:
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
OK, so let's play your idea out for a bit.

Let's just say that you in fact have the ability to decide what is best for another person, regardless of their location, personal history, level of education and occupation. In other words, you have the ability to know which decisions will result in the best results for other people in spite of their own idea of what that would be. Would those people still has the right to vote or would you take it away and impose your solution?

I'm getting at the usefulness of your hypothesis that there is an actionable difference between the hypothetical objective self interest and perceived self interest. I don't think there is. I think that any imposed solution on a population will be resisted and fail. I think that people who see their own solutions that they would choose in their won self interest actualized


Interesting that you would call mainstream Democratic voters as behaving in a manner that could be described as group think. Democratic Party is a coalition of several groups. Sanders supporters are one group with almost perfect alignment. All moving in lock step. They've moved past what Bernie Sanders is preaching. But don't tell anybody I said they were caught up in group think hysteria or anything like that.
Click to expand...
Strawman argument. I am not saying I know better than they do.

I'm saying not everyone will vote in their own best interest.

This is especially true if we are talking about significant sample sizes.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
st0wandgrow said:
I'm on the fence with this whole "self interest" thing. I do see what you're saying, but I think there are some distinctions to be made between self interest and best interest. People have issues that are important to them, and typically cast their vote based on those interests. This is not always voting in ones best interest though, and does not take in to account other factors. For example, I would imagine that Trump received votes simply because of name recognition and his celebrity status. Some people may have liked his "tough guy" rhetoric, and voted for him simply because of that. Some people may have voted for Trump solely because they hated Clinton. In those examples people certainly have reasons why they cast their vote the way they did, and those reasons are in their own self interest. Are those reasons in their own BEST interest though? There are some tangible metrics that can be used to determine ones best interest such as tax implications, healthcare access, pay increase due to minimum wage being raised, college tuition, social justice, etc. Voting for Trump just because you hate Mexicans, while at the same time losing your job due to his policy positions would not be voting in your own best interest.

I've been ripped repeatedly on here for not voting for Clinton. I voted for someone that I felt best represented my views, but as a result of myself and others not voting for Clinton, we're being blamed (in part) for a Trump presidency. Using me as an example, would you say that I voted in my own self interest? What about my own best interests?
Click to expand...
I would say that you indeed voted in your own self interest when you voted for Stein. In part it was because you couldn't bring yourself to vote for Hillary and wouldn't vote for Trump. It took you a long time before you explained your vote (or maybe it was a long time before I read your reason). When your argument was "I couldn't vote for Hillary because she was an empty suit", then, yeah, I saw a fake reason. Also when you took the line of "people who voted for Hillary instead of Bernie couldn't decide what is in their own self interest", then, yeah, I took issue with disregarding the right and ability of people to decide for themselves.

I replied to tty about this idea of "self interest" vs "best or objective interests". I don't understand the usefulness of the idea of a best interest being in conflict with self interest. In a democracy, practically every adult has the right to vote. What difference does it make if you could identify a best interest for another person? They will still vote according to their own self interest anyway. So, other than as a means of dismissing another person as inferior in their decision making, how is the distinction between "best" and "self" interest important?
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Strawman argument. I am not saying I know better than they do.

I'm saying not everyone will vote in their own best interest.

This is especially true if we are talking about significant sample sizes.
Click to expand...
I'm getting at the usefulness of your hypothesis that there is an actionable difference between the hypothetical objective self interest and perceived self interest. I don't think there is. I think that any imposed solution on a population will be resisted and fail.

What is the usefulness of this idea of "best interest"?
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I'm getting at the usefulness of your hypothesis that there is an actionable difference between the hypothetical objective self interest and perceived self interest. I don't think there is. I think that any imposed solution on a population will be resisted and fail.

What is the usefulness of this idea of "best interest"?
Click to expand...
Finally we have something substantive to discuss; when Mr Sanders has visited Republican strongholds he was able to get a large majority of the attendees to agree with his positions. Therefore I don't think is a matter of forcing anyone but rather a matter of education.

The fact that liberal voters tend to be more educated than conservative voters would tend to support this hypothesis.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Finally we have something substantive to discuss; when Mr Sanders has visited Republican strongholds he was able to get a large majority of the attendees to agree with his positions. Therefore I don't think is a matter of forcing anyone but rather a matter of education.

The fact that liberal voters tend to be more educated than conservative voters would tend to support this hypothesis.
Click to expand...
I've said all along that people can decide for themselves what they value when they vote in their own self interest. That's the whole point. Yes, views can change over time, experience and with additional information. However, we never have complete knowlege of what's "best". When anybody steps into the voting booth, they never have all the information necessary to know what is in their own "best or objective" interest. Nobody knows the future. We can only decide what is subjectively in our own self interest.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
The fact that liberal voters tend to be more educated than conservative voters would tend to support this hypothesis.
Click to expand...
I'm completely in agreement that better education will strengthen our democracy by increasing the likelihood of good choices at the ballot box. One demographic is conservative and well educated. Care to take a guess at what group they come from?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
since1991 said:
Since no one will say it...I will. Of course Biden could of won. And probably would have. Heres where a large portion of America os with Hillary Rodham Clinton....SHES A VERY HATED FIGURE IN AMERICA. She isnt a winning candidate by any stretch. She is seen by alot of people to be the very essence of what is wrong in this country and they are willing to vote for a narcissistic buffoon of a man like Trump because they hate her that much. A guy who was feared might get us into ww3 even before he won. She was a flawed candidate right from the get go. She didnt beat Obama and she couldnt beat Trump. And only the Democratic Party good ole boy network has themselves to blame for nominating her. Thats a fact. People are pissed at the present state of this country and shame on the dems for nominating a person the people feel is largely responsible for that state. You back a dog in a corner...hes gonna bite. No recourse. And the people bit by electing a crazy buffoon to the White House. The Washington politics as usual got a Trump card dealt to them. In retrospect tbis should serve as a wake up call. Putting all the media and Washington on notice. The people are pissed. This country is getting worse by the day. And the Trump voters...whether gullible or not...deep down feels like they just threw up a big middle finger to all of it. A large portion of Trump voters werent so much pro Trump...they were just anti Hillary. Alot of them know hes a clown. There not that stupid (but close). And shame on the democratic party elite for forcing her on us by nominating an establishment politician who is hated by alot of Americans. Goes to show how much of a bubble the Deans..Schumers...Wasserman - Schultz'...CNN News ...and Donna Brazils live compared to regular ordinary folks that are in America.
Click to expand...
whenever hillary isn't running for office, she is literally the most popular politician in america.

it's almost like there is a concerted smear campaign against her when she runs or something. as if republicans fear her even more than brown people, or a transgender person pissing in privacy.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
QtrNdaPuss said:
remember when al gore said he won the popular vote but still lost to bush? I would have figured that the dems would have took that into consideration when they ran hillarys campaign. why is the democrats strategy garbage? why do they keep failing all of you? it's not the first time it has happened.
Click to expand...
it's not so much that hillary had a bad strategy, but rather that trump cheated. big time. used russian spies and orchestrated disinformation campaigns like putin used in ukraine.

it only fooled stupid people though. people like you.
 
Heil Tweetler

Heil Tweetler

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
it's not so much that hillary had a bad strategy, but rather that trump cheated. big time. used russian spies and orchestrated disinformation campaigns like putin used in ukraine.

it only fooled stupid people though. people like you.
Click to expand...
Ya, Trump's cheating/slimy tricks/ nationalism while Clinton, I think, suffered a failure of imagination to some degree resulted in a TKO.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
QtrNdaPuss said:
literally! why is it so easy to "run a smear campaign" whenever she runs?
Click to expand...
easy?

trump needed to call in the same people who ran a disinformation campaign in ukraine to make it even plausible to work. even then, it only suceeded by the slimmest of all margins.

if it were easy, hillary wouldn't get the most votes literally every time she runs for office.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
QtrNdaPuss said:
I'd figure a life long politician would have known about the electoral college. Silly russians kept that info from her.
Click to expand...
no, but silly russians did hack voter rolls, steal confidential information, weaponize it (along with the mercers and cambridge analytics), and micro-target voters illegally.

even then hillary still got more votes.

but yeah, keep celebrating a relic designed to give special rights to slave states. that seems at about your level, twink.
 
QtrNdaPuss

QtrNdaPuss

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
no, but silly russians did hack voter rolls, steal confidential information, weaponize it (along with the mercers and cambridge analytics), and micro-target voters illegally.

even then hillary still got more votes.

but yeah, keep celebrating a relic designed to give special rights to slave states. that seems at about your level, twink.
Click to expand...
So she learned nothing from when al gore ran against bush? you have to win the electoral college to win the election. fyi
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top