Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

A Note For Conservatives And Christians About Capitol Riot


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, The Narrator said:

They might feel that way, but they are completely wrong. The left just elected a devout Christian to the presidency. The Speaker regularly uses faith-based rhetoric from the house floor. 

On the local level I am a straight, white, protestant guy who is involved enough in local D politics to say that my demographic isn't any sort of a hinderance, and people don't look down on me for my faith. 

Not to be that guy, but I don't know that your anecdotal personal experience with local politics qualifies you to dismiss their feelings on that matter. Imagine using that line of thinking in a different context. Your D-minded friends would likely lose their minds if you told certain sectors of the population that their "feelings" don't matter based on your personal experiences. Feelings only matter if they fit narratives.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 538
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is part of the problem Joe.  Your friend has a good message.  He sounds like a terrific guy.  But he's parroting lies from conservative media.  He thinks this is a message of healing but it's sti

Our country has been building up to that moment yesterday for four years.  People have been warning how dangerous Trump is and frequently laughed at or ridiculed during that time by many folks on Jaso

You have spoken eloquently about how irresponsible it is to put words in others’ mouths.  And here you are making a horribly, objectively, inflammatory untrue statement about a large group of people b

1 minute ago, FairWarning said:
5 minutes ago, The Narrator said:

They might feel that way, but they are completely wrong. The left just elected a devout Christian to the presidency. The Speaker regularly uses faith-based rhetoric from the house floor. 

On the local level I am a straight, white, protestant guy who is involved enough in local D politics to say that my demographic isn't any sort of a hinderance, and people don't look down on me for my faith. 

IDK if they are wrong, but its a bigger issue for the right than the left in general.  I don't care if our president is an athiest, as long as people have the right to religion.  

Maybe if Democrats *ever* elect a non-Christian we can start to have the discussion, but for now it just seems ridiculous given reality. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Narrator said:

Maybe if Democrats *ever* elect a non-Christian we can start to have the discussion, but for now it just seems ridiculous given reality. 

I remember when a catholic running for president was a big deal, look at Kennedy.  I didn't realize Biden was catholic until recently.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RnR said:
6 minutes ago, The Narrator said:

They might feel that way, but they are completely wrong. The left just elected a devout Christian to the presidency. The Speaker regularly uses faith-based rhetoric from the house floor. 

On the local level I am a straight, white, protestant guy who is involved enough in local D politics to say that my demographic isn't any sort of a hinderance, and people don't look down on me for my faith. 

Not to be that guy, but I don't know that your anecdotal personal experience with local politics qualifies you to dismiss their feelings on that matter. Imagine using that line of thinking in a different context. Your D-minded friends would likely lose their minds if you told certain sectors of the population that their "feelings" don't matter based on your personal experiences. Feelings only matter if they fit narratives.

Not to be that guy, but you should read separate statements separately.

My experience isn't proof of the other statement, it's simply me attempting to add to the discussion. Is that acceptable? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shula-holic said:

Tim said without a safe society his family isn't safe, I think most people voting in their financial interests agree with that 

@36Kevon doesn’t. He wrote in this thread that he didn’t care if a candidate was a racist so long as he and his family benefited financially. That was the post that started this discussion. 

But beyond that, the problem with voting “in your financial interest” is that it’s almost never clear that you’re doing so. The only clear thing you’re doing, maybe, is voting in your immediate financial interests, and that may be destructive to you long term. (And it’s important to note here that it’s not exclusive to either political party. Many folks in Georgia voted Democrat last Tuesday because they want a $2,000 check.) 

It becomes yet another simplistic form of voting: vote for me because you get this check. Vote for me because you get a tax cut. Vote for me because I’ll build this wall. Our elections have increasingly become “what do I get?” and that’s a long term cancer to the health of our republic, IMO. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

@36Kevon doesn’t. He wrote in this thread that he didn’t care if a candidate was a racist so long as he and his family benefited financially. That was the post that started this discussion. 

But beyond that, the problem with voting “in your financial interest” is that it’s almost never clear that you’re doing so. The only clear thing you’re doing, maybe, is voting in your immediate financial interests, and that may be destructive to you long term. (And it’s important to note here that it’s not exclusive to either political party. Many folks in Georgia voted Democrat last Tuesday because they want a $2,000 check.) 

It becomes yet another simplistic form of voting: vote for me because you get this check. Vote for me because you get a tax cut. Vote for me because I’ll build this wall. Our elections have increasingly become “what do I get?” and that’s a long term cancer to the health of our republic, IMO. 

Are you sure? I don't know any of this for a fact, but it seems that's the assumption people make about those with different convictions. For sure there are some people that way, but I'd guess that most people don't vote that way. There have been a bunch of this type of article over the last few years too. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

No.  This is wrong on a whole bunch of different dimensions.

First of all, nobody is complaining about the (peaceful) "protests" in Seattle or elsewhere, just like nobody's complaining about the Stop the Steal rally itself.  By framing this as a "protest" issue, you're strawmanning it, and I'm sure you probably know that.

Second, yes those are absolutely political issues.  That's why we have policy and laws pertaining to those topics.  "But MY issues aren't political" is just another flavor of "But it's cute when I do it."   

Third, if you're going to handwave political violence in defense of racial justice, then you can stay on the sideline when people commit political violence in defense of democracy.  Elk Man and his ilk would employ the exact same "This isn't a political issue" claim that you're using, and you have no good answer to this because you've already conceded the argument.  Let the rest of us who were born with a desire for internal consistency handle this one.

Fourth, nobody defending the George Floyd riots gets to use the term "brainwashed cult" when referring to others.  I agree with the application of this label to Elk Man, but CHAZ apologists and woke folks in general aren't the ones to be casting that particular stone. 

1. Wasn’t my intention to do that and I could care less which words you use to describe what happened this summer. Riots, mobs, etc are all accurate IMO.

2. Fair, I guess my point is that the DC riots were much more politically driven. BLM riots (or whatever you want to call them) were not driven by propaganda being pushed by politicians like what happened DC. People were out there for equal treatment for everyone, regardless of skin color. People in DC were there to try and stop the electoral college from going through because they were upset with the results/fed misinformation by the people they support.

3. My views on the BLM riots were I agreed with the message, but did not approve of the violence. That being said, I also wasn’t surprised to see them happen given our history and lack of action from our leaders.

4. Explained above but if you really can’t understand how the cause and intent of this riot was much different and more politically driven than the BLM ones, I’m not sure what to tell you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Narrator said:

Not to be that guy, but you should read separate statements separately.

My experience isn't proof of the other statement, it's simply me attempting to add to the discussion. Is that acceptable? 

Sorry, you lost me at "completely wrong." I'm not here to tell you what's acceptable and what's not. Just telling you how the message is received with that lede.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, RnR said:

I know you probably know this, but the Democrat elites couldn't care less about them either. So I'm not sure I see that as a line in the sand for anyone.

Ok?  I’m just saying the ‘people vote their wallet’ trope is largely incorrect and reductionistic. That poor white family would benefit greatly from Medicare for all, from college tuition reform, making unionizing easier etc etc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, RnR said:

Sorry, you lost me at "completely wrong." I'm not here to tell you what's acceptable and what's not. Just telling you how the message is received with that lede.

I'm sorry to have upset you 

Edited by The Narrator
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Shula-holic said:

I don't think most voters who vote for their own financial interest are doing that.  I don't think it should be viewed under those "extreme" circumstances anymore than someone like me should look at the other viewpoint under it's most "extreme" view of they want my family to starve so they can get more "free stuff".  I think we should all be better at understanding the difference between a priority and it being absolute at all costs.  Just because you want the better economic outcome doesn't mean you are against society, or even that you think your outcome isn't better for society.  It also doesn't mean that what those who view society as more important want to send my family to the bread lines to accomplish that.

I think we could all agree either extreme case would crumble the case of what we want.  Tim said without a safe society his family isn't safe, I think most people voting in their financial interests agree with that and aren't for making themselves first so much that they cause that.  By the same token if you vote first for society you wouldn't want to tax people so hard it causes enough hardship for revolt.  Neither is a good outcome.

I just think these things can be viewed along linear lines and weighted.  Just because you value one more, doesn't mean you don't value the other at all.

I agree with you. Like I said, I don’t blame low + middle class families for voting in their own financial interests (or at least what they believe is) because they genuinely do need that extra assistance.

Your viewpoint on “they want my family to starve so they can get more free stuff" seems pretty flawed to me. Do you know anyone who actually thinks this way? Pretty sure they want free stuff for everyone, so that everyone has the basic necessities to live. Now on the other hand, 
that’s exactly what Republicans I’ve talked to are okay with happening. They believe they’ve earned all their money and that people who are struggling simply aren’t working hard enough.

Again, I understand not all Republicans fall into this group and I’m sure it’s a relatively small percentage of people. But, as someone grew up in the suburbs and still have family currently there, I think you might be underestimating how many of these people are out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump was a pretty secular President. By his own words (he has never asked God for forgiveness), I don’t know that he would fit the definition of a Christian by many (most?) Christians’ standards. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RnR said:

From a purely political standpoint, I'm not sure he was wrong to do this. Trump made three conservative Supreme Court nominations during his four-year tenure that will shape the legal path forward for the nation for the next generation. And, from a fiscal policy standpoint, I'm not sure he was all that terrible either. And for all the "dangerous rhetoric" he was accused of, he also kept us out of any major international conflict. In fact, he seemed pretty set on ensuring his focus was on pouring resources back into America rather than policing the world.

I didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but I can see how conservatives drew that conclusion and could be politically satisfied with the outcome in spite of moral objection to the man himself.

ETA: I'm wondering if your dad has any change in thought on this after the last week's events?

No doubt Trump has shown he's more aligned with conservatives politically, so from a purely political standpoint he is the correct choice.  However, don't the other aspects of a Trump presidency begin to outweigh his political accomplishments at some point?  The division, the undermining of democratic institutions, the lack of morality.  A vote for Trump is a vote for those aspects too.  To cast that aside as 'well, a president is not a moral leader' feels like a bit of mental gymnastics and a way avoid reconciling your political desires with voting for a person who doesn't represent your moral character.  

As far as your last question, I'm not sure.  At this point, I try to avoid talking politics with my family as much as possible.  I would be curious though.

Edited by Captain Cranks
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, RnR said:

I know you probably know this, but the Democrat elites couldn't care less about them either. So I'm not sure I see that as a line in the sand for anyone.

One benefit of Trump going is we can somewhat get back to hammering the elites for causing most of these issues and furthering the divide.  I have no delusions that Biden hasn’t been part of the problem in the past AND Trump has been uniquely horrible.  I’m able to hold both those thoughts in my head without the need to rank them.

Let’s see what the a Democrat’s can get done these next two years.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Captain Cranks said:

No doubt Trump has shown he's more aligned with conservatives politically, so from a purely political standpoint he is the correct choice.  However, don't the other aspects of a Trump presidency begin to outweigh his political accomplishments at some point?  The division, the undermining of democratic institutions, the lack of morality.  A vote for Trump is a vote for those aspects too.  To cast that aside as 'well, a president is not a moral leader' feels like a bit of mental gymnastics and a way avoid reconciling your political desires by voting for a person who doesn't represent your ethical desires.  

As far as your last question, I'm not sure.  I try to avoid talking politics with my family as much as possible at this point so I pick and choose my battles.  I would be curious though.

I see what you're saying. I even lived that decision... which is why I ended up voting Gary Johnson to keep a clear conscious in 2016.

I don't think you were going to convince many conservatives that voting for Clinton in 2016 was the moral high ground vs. Trump.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AAABatteries said:

One benefit of Trump going is we can somewhat get back to hammering the elites for causing most of these issues and furthering the divide.  I have no delusions that Biden hasn’t been part of the problem in the past AND Trump has been uniquely horrible.  I’m able to hold both those thoughts in my head without the need to rank them.

Let’s see what the a Democrat’s can get done these next two years.

Absolutely. For as repulsive as Trump was in other areas, he hit on what many Americans feel on this matter with his "drain the swamp" mantra. Heck, it had lifelong democrats casting votes in his direction because of it. Ultimately, the people felt like their government no longer represented them. And, in some ways, they weren't wrong. Trump may not have changed that, but he definitely put a spotlight on it.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2021 at 1:40 PM, RnR said:

I'm here to listen. I think we probably share some differing view points politically, but I think we want the same things from a discourse perspective. To me, that's the first step.

I think that, generally speaking, many right-leaning Christians feel as though the left looks down upon their world view. The country has become increasingly secular, and it's nearly impossible to get a large portion of the population to take you seriously on social media if you start from a position of faith. That's incredibly disheartening for some people. And, understandably, different folks handle that differently.

AAA Batteries' original reply is a great example of the choice people face. Instead of seeking to understand why someone would have felt the way they do about voting for Trump and then living through the frightening events yesterday, it was a simple "I don't care what that person has to say because I've already made up my mind on what type of person they are."

If your buddy was in this thread, there's a good chance that rubs him the wrong way. And so maybe he chooses to shelve the discourse, or worse yet, maybe it hardens him to the point that he chooses not the take this stance in future situations. Those are both bad outcomes, imo.

I would like to provide an off ramp for my friends who voted for Trump. I respect why some pro life friends felt they had to vote for him. I am not asking for them to apologize for voting for Trump. But I need them to acknowledge Trump has done something wrong here, they don’t need to support impeachment but at the very least censure. For me it is unacceptable for them to continue to think this election was stolen from Trump.  It is so difficult to deal with the Trump flag wavers who think he has been and “still is the best President ever” even after this week. The ones who thought the “ f*** your feelings” slogan was acceptable. I don’t consider any of  that attitude an opinion, it’s just wrong and I won’t be giving them a pass for it.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RnR said:

Absolutely. For as repulsive as Trump was in other areas, he hit on what many Americans feel on this matter with his "drain the swamp" mantra. Heck, it had lifelong democrats casting votes in his direction because of it. Ultimately, the people felt like their government no longer represented them. And, in some ways, they weren't wrong. Trump may not have changed that, but he definitely put a spotlight on it.

I don’t disagree but it’s important to point out (IMO) that Trump didn’t actually mean it or do it.  It was one of the lies he used to get elected.  He had every intention of being THE swamp monster while convincing people he had their interests in mind.  He didn’t and on a unique level from just about any politician ever. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

I don’t disagree but it’s important to point out (IMO) that Trump didn’t actually mean it or do it.  It was one of the lies he used to get elected.  He had every intention of being THE swamp monster while convincing people he had their interests in mind.  He didn’t and on a unique level from just about any politician ever. 

And people who couldnt see that coming...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2021 at 2:40 PM, RnR said:

AAA Batteries' original reply is a great example of the choice people face. Instead of seeking to understand why someone would have felt the way they do about voting for Trump and then living through the frightening events yesterday, it was a simple "I don't care what that person has to say because I've already made up my mind on what type of person they are."

Few thoughts:

  • I already pointed out I was wrong with my attitude and post (and it was after your post so just reiterating that I think I was wrong)
  • I didn’t explain well that I know why many voted for Trump (like my family) - I have several posts that were explaining and almost defending them - although I almost always said I disagreed and they sold their soul to the devil
  • I don’t think anybody should defend Trump for trying to claim the election was stolen and trying to get votes thrown out and states to change their results.  I’m fine with discussing election integrity after every election cycle - it’s something we all should be in favor of as well as making it easier to vote for everyone.
  • I do think if somebody isn’t onboard with the last point then they are ok with their side trying to cheat
  • I think if somebody is ok with cheating then I do have an opinion on what type of person they are and it’s not favorable
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, timschochet said:

@36Kevon doesn’t. He wrote in this thread that he didn’t care if a candidate was a racist so long as he and his family benefited financially. That was the post that started this discussion. 

But beyond that, the problem with voting “in your financial interest” is that it’s almost never clear that you’re doing so. The only clear thing you’re doing, maybe, is voting in your immediate financial interests, and that may be destructive to you long term. (And it’s important to note here that it’s not exclusive to either political party. Many folks in Georgia voted Democrat last Tuesday because they want a $2,000 check.) 

It becomes yet another simplistic form of voting: vote for me because you get this check. Vote for me because you get a tax cut. Vote for me because I’ll build this wall. Our elections have increasingly become “what do I get?” and that’s a long term cancer to the health of our republic, IMO. 

I think in some cases you can make that judgment.  I do believe small business is important for our economy as a whole and while as a small business owner that tax change was good for me, it was also good for employees.  I know in my specific case that because of the QBI that I gave more work hours to employees that I might otherwise have done without or just done the extra work myself.  So in this case, that tax law was good for my employees even if it was in an indirect way.  By the fact they made more, their families were better off, one could argue that does benefit society.  

The premise of voting for "what do I get" though I agree is problematic.  For instance, I'd be much better off personally if small businesses had no tax or 1% or some other kind of minimal tax.  But I'd personally never advocate for that because obviously there has to be some tax base for government, even smaller government.  Especially in cases where I'd be asking for some kind of extraordinary exemption that others didn't get. 

We have too many carve outs in our tax law today to even get started on railing on that.  The problem is so many people individually benefit from those it's political suicide to touch it.  People in general agree they don't like loopholes, but try mentioning doing away with the home mortgage interest deduction.  You'll either get immediate condemnation or explanations of why it's good.  I'm not taking a position in saying that, it could be a great thing, but all loopholes started out with some rationale and there are always beneficiaries who will line up to tell you why it's a great thing.  It's the ultimate playing out of what we are discussing of "what do I get" and sometimes that may be best for society as well as you individually and sometimes it might not.  So I'm not sure how we really fix that short of scrapping the code and starting over or adopting a flat tax, neither of which are at all likely.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Bucsfan5493 said:

I agree with you. Like I said, I don’t blame low + middle class families for voting in their own financial interests (or at least what they believe is) because they genuinely do need that extra assistance.

Your viewpoint on “they want my family to starve so they can get more free stuff" seems pretty flawed to me. Do you know anyone who actually thinks this way? Pretty sure they want free stuff for everyone, so that everyone has the basic necessities to live. Now on the other hand, 
that’s exactly what Republicans I’ve talked to are okay with happening. They believe they’ve earned all their money and that people who are struggling simply aren’t working hard enough.

Again, I understand not all Republicans fall into this group and I’m sure it’s a relatively small percentage of people. But, as someone grew up in the suburbs and still have family currently there, I think you might be underestimating how many of these people are out there.

I do know people who think this way, if not in absolute terms, in some simplistic viewpoint.   That idea isn't a suburban one, it's actually more rural.  I live in the suburbs now but grew up in a rural area.  

It may not fit within what the perception of rural voters would be like for those who have never experienced it or don't know a large group of people who live there.  I understand net federal taxes and the inflow vs outflow argument.  But when you try to tell the lower middle class voter in rural areas who may have trouble paying their power bill that we need to pay more taxes so that we can have healthcare for everyone including undocumented immigrants, they have a pretty visceral reaction to that.  They do feel like they are already struggling and that you want them to have less to make that happen.  I get that many on the "left" see the argument as more nuanced and that the money to cover that wouldn't be on the backs of those taxpayers, but they don't see it that way.  They see it as we struggle to get by as is and what we do pay in the government should be judicious with and help our citizens.  It's a nationalistic view and you could argue shortsighted because of the whole they are getting more tax dollars in benefits than they are paying in, but that is the predominant view.  

Edited by Shula-holic
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2021 at 7:09 AM, Insein said:

Then I suppose by your logic all the deaths over the summer were on the hands of Democrats and Biden who bailed out the rioters when they looted and pillaged our American cities inciting violence amongst the people. 

The protests were perfectly American and the challenges are all detailed in the constitution. Those that entered the Capitol building illegally are all going to prison for a long time. 

These politicians are using just the latest tragedy to win yet more political points. They have no intention of calming people down. They've been begging for Trump supporters to do just this for 4 years to give them excuse. They finally got it but with less than 2 weeks left. They could just say they're "How dare you's" and wait for the clock to run out but they just have to try to throw those last passes down field in order to really humiliate their opponents and I don't mean just Trump. 

I don’t understand this comparison. Were there Democrats that asked protestors this summer to come and protest telling them “ you will never take back our country with weakness” or that you “ need to show strength”?  This followed a speech from his attorney Giuliani that used the words “trial by combat” . What I recall from  Biden he immediately said “ looting and rioting is not protesting”

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2021 at 12:56 PM, FairWarning said:

Trump didn't help himself by going after Obama's policies.

Or worse yet claiming he wasn’t born here even after a birth certificate was produced

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mr roboto said:

A friend of mine posted on his Facebook page that there’s no way these people are conservatives because “conservatives don’t loot and riot and tear things down. It’s in the name conservative to conserve not to tear down therefore this must’ve been some sort of false flag.“

Some people are just so convinced that their side is right that literally anything will be interpreted through the lens of that presupposed belief.

Unfortunately religion also teaches that there is an underlying truth that must be protected at all times and any data coming in must be re-interpreted if necessary to protect the underlying assumption.  It’s not hard to see how the same mechanism that protects believers from cognitive dissonance also keeps them loyal to a political party. 
 

Locking in an ardently religious base is probably the smartest constituency to target as a political movement. 

He might be right that they're not conservatives. They are Republicans though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, lazyike said:

Or worse yet claiming he wasn’t born here even after a birth certificate was produced

Trump doesn’t know how to pick his battles, wants to fight every petty battle.  Talking about a serious waste of time and energy.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shula-holic said:

I do know people who think this way, if not in absolute terms, in some simplistic viewpoint.   That idea isn't a suburban one, it's actually more rural.  I live in the suburbs now but grew up in a rural area.  

It may not fit within what the perception of rural voters would be like for those who have never experienced it or don't know a large group of people who live there.  I understand net federal taxes and the inflow vs outflow argument.  But when you try to tell the lower middle class voter in rural areas who may have trouble paying their power bill that we need to pay more taxes so that we can have healthcare for everyone including undocumented immigrants, they have a pretty visceral reaction to that.  They do feel like they are already struggling and that you want them to have less to make that happen.  I get that many on the "left" see the argument as more nuanced and that the money to cover that wouldn't be on the backs of those taxpayers, but they don't see it that way.  They see it as we struggle to get by as is and what we do pay in the government should be judicious with and help our citizens.  It's a nationalistic view and you could argue shortsighted because of the whole they are getting more tax dollars in benefits than they are paying in, but that is the predominant view.  

Arithmetic, por favor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mister CIA said:

Arithmetic, por favor.

I'm not sure what you would like that I could provide.  I could give you counties in rural areas but I think it's a given that those areas are heavily red, especially in presidential cycles.  Short of telling you I see these folks post on FB and other social media I'm not sure what else I could say.  I grew up with them, still talk to them.  I can tell you they feel that we don't need more taxes, even if they are net "takers" in the current system.  So even if the plan is to tax a different citizen rather than them to cover these other societal programs or entitlements, they simply aren't for it.  We could argue whether or not that's in their best interest, but that's the way they feel.  I think their voting patterns bear that out.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shula-holic said:

I'm not sure what you would like that I could provide.  I could give you counties in rural areas but I think it's a given that those areas are heavily red, especially in presidential cycles.  Short of telling you I see these folks post on FB and other social media I'm not sure what else I could say.  I grew up with them, still talk to them.  I can tell you they feel that we don't need more taxes, even if they are net "takers" in the current system.  So even if the plan is to tax a different citizen rather than them to cover these other societal programs or entitlements, they simply aren't for it.  We could argue whether or not that's in their best interest, but that's the way they feel.  I think their voting patterns bear that out.

I should have been more specific.  You said, "But when you try to tell the lower middle class voter in rural areas who may have trouble paying their power bill that we need to pay more taxes so that we can have healthcare for everyone including undocumented immigrants, they have a pretty visceral reaction to that."

is there a scenario in which lower-middle class individuals and families are burdened with subsidizing the healthcare of undocumented immigrants? I honestly don't know, but it strikes me as a dubious claim.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mister CIA said:

I should have been more specific.  You said, "But when you try to tell the lower middle class voter in rural areas who may have trouble paying their power bill that we need to pay more taxes so that we can have healthcare for everyone including undocumented immigrants, they have a pretty visceral reaction to that."

is there a scenario in which lower-middle class individuals and families are burdened with subsidizing the healthcare of undocumented immigrants? I honestly don't know, but it strikes me as a dubious claim.

I didn't make that claim, just the opposite.  I made the following bolded statement in my original post:

I get that many on the "left" see the argument as more nuanced and that the money to cover that wouldn't be on the backs of those taxpayers, but they don't see it that way. 

 

The arithmetic you are asking for isn't relevant in their minds.  They only see more spending.  They don't view that bill as coming due on some other taxpayer.  If you're going to tax someone else more, they want some of their tax burden relieved, not to have another social program.  You could even argue why not both, their answer is always going to be then to tax them less.  These aren't affluent suburban voters, many times they are people renting places or who may have one running vehicle for an entire family.

Edited by Shula-holic
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Shula-holic said:

I didn't claim that.  I made the following bolded statement in my original post:

I get that many on the "left" see the argument as more nuanced and that the money to cover that wouldn't be on the backs of those taxpayers, but they don't see it that way. 

 

The arithmetic you are asking for isn't relevant in their minds.  They only see more spending.  They don't view that bill as coming due on some other taxpayer.  If you're going to tax someone else more, they want some of their tax burden relieved, not to have another social program.  You could even argue why not both, their answer is always going to be then to tax them less.  These aren't affluent suburban voters, many times they are people renting places or who may have one running vehicle for an entire family.

10-4.  I misspoke to say that you claimed something, but you do make it sound like engaging these rural people is an exercise in futility.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Shula-holic said:

I didn't make that claim, just the opposite.  I made the following bolded statement in my original post:

I get that many on the "left" see the argument as more nuanced and that the money to cover that wouldn't be on the backs of those taxpayers, but they don't see it that way. 

 

The arithmetic you are asking for isn't relevant in their minds.  They only see more spending.  They don't view that bill as coming due on some other taxpayer.  If you're going to tax someone else more, they want some of their tax burden relieved, not to have another social program.  You could even argue why not both, their answer is always going to be then to tax them less.  These aren't affluent suburban voters, many times they are people renting places or who may have one running vehicle for an entire family.

How about we don't tax them at all (at least federally)?  Let's give them a UBI instead.  Deal?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shula-holic said:

 

The arithmetic you are asking for isn't relevant in their minds.  They only see more spending.  They don't view that bill as coming due on some other taxpayer.  If you're going to tax someone else more, they want some of their tax burden relieved, not to have another social program.  You could even argue why not both, their answer is always going to be then to tax them less.  These aren't affluent suburban voters, many times they are people renting places or who may have one running vehicle for an entire family.

Do you have any sort of theory about why that is?  It seems very counterintuitive to me.  It seems like “you get these benefits and someone else pays” would be an appealing message.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mister CIA said:

10-4.  I misspoke to say that you claimed something, but you do make it sound like engaging these rural people is an exercise in futility.

I guess it depends on what you'd mean by exercise in futility.  They know we are running deficits and many know how tough things are on them.  They don't see adding an entitlement as a solution to the problems they face.  I don't know how to reconcile that but it goes back to where we were earlier talking about the differences in which is more important, your family or overall society and nationalism/globalism.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

How about we don't tax them at all (at least federally)?  Let's give them a UBI instead.  Deal?

I know that's popular here, honestly they won't like that too much either.  You can say it's in their best interests, and for some it might persuade them.  I'm betting not anywhere near the majority.  Therefore I don't see it getting passed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Do you have any sort of theory about why that is?  It seems very counterintuitive to me.  It seems like “you get these benefits and someone else pays” would be an appealing message.

A lot of factors.  A lot of it is pride and the mentality is wanting to work.  I don't think tons of people anywhere want to live off the government.  But in those areas especially, there's very strong feelings about it.  Take the drug issues we all know exist in rural America, the average first response on government programs is likely the guy on meth who doesn't work.  They don't view "that guy" as deserving governmental support.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shula-holic said:

I know that's popular here, honestly they won't like that too much either.  You can say it's in their best interests, and for some it might persuade them.  I'm betting not anywhere near the majority.  Therefore I don't see it getting passed.

Disagree.  Honestly, I suspect the primary reason the majority would oppose it is because Fox News tells them to oppose it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

Disagree.  Honestly, I suspect the primary reason the majority would oppose it is because Fox News tells them to oppose it.

Fair enough.  But one last thing, have you ever been to rural Alabama or Mississippi (I suspect sub in most midwestern states)?  If you haven't, tell me in percentage how many homes in some of these counties you think even get Fox News, much less watch it.  My dad died recently, got buried at an old country church.  I could have taken some pics and video on the way out there.  These are places that are lucky to keep power, they aren't exactly hanging on for Hannity at 9 PM.  These views were held long before there was a Fox News.

ETA: The pandemic is a good example.  At his funeral, there was a school bus parked at the church he was buried at.  I asked why.  It's because the county could set up wi-fi in that bus so the kids parents could have a place to drive up next to in order to get schoolwork done.  Hardly anyone there has internet.  It's really a different world than we live in.

Edited by Shula-holic
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shula-holic said:

A lot of factors.  A lot of it is pride and the mentality is wanting to work.  I don't think tons of people anywhere want to live off the government.  But in those areas especially, there's very strong feelings about it.  Take the drug issues we all know exist in rural America, the average first response on government programs is likely the guy on meth who doesn't work.  They don't view "that guy" as deserving governmental support.

I strongly disagree with you. I know tons of people from rural areas in red states and I’m not sure where you’re getting this. UBI would be absolutely huge for rural areas where cost of living is low. If it goes to everyone it takes the word deserve out of it. It not some extra benefit that only goes to the worthy - why would anyone care?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Moe. said:

I strongly disagree with you. I know tons of people from rural areas in red states and I’m not sure where you’re getting this. UBI would be absolutely huge for rural areas where cost of living is low. If it goes to everyone it takes the word deserve out of it. It not some extra benefit that only goes to the worthy - why would anyone care?

I don't think it polls well there from what I recall.  Maybe you've seen something different.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Shula-holic said:

Fair enough.  But one last thing, have you ever been to rural Alabama or Mississippi (I suspect sub in most midwestern states)?  If you haven't, tell me in percentage how many homes in some of these counties you think even get Fox News, much less watch it.  My dad died recently, got buried at an old country church.  I could have taken some pics and video on the way out there.  These are places that are lucky to keep power, they aren't exactly hanging on for Hannity at 9 PM.  These views were held long before there was a Fox News.

Who influences these rural voters?  And who influences the influencers?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seemed like you were presenting a more anecdotal “I know these people” kind of take. I have no idea how it polls anywhere to be honest, but I think that has more to do with how it’s framed and how “new” the idea is than anything else. People who want to work can still work, and they will have more than those who don’t. I don’t think it’s something that people from rural areas will oppose just because. And even if they do at first I betcha they change their mind once it starts. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mister CIA said:

Who influences these rural voters?  And who influences the influencers?

Don't know that I can answer that fully.  Some is fiscal beliefs but some of it is based in religious beliefs as well.  I think the church is the most powerful place of influence in these communities.

Edited by Shula-holic
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Moe. said:

It seemed like you were presenting a more anecdotal “I know these people” kind of take. I have no idea how it polls anywhere to be honest, but I think that has more to do with how it’s framed and how “new” the idea is than anything else. People who want to work can still work, and they will have more than those who don’t. I don’t think it’s something that people from rural areas will oppose just because. And even if they do at first I betcha they change their mind once it starts. 

Apologies if I come off in that regard, it is where I grew up but I get that anecdotally it doesn't mean it's an absolute.  I just know that most of my friends who are still there, I'm actually to the left of them.  We will just have to disagree, I don't see the buy-in coming from those folks.  Maybe if you force it on them they might later like it.  But I do believe in my personal experience it would have to be forced and politically they will be hard against it so there's a long way to go politically to get there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shula-holic said:

Don't know that I can answer that fully.  Some is fiscal beliefs but some of it is based in religious beliefs as well.  I think the church is the most powerful place of influence in these communities.

I won't disagree at all that the church influences rural people more than any other entity, by far.  I too have rural roots (and I currently reside in MS). If I have a valid point here, it is that there are wealthy rural citizens too, and they heavily influence the hardscrabble.  And I ask, who influences the wealthy rural citizens?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...