OK. The General election is over. The campaigning for 2016 hasn't started -- yet. (There was a rumor that Iowans had started a pool as to whether it would be hours or months before the first 2016 campaign office would open in Des Moines.)
Celebrations or Commiserations - Post 'em up!
Really? Your only response to how people could vote Obama is that they are just stupid?
I'll second that position if it helps.
I could see that.
Would you prefer self-centered, lazy, or entitled?
The majority of voters who voted *for* Obama believe in entitlements, that money you earned is not actually yours but belongs to the government/society as a whole, that the "social contract" entitles them to any number of things, etc.
I'm going to be fair and say that there was some percentage of Obama voters who do actually know what they voted for and why...we have a few on this board, like Liam and Shildes. They genuinely believe that what Obama and the Democrats stand for is right, and they *should* vote their consciences, as should we all. But, a HUGE number of Obama voters do not even understand who/what they were voting for. Or, in some cases, a *single* issue that they held as important overrode everything else.
Rush Limbaugh said this yesterday...in a nation of children, Santa Claus won the election! I don't know about you, but *I* didn't get a free phone.
I'll do you one better. Socrates says in one book, talking to people that would nowadays be called pundits or academics--that sort--that democracy works like this: You've got a bunch of kids deciding which of the men before them is the good guy, the doctor & the baker. Democrats supposedly pick cookies over medicine reliably, whatever you think about freedom or choices.
If the housing meltdown teaches Americans anything, it should teach them that real estate is merely apparent. But it doesn't, it wouldn't, & I bet it won't. Some will go on believing that earning is what they think it is. The others, most people, if pushed, would quickly realize they vote Dem because they believe earning has nothing to do with it. That's the end of religion among a people; it's also the most realistic opinion known to democracy.
Deal is, we see many who vote for someone like Romney as just as stupid. They have this fairy tale notion that if the Republicans are in, that is all that is going to finally tip the scales and let this highschool educated ranch hand in bumfuck Oklahoma to finally make millions. They get told over and over that it is actually the governments fault for everything that has gone wrong in their life, and if you just let this guy in to get rid of that evil government that it will be sunshine and unicorns. They are sold this pile that their hard earned money is being stolen from them to help out the horrid moochers that do nothing, when in fact it is these poor people in these rural red areas that take money from the urban/blue areas.
Or I can just point to the lie that is the "free phone" trope
Actually, no. Most of the people in those red states are thoughtful, hard working, proud people who are sick of watching an increasingly large percentage of the money they earn get sucked out of their wallets, to pay for wasteful government follies.
None of them would have a major problem with helping the poor. Nor, would they, with paying disability, or for libraries, or road maintenance. Or for legitimate government functions like the military...that one is named in the Constitution, specifically. Those are things the government *should* do. By design.
The problem they, oh let's call it what it is, WE have is when our taxes go up and up and up, in favor of street re-naming ceremonies and million-dollar incompetent school administrators (Dallas) instead of the stuff it *should* be spent on.
And, we find it offensive when we are told, if we personally manage to somehow make more money or turn a profit, that we are in some way evil and deserve to be further punished.
Enough is enough.
As Reagan once said, the problem is not that the people are taxed too little, but that the government spends too much.
Once we reign in the government's spending, we can talk about what you might consider a more equitable tax rate. But, first things first. Stop the hemorrhaging.
And, P.S. Google Safelink. Free cell phones for the poor. Now available in most states, including Texas!
A) Safelink is the evolution of Lifeline which was enacted under Reagan in 1984. The expansion of that program to include Cellphone was under W Bush. Safelink itself is a branch of Tracphone, but any carrier can qualify people under Lifeline.
B) I really don't give a damn about listening to your trope again. The point is, you said that the majority of the people who voted for Obama simply want entitlements. I said then taht the majority of the people who voted for Romney are too stupid to realize that they are voting against what should be their actual best interests. If your case must be true, than mine must be true because it is a perception of how you view someone who would vote for Obama, and I will throw a perception out of those who would vote for Romney.
A) I never mentioned who originally passed it. Only that it existed. Which, in your last line, you seemed to deny...the lie of the free phone.
B) This is one reason why I so enjoy our talks, Shieldes. We each come from opposite sides, are pretty equally matched, and yet remain generally respectful. You and I both understand there is "another side" to any discussion, and we push each other to see it.
Just one of the reasons why I love this forum.
I call it a lie because you and many others out there are using the idea of the "free phone" as one that was made by Obama, is his fault, and continues to be his fault because he was re-elected. It is a non-issue concerning the current President.
If you keep saying free phone over and over, the idea will stick and has stuck in many minds that it is an entirely Obama affair, which has no truth in it what so ever.