[quote]smh23 wrote:
I’m not saying he isn’t relying on then for re-election–he is.
[/quote]
There you go!
I knew you were too intellectually honest to say anything else. Thanks for restoring my faith in your fairness.
Now…if he is relying on them to get reelected doesn’t it make sense that he created more of them ON PURPOSE?
Come on now tip toe toward the truth you are an honest guy.[/quote]
I just don’t think saying it “makes sense” should pass as sufficient evidence. That’s all I’m trying to say here.[/quote]
And all I’m trying to say here is that regardless of the level of education, more people on welfare and other government entitlements will be voting for Obama.
And that has become a major democrat constituency.
Are we in agreement?[/quote]
Yes, we are certainly in agreement there. But that isn’t what I’m challenging.[/quote]
I’m thinking that people on welfare as a whole are not quite as smart as those who actually work for a living. Sure there are examples to the contrary, but over all the typical welfare queen or king is not going to be quite as sharp as the average working voter who supports Mitt Romney.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I’m not saying he isn’t relying on then for re-election–he is.
[/quote]
There you go!
I knew you were too intellectually honest to say anything else. Thanks for restoring my faith in your fairness.
Now…if he is relying on them to get reelected doesn’t it make sense that he created more of them ON PURPOSE?
Come on now tip toe toward the truth you are an honest guy.[/quote]
I just don’t think saying it “makes sense” should pass as sufficient evidence. That’s all I’m trying to say here.[/quote]
And all I’m trying to say here is that regardless of the level of education, more people on welfare and other government entitlements will be voting for Obama.
And that has become a major democrat constituency.
Are we in agreement?[/quote]
Yes, we are certainly in agreement there. But that isn’t what I’m challenging.[/quote]
I’m thinking that people on welfare as a whole are not quite as smart as those who actually work for a living. Sure there are examples to the contrary, but over all the typical welfare queen or king is not going to be quite as sharp as the average working voter who supports Mitt Romney.
Right?
[/quote]
And the average working voter who voted for Romney is not nearly as smart as the astrophysicist who, as an advanced-degree holder, is statistically likely to vote for Obama.
Again, this is nowhere near the argument I’m trying to make.
Videos of people who voted one way or another mean virtually nothing in terms of relation to the greater electorate. As mentioned, there are less than informed people on both sides.
Can we please stop debating which side is more informed, more educated, more intelligent, more ______, etc? Let’s face it, the average voter is NOT informed to the extent that they, quite frankly, should be. Even if a voter is “informed” I SEVERELY doubt they are getting the full/true story (this goes for both sides thank you). There is no end to this argument because it simply ridiculous.
Both parties pander to their bases in different ways. I do not believe however, that Dems are purposely keeping people poor or Reps are purposely keeping people uneducated for instance. I honestly believe (hope) both think what they are doing also helps the country, although I believe if this were truly the case and the ONLY motivating factor, we would see a lot more compromise on both sides.
Finally, of course people are going to vote for a party that supports things that benefit them. It’s a chicken and egg-does the party support these things to get the vote or do the people vote for a party because they support these things. It is the same thing on EVERY ISSUE. Rich? Bet you’d like a tax cut for the wealthy! Poor? Bet you’d like your welfare check! Bet both will vote for the party that supports what benefits them (at least in the majority of cases). People act, above all else, out of self-interest. To act like either group is superior to the other in any way is just laughable. People are people are people, for better or for worse.
[quote]CornSprint wrote:
I honestly believe (hope) both think what they are doing also helps the country, although I believe if this were truly the case and the ONLY motivating factor, we would see a lot more compromise on both sides. [/quote]
You sound like you are in your early 20s at the beginning of that statement and late 20s at the end. lol.
By the time you get to the national level, I would say the vast minority are there to help the people or do best for the country. The majority are there to make mega money and get their name written on some plague somewhere… That and fuck hookers and shit.
You know the way our tax system works, every tax break can be spun by one side or the other to be a “break for the wealthy” considering the wealthy pay the vast majority of taxes.
Videos of people who voted one way or another mean virtually nothing in terms of relation to the greater electorate. As mentioned, there are less than informed people on both sides.
Can we please stop debating which side is more informed, more educated, more intelligent, more ______, etc? Let’s face it, the average voter is NOT informed to the extent that they, quite frankly, should be. Even if a voter is “informed” I SEVERELY doubt they are getting the full/true story (this goes for both sides thank you). There is no end to this argument because it simply ridiculous.
Both parties pander to their bases in different ways. I do not believe however, that Dems are purposely keeping people poor or Reps are purposely keeping people uneducated for instance. I honestly believe (hope) both think what they are doing also helps the country, although I believe if this were truly the case and the ONLY motivating factor, we would see a lot more compromise on both sides.
Finally, of course people are going to vote for a party that supports things that benefit them. It’s a chicken and egg-does the party support these things to get the vote or do the people vote for a party because they support these things. It is the same thing on EVERY ISSUE. Rich? Bet you’d like a tax cut for the wealthy! Poor? Bet you’d like your welfare check! Bet both will vote for the party that supports what benefits them (at least in the majority of cases). People act, above all else, out of self-interest. To act like either group is superior to the other in any way is just laughable. People are people are people, for better or for worse.[/quote]
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I’m not saying he isn’t relying on then for re-election–he is.
[/quote]
There you go!
I knew you were too intellectually honest to say anything else. Thanks for restoring my faith in your fairness.
Now…if he is relying on them to get reelected doesn’t it make sense that he created more of them ON PURPOSE?
Come on now tip toe toward the truth you are an honest guy.[/quote]
I just don’t think saying it “makes sense” should pass as sufficient evidence. That’s all I’m trying to say here.[/quote]
And all I’m trying to say here is that regardless of the level of education, more people on welfare and other government entitlements will be voting for Obama.
And that has become a major democrat constituency.
Are we in agreement?[/quote]
Yes, we are certainly in agreement there. But that isn’t what I’m challenging.[/quote]
I’m thinking that people on welfare as a whole are not quite as smart as those who actually work for a living. Sure there are examples to the contrary, but over all the typical welfare queen or king is not going to be quite as sharp as the average working voter who supports Mitt Romney.
Right?
[/quote]
And the average working voter who voted for Romney is not nearly as smart as the astrophysicist who, as an advanced-degree holder, is statistically likely to vote for Obama.
Again, this is nowhere near the argument I’m trying to make.[/quote]
Well, I’m making a different point. One that maintains without those on some sort of government aid there would never again be a democrat elected President. At least not in the short term. Obam needs these people or he cannot win.
[quote]CornSprint wrote:
Finally, of course people are going to vote for a party that supports things that benefit them.
[/quote]
Exactly, and when you have an entire class of people (growing by the year) that are supported in part or completely by the government they feel they are voting in their best interests for the candidate who wants to feed their entitlement mentality.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Well, I’m making a different point. One that maintains without those on some sort of government aid there would never again be a democrat elected President. At least not in the short term. Obam needs these people or he cannot win.[/quote]
I agree, Zeb. Again, this isn’t the point I’m arguing against here. When you word it like this, it’s pretty straight forward and uncontroversial.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Well, I’m making a different point. One that maintains without those on some sort of government aid there would never again be a democrat elected President. At least not in the short term. Obam needs these people or he cannot win.[/quote]
I agree, Zeb. Again, this isn’t the point I’m arguing against here. When you word it like this, it’s pretty straight forward and uncontroversial.[/quote]
Well…that is me straight forward and uncontroversial. Although I am not as diplomatic as you, but I try not to let that bother me
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I would argue that while those deemed more intelligent vote Dem, they are low-information voters, which makes me question what criteria is used to garner the term “more intelligent.”
[/quote]
Again, only a hyper-partisan, deluded idiot would make that kind of claim.
There is a good amount of data which show a clear trend in level of education attained. It’s a pretty uncontroversial statement to say that postgraduate degree-holders tend to be liberal. I was using that to make an analogy, not for the sake of pointing it out on its own.
And once again, postgraduate degree-holder and intelligent voter are not necessarily synonymous. My doctor knows how to check for strep throat but when he talks politics I cringe.[/quote]
Perhaps you should then criticize our governor who admits that he asks his physician for advice on politics…
“He has no use for an entourage and has been known to ask his physician for advice on legislation.”
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I would argue that while those deemed more intelligent vote Dem, they are low-information voters, which makes me question what criteria is used to garner the term “more intelligent.”
[/quote]
Again, only a hyper-partisan, deluded idiot would make that kind of claim.
There is a good amount of data which show a clear trend in level of education attained. It’s a pretty uncontroversial statement to say that postgraduate degree-holders tend to be liberal. I was using that to make an analogy, not for the sake of pointing it out on its own.
And once again, postgraduate degree-holder and intelligent voter are not necessarily synonymous. My doctor knows how to check for strep throat but when he talks politics I cringe.[/quote]
Perhaps you should then criticize our governor who admits that he asks his physician for advice on politics…
“He has no use for an entourage and has been known to ask his physician for advice on legislation.”
Beans: What can I say…I age quickly lol. Good point about the spin on taxes-often times deductions that many can take are spun in such a way since they scale with income.
ZEB: I agree with what you have said in the most recent post-Obama/Dems cannot win without this constituency. It’s the same way the Republicans would have trouble without the evangelical christian vote (look at Newt Gingrich finding religion in the primary for instance). Both parties have their constituencies that they lean on and could not win without. It was the insinuation that Dems want to keep people this way that I disagree with. While the welfare class may support them, I do not believe that they want to keep them there-frankly, I don’t believe any large group can be evil enough to want that. However, because again, people are people, that class will always exist IMO.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I would argue that while those deemed more intelligent vote Dem, they are low-information voters, which makes me question what criteria is used to garner the term “more intelligent.”
[/quote]
Again, only a hyper-partisan, deluded idiot would make that kind of claim.
There is a good amount of data which show a clear trend in level of education attained. It’s a pretty uncontroversial statement to say that postgraduate degree-holders tend to be liberal. I was using that to make an analogy, not for the sake of pointing it out on its own.
And once again, postgraduate degree-holder and intelligent voter are not necessarily synonymous. My doctor knows how to check for strep throat but when he talks politics I cringe.[/quote]
Perhaps you should then criticize our governor who admits that he asks his physician for advice on politics…
“He has no use for an entourage and has been known to ask his physician for advice on legislation.”
