LOL. Seriously, what an insensitive and horrible way to act.
Not only that, he was placed on leave by his liberal university for supposedly reflecting everyone's views there; rather than being made at least a congressman for them. Remember, Ceeboo knows about every leftwing nobody who makes the news for saying something insensitive but had only heard of Rush Limbaugh and had no knowledge of Alex Jones or any reason to engage in the discussion about Jones' relentless attacks on the Sandy Hook shooting victims' families. Do you think he is aware of the new Trump victory "Your body my choice" campaign within the farther right elements of Ceeboo's party by Nick Fuentes who is thoroughly inducted into MAGA, speaking at numerous Republican events and spending time with Trump himself at his home?
It was a big thing after World War 2 for folks to say they had no idea what was going on in their party, and claiming no knowledge of certain events, and having to be shown mass graves before they believed any of it really happened and then they were outraged. Well, over the years, a little bit of investigative reporting here and there began showing that the claim they didn't know about it was a lie all along.
The main problem I had with the Oregon guy was that if you're going to call people stupid for voting for anything, your reasoning needs to be on target for that issue, at the very least. The problem isn't that voters need to get better jobs, but they need to learn the first thing about inflation. I saw about 50 "Trump Low prices; Harris high prices" campaign signs, how do these folks think Trump will lower grocery prices? So far we haven't seen any suggestions on this board for how that would happen. If somebody voted for Trump because they read that sign, well, an argument can be made that they fit the accusation. But, I personally wouldn't go that far, because people make voting choices based on misleading campaign messaging all of time, and both sides do try to take more credit than they deserve for economic issues. So even that wouldn't be specifically "stupid" enough for me to warrant the accusation. However, adding up all the policies with no argument behind them, and then factoring in all the fraud -- the unprecedented attempts to gain or maintain power by cheating -- if the sign ends up being a lie, you've also got yourself the problem of the guy already hard at work to ever avoid accountability for failure.
Ceeboo missed your point as usual. It's too bad because this point, especially, was well made and should generate thought:
...It was a big thing after World War 2 for folks to say they had no idea what was going on in their party, and claiming no knowledge of certain events, and having to be shown mass graves before they believed any of it really happened and then they were outraged...
Too bad some people can't see-or, worse, think it's okay what Trump is promoting.
The main problem I had with the Oregon guy was that if you're going to call people stupid for voting for anything, your reasoning needs to be on target for that issue, at the very least.
Yeah, the main problem I had with the Oregon guy was that he wanted over 76,000,000 Americans to be dead.
No, he said that they should jump off a bridge, if they voted for Trump to fix their grocery bills.
Interestingly, the University of Oregon put him on administrative leave for that video, even though the incident was not connected with his job. Was the University suppressing free speech in doing so, or can it be claimed to have been trying to ensure a safe space for Trump supporters?
The main problem I had with the Oregon guy was that if you're going to call people stupid for voting for anything, your reasoning needs to be on target for that issue, at the very least. The problem isn't that voters need to get better jobs, but they need to learn the first thing about inflation. I saw about 50 "Trump Low prices; Harris high prices" campaign signs, how do these folks think Trump will lower grocery prices? So far we haven't seen any suggestions on this board for how that would happen. If somebody voted for Trump because they read that sign, well, an argument can be made that they fit the accusation. But, I personally wouldn't go that far, because people make voting choices based on misleading campaign messaging all of time, and both sides do try to take more credit than they deserve for economic issues. So even that wouldn't be specifically "stupid" enough for me to warrant the accusation. However, adding up all the policies with no argument behind them, and then factoring in all the fraud -- the unprecedented attempts to gain or maintain power by cheating -- if the sign ends up being a lie, you've also got yourself the problem of the guy already hard at work to ever avoid accountability for failure.
I think we have to face the reality that a very large number of people vote one way or the other based on their satisfaction with their lives at the time they are voting and little else. Sure, you have a small percentage of people who dig into all of the information, know the propaganda, etc., but most people are going to say, "hey, I remember when so and so was president, and I was happier then," or "gee, things have been pretty hectic lately, maybe we should give this other person a try." Low information voters. There are millions of them, and I think their votes were decisive in this election. So, I do have a problem with this overwrought jeremiad by the liberal professor. At the very least he could exercise the requisite reflection to realize that vastly fewer than the 75+ million people who voted for Trump had the least notion what they were doing when they cast their votes. We must all temper our expectations and get real. We may not be capable of maintaining a republic any longer, simply because people would rather watch porn or LARP at sci-fi conventions than study out the likely ramifications of their political choices.
So if people voted for their satisfaction around the election and not necessarily being well informed of the Trump agenda of tariffs, deportation, outlawing abortion, etc. then it would be disingenuous to say the majority of voters voted for the entire Trump agenda.
I can agree that it seems some people just think the economy is not how they like and they just voted wishful thinking for Trump. So if someone on team Trump says we should shut up and respect the majority of voters maybe they don’t have the leg they think they do to stand on.
So if people voted for their satisfaction around the election and not necessarily being well informed of the Trump agenda of tariffs, deportation, outlawing abortion, etc. then it would be disingenuous to say the majority of voters voted for the entire Trump agenda.
I can agree that it seems some people just think the economy is not how they like and they just voted wishful thinking for Trump. So if someone on team Trump says we should shut up and respect the majority of voters maybe they don’t have the leg they think they do to stand on.
If people think they’re worse off in 4 years they will almost certainly vote against the Republican candidate.
The only thing most Americans really know about politics is how to blame and hate incumbents. Except their senator, for some reason those guys tend to stay elected for life.
So if people voted for their satisfaction around the election and not necessarily being well informed of the Trump agenda of tariffs, deportation, outlawing abortion, etc. then it would be disingenuous to say the majority of voters voted for the entire Trump agenda.
I can agree that it seems some people just think the economy is not how they like and they just voted wishful thinking for Trump. So if someone on team Trump says we should shut up and respect the majority of voters maybe they don’t have the leg they think they do to stand on.
The facts never stopped a party from declaring it has a mandate, and, as noted above, voters aren’t paying attention to the facts anyway.
Kish wrote:I think we have to face the reality that a very large number of people vote one way or the other based on their satisfaction with their lives at the time they are voting and little else. Sure, you have a small percentage of people who dig into all of the information, know the propaganda, etc., but most people are going to say, "hey, I remember when so and so was president, and I was happier then," or "gee, things have been pretty hectic lately, maybe we should give this other person a try." Low information voters. There are millions of them, and I think their votes were decisive in this election. So, I do have a problem with this overwrought jeremiad by the liberal professor. At the very least he could exercise the requisite reflection to realize that vastly fewer than the 75+ million people who voted for Trump had the least notion what they were doing when they cast their votes. We must all temper our expectations and get real. We may not be capable of maintaining a republic any longer, simply because people would rather watch porn or LARP at sci-fi conventions than study out the likely ramifications of their political choices.
Part of this is the point I was making on my thread a few days ago, Lichtman's model of "rational" voting isn't "rationality" in the enlightenment sense, but rational as you say, if things are good then why mess with a good thing? If things are bad, then roll the dice.
The other part, culpability; it's true that those who made the difference aren't MAGA and don't deserve the scorn for the reason you say. But boy, the repercussions could get interesting for our collectively childish way of sticking it to the system.
Social distancing has likely already begun to flatten the curve...Continue to research good antivirals and vaccine candidates. Make everyone wear masks. -- J.D. Vance
Part of this is the point I was making on my thread a few days ago, Lichtman's model of "rational" voting isn't "rationality" in the enlightenment sense, but rational as you say, if things are good then why mess with a good thing? If things are bad, then roll the dice.
Yep! It is something I unfortunately have had a hard time facing. I want to believe people will make prudent judgments, but it is clear that the practical rationality is very shortsighted. Sometimes it may work, but increasingly I think the world is too complex for most voters. I don’t think it is stupidity. It is that too much is stacked against them acquiring and using the tools to think through the complex problems.
The other part, culpability; it's true that those who made the difference aren't MAGA and don't deserve the scorn for the reason you say. But boy, the repercussions could get interesting for our collectively childish way of sticking it to the system.
Bingerism. It could lead to a massive amount of suffering. But we were bound to land there one way or another.
The facts never stopped a party from declaring it has a mandate, and, as noted above, voters aren’t paying attention to the facts anyway.
I know. I don’t think I have been guilty of it, but I was more calling it out since it is reappearing with claims like “76 million voted for this specific awful position on this issue.” I know calling it out will not sway anyone, but also wanted to state it anyway.
I know. I don’t think I have been guilty of it, but I was more calling it out since it is reappearing with claims like “76 million voted for this specific awful position on this issue.” I know calling it out will not sway anyone, but also wanted to state it anyway.
That’s cool. I’m primarily just feeling pessimistic.
