Why Do Conservative Voters Allow Themselves to be Screwed Over by Their Leaders?

[Twilight Hue]

True but I see it like this.

The Republicans

Centrist->Conservative->Far Right->alt-Right->Neo-Nazis

The Democrats

Centrist->Liberals->Far Left->alt-Left->Communist

Note how the closer you get to the extremities the more authoritarian they become. This is commonly referred to as Horseshoe theory - Wikipedia. But in my case I can't tell a difference between the extreme left/right anymore. So it almost a full circle instead of a horseshoe. The Nazis and the Commies have more in common than they do differences.

Yep the proof is in the pudding. New York State and California The Bluest states in the entire country, are regarded as those with considerably less economic and personal freedom as compared to other states.

 

[Sunstone]

Typical lib thinking trickle-down is instantaneous. Instant gratification is the key focus of liberals. Everything's got to happen within the hour, or the policies no good or dosent work.

Conservatives are little bit more realistic about policy effects and are willing to be a bit more patient.

So that's how you rationalize being screwed over by your leaders, eh? That's interesting.

As for giving trickle down enough time to work, how long does it take? I mean, there have been tax cuts with no trickle down ever since Reagan. So how long are you prepared to wait for it to finally happen even once?

 

[Enoch07]

I see the Democrats as to the right of the UK's Tory Party (Well the normal Tories, not the nut jobs), they are no longer left-wing, more's the shame

Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party will lead the U.K into certain implosion should he ever win.

 

[Enoch07]

Scientific studies are showing that over past few decades, Authoritarians have by and large migrated to the Republican Party where they are now concentrated. Previously, they were more or less evenly divided between the two major parties, but now they are mostly Republican. See Robert Altemeyer's The Authoritarians.

When you take someone all the way to the supreme court over a wedding cake. That is authoritarian!

 

[Derek500]

You do know Hitler didn't approve of his party's name and wished it had made no reference to socialism or democracy, don't you?

Yet, he became the leader of the Party. Just like Trump.

 

[Sunstone]

Yep the proof is in the pudding. New York State and California The Bluest states in the entire country, are regarded as those with considerably less economic and personal freedom as compared to other states.

Oh? Then why does California lead the country in economic growth?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Oh? Then why does California lead the country in economic growth?

That depends upon who the economic growth applies to.

Last I heard, people are leaving in droves from California to go to Texas.

 

[Altfish]

Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party will lead the U.K into certain implosion should he ever win.

Oh, quite possibly, but they can't do any worse than the current incumbents!

 

[Derek500]

Oh, quite possibly, but they can't do any worse than the current incumbents!

Exactly. Theresa May is struggling. They just had a minor cabinet reshuffle recently, but nothing changed.

 

[Altfish]

Exactly. Theresa May is struggling. They just had a minor cabinet reshuffle recently, but nothing changed.

Theresa May is the Tory scapegoat; she is in post until the shambles that is Brexit is sorted. Then she'll be gone in a shot.
No one else wants to be tainted by what they know is going to be a disaster. Johnson, Gove, Davis are similarly tarnished, expect some 'young bright thing' to come through the ranks as their next leader.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Theresa May is the Tory scapegoat; she is in post until the shambles that is Brexit is sorted. Then she'll be gone in a shot.

Remember how, immediately after announcing stepping down, David Cameron walked back into number 10 humming merrily to himself? In light of the current situation, that now makes a lot more sense.

 

[Enoch07]

Oh, quite possibly, but they can't do any worse than the current incumbents!

It could be worse. At the very least you don't have to deal with Merkel.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Typical lib thinking trickle-down is instantaneous. Instant gratification is the key focus of liberals. Everything's got to happen within the hour, or the policies no good or dosent work.

Conservatives are little bit more realistic about policy effects and are willing to be a bit more patient.

" Trickle down" has never been shown to work. it is a totally unproven theory, with no actual examples to show.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Typical lib thinking trickle-down is instantaneous. Instant gratification is the key focus of liberals. Everything's got to happen within the hour, or the policies no good or dosent work.

Conservatives are little bit more realistic about policy effects and are willing to be a bit more patient.

Hold on, haven't Conservatives recently been championing a massive tax cut that will benefit them in the short term but revert to a massive tax hike for low and middle income earner 10 years down the line?

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Hold on, haven't Conservatives recently been championing a massive tax cut that will benefit them in the short term but revert to a massive tax hike for low and middle income earner 10 years down the line?

Not only that but for conservatives, it's all about how the current growth in the stock market, now more
unfettered by common sense regulation, is so awesome.

Always forgetting the bubble bursts again and again. . . Destroying lives, middle class savings, and forcing people from their homes. Cooler heads come in to clean it up again and again . . . And once it all gets better, the whole dumb cycle starts all over again.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Conservative voters were told (and many of them uncritically swallowed) that the recent tax "reform" bill passed into law would result in higher wages via good old "Trickle Down Economics".

Indeed, shortly after passage of the law, a tiny handful of companies gave out small one time bonuses and even minor wage increases to their low paid workers. That proved to be crumbs enough for some conservative voters who rushed to take those tokens as proof that they were not once again being screwed by their leaders.

Well, some people just never learn. Conservative leaders are no friend of the average man or woman. They are friends only of the ultra rich and wealthy.

So, why do conservative voters again and again and again allow themselves to be screwed over by their leaders? Seriously. What's going on with that? You'd think they'd learn after being screwed over once or twice. But that doesn't seem to be the case. So what's happening?

It's not like every conservative voter in the country is dumb. Many are pretty smart. So why are they seemingly content to be fooled over and over? What's going on there?

Conservative voters have not always had this problem. At least not to the extent they do today. Forty or fifty years ago, if my memory serves me, conservative voters were not so easily and routinely fooled by their leaders. But things have changed quite a bit since then. Why is that?

Few large US companies say they'll use tax savings to boost wages, CNBC survey finds

Oh Look, America! Your Wages Didn’t Increase!

Comments, observations, rants, Faux News lies and misinformation, etc please!

Why do all of is let ourselves be screwed over by our leaders? I seceded my property from the union last year as a protest against our choices for president and refused to vote.

 

[Shaul]

You do know Hitler didn't approve of his party's name and wished it had made no reference to socialism or democracy, don't you?

So? You do know Hitler called his political philosophy socialist don’t you? There are entire chapters and the second volume in Mein Kampf explaining how he thought his philosophy was socialist. Hitler’s objection to the party name containing the word was because he didn’t want it confused with other types of socialism such as communists. Not because he didn’t think he and his Nazi party were indeed socialist. Clearly he didn’t have such a strong objection to including socialist in the party name since he could certainly have changed it once he became “Der Fuhrer, but he didn’t.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Conservative voters were told (and many of them uncritically swallowed) that the recent tax "reform" bill passed into law would result in higher wages via good old "Trickle Down Economics".

Indeed, shortly after passage of the law, a tiny handful of companies gave out small one time bonuses and even minor wage increases to their low paid workers. That proved to be crumbs enough for some conservative voters who rushed to take those tokens as proof that they were not once again being screwed by their leaders.

Well, some people just never learn. Conservative leaders are no friend of the average man or woman. They are friends only of the ultra rich and wealthy.

So, why do conservative voters again and again and again allow themselves to be screwed over by their leaders? Seriously. What's going on with that? You'd think they'd learn after being screwed over once or twice. But that doesn't seem to be the case. So what's happening?

It's not like every conservative voter in the country is dumb. Many are pretty smart. So why are they seemingly content to be fooled over and over? What's going on there?

Conservative voters have not always had this problem. At least not to the extent they do today. Forty or fifty years ago, if my memory serves me, conservative voters were not so easily and routinely fooled by their leaders. But things have changed quite a bit since then. Why is that?

Few large US companies say they'll use tax savings to boost wages, CNBC survey finds

Oh Look, America! Your Wages Didn’t Increase!

Comments, observations, rants, Faux News lies and misinformation, etc please!

I've been thinking more and more that there might be a difference in perspective that goes past the obvious political problems.

I think conservative voters are often more principled. They see everything in terms of rules or morality that should be followed no matter what, such as people should keep what they earn.

Liberal voters are often more concerned with outcomes. They see things in terms of what happens, and the outcomes should be better no matter what, such as society should reduce negative outcomes for the poor, disabled, and unhealthy.

It's a mere philosophical difference in how you view everything. . . for a conservative, the poor must be unprincipled or lazy to be in their condition, and for the liberal, there are social conditions that produce current levels of poverty.

I wonder if that's actually the big difference no one is talking about. . . But it feels like every issue, even the evangelical conservative ones, seem to come down to this.

I for one, am a liberal because I want to feed children, stop violence, and raise working class wages to be in line with productivity. I also think the conservative perspective, while fine to have. is actually short-sighted. . . Yes, the conservative voter may be principled, but many now hate liberalism as a foundations, and refuse to see another perspective as anything but an enemy. Where did that come from?

And when faced with leadership that does not emulate their own principles at all, there is nothing to argue for . . . Which is why you get so much "whataboutism" and "moral equivalency" when challenged.

If conservatives want to save their party, they need to hold their leaders to a standard and stick to it. Everyone on the right side of the isle knows in their heart that their leadership is compromised. . . Deal with it. Fix it, guys. Accept that it's a problem and maybe you have a shot at getting the next generation to see things the way you do.

The kids growing up now will not be part of your party. You're dying, and this current political climate is the death knell.

If you want to talk about being short-sighted, think about how to attract the next generation. . . Not about how to get your 401K up next quarter.

 

[Altfish]

It could be worse. At the very least you don't have to deal with Merkel.

We should be dealing with Merkel as an equal partner but because of our antipathy towards the EU, she is much more powerful...until she fails to form a government

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm only beginning to address the TCJA, but so far, it looks like a mixed bag, but an improvement.
Ref....
3 Changes to Itemized Deductions Under Tax Reform Bill - Tax Information Center

1) Reducing home ownership subsidies (interest & property tax deductions) will reduce one risk factor for housing bubbles. (There's another one going on right now.) It's also more equitable for renters, who didn't enjoy the subsidies afforded the typically more wealthy owners.
I'd prefer that it go farther by entirely eliminating these deductions, but I suppose politicians must be practical, lest nothing ever get don.

2) Charitable giving are made more attractive. (Woo hoo! I'll really benefit from this windfall.)

3) Medical expenses are more deductable.

4) The changes regarding home equity loans look bad though.
(I'll skip the complicate reasoning why this is.)

I apologize for not using Hitler, Trump, Obama, conservatives, liberals,
& Monica Lewinsky in my analysis. They just seemed irrelevant.