You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
(: This 2020 US President Candidate wants to give everyone $1,000 / month :)
- Thread starter HeSaidSheSaid
- Start date
Funny you wouldn't mention that when repeatedly asked. Funny you cite the biggest gripe of the people where you supposedly live to be the SALT write-off, seriously? The people I know are too worried about helping with the opioid crisis for something as irrelevant as SALT to even register! If indeed you live in Appalachia maybe you're the one who needs to start listening!I live in Appalachia.
Funny you wouldn't mention that when repeatedly asked. Funny you cite the biggest gripe of the people where you supposedly live to be the SALT write-off, seriously? The people I know are too worried about helping with the opioid crisis for something as irrelevant as SALT to even register! If indeed you live in Appalachia maybe you're the one who needs to start listening!
Again, incapable of actually listening ...
... and completely neglect to mention that it's because you're funding a nuclear waste disposal site called Yucca Mountain, a project that the residents of that state are ferociously opposed to. Their vote AGAINST things like this IS the proof they don't want your "help".
You have such cognitive dissonance it isn't even funny. You would sit here and claim to be speaking about issues that the very people who are voting against you are voting against, and not even realize that's what you're doing. The literal truth is that if the people you claim to be speaking for agreed with you, they'd be voting with you. What you are doing is tantamount to "I can speak for black people because I used to date a black girl ..."
More like "I can provide ideas for that may help black people because I was raised in a black family", but keep up with that arrogance that only someone currently living in a rural area could possibly have any good ideas about how to help those in rural areas. Again, how's that insular attitude been working out over the past several decades?Again, incapable of actually listening ...
You have such cognitive dissonance it isn't even funny. You would sit here and claim to be speaking about issues that the very people who are voting against you are voting against, and not even realize that's what you're doing. The literal truth is that if the people you claim to be speaking for agreed with you, they'd be voting with you. What you are doing is tantamount to "I can speak for black people because I used to date a black girl ..."
More like "I can provide ideas for that may help black people because I was raised in a black family", but keep up with that arrogance that only someone currently living in a rural area could possibly have any good ideas about how to help those in rural areas. Again, how's that insular attitude been working out over the past several decades?
Thanks for continuing to reaffirm my previous point above about how leftists try to delegitimize conservatives as 1) stupid, uneducated (or they just haven't heard the good news yet) .. 2) crazy, evil, or immoral, or 3) easily led by crazy, evil, or immoral people.
What you just said is part of 1) stupid, uneducated ... because rural people couldn't have possibly looked at your argument, understood its implications, and then decided they don't like it and voted against it on its merits, it has to be because they either don't understand what you're saying, don't realize how brilliant what you're saying is, or they're rejecting it because .. hey, it's their insular attitude, because obviously they are too inept to know what's best for them.
OR ... maybe they're acting in their own self-interest, heard exactly what you said .. and then decided to vote against you.
Imagine your argument playing out in another way ... those black people, they're just too insular and uninformed to know what's good for them ... because if they knew what was good for them there wouldn't be so many shootings, so much crime, and so much drug use ... the evidence that they need the ideas they keep voting against is right there if they'd just look at the evidence objectively.
You're arguing that rural people don't have agency.
Hardly. If a black person said they refused to listen to any ideas not generated by a black person because only black folks could possibly understand the issues facing black folks I'd be just as critical of them as I am of you. Because that's exactly what you're claiming. I'm against insular purposeful ignorance no matter where it comes from. You? If you had a an idea to help out inner city blacks I'd be happy to hear it, the same can't be said for you (imperfect analogy because I'm not black, I know. Maybe if you had an idea for how to make entrepreneurs better?).Thanks for continuing to reaffirm my previous point above about how leftists try to delegitimize conservatives as 1) stupid, uneducated (or they just haven't heard the good news yet) .. 2) crazy, evil, or immoral, or 3) easily led by crazy, evil, or immoral people.
What you just said is part of 1) stupid, uneducated ... because rural people couldn't have possibly looked at your argument, understood its implications, and then decided they don't like it and voted against it on its merits, it has to be because they either don't understand what you're saying, don't realize how brilliant what you're saying is, or they're rejecting it because .. hey, it's their insular attitude, because obviously they are too inept to know what's best for them.
OR ... maybe they're acting in their own self-interest, heard exactly what you said .. and then decided to vote against you.
Imagine your argument playing out in another way ... those black people, they're just too insular and uninformed to know what's good for them ... because if they knew what was good for them there wouldn't be so many shootings, so much crime, and so much drug use ... the evidence that they need the ideas they keep voting against is right there if they'd just look at the evidence objectively.
You're arguing that rural people don't have agency.
If you do represent Appalachia perhaps you can answer the burning question as to why those who live there continue to vote for policies that leave them at the bottom of all most every health and welfare statistic? Same question for an inner city black activist, if there are any out there, btw. You keep accusing me of not listening to you, but I ask the same question over and over and you refuse to answer it, so hard to listen to your ideas on the matter when you can't seem to articulate them.
Hardly. If a black person said they refused to listen to any ideas not generated by a black person because only black folks could possibly understand the issues facing black folks I'd be just as critical of them as I am of you.
I didn't say I refused to listen to any idea that didn't come from a rural person, you're trying to put words in my mouth. I said the policy of universal basic income is something I disagree with, and I know a lot of people in Appalachia disagree with.
Because that's exactly what you're claiming.
No, that's just what you keep claiming I'm claiming.
If you do represent Appalachia perhaps you can answer the burning question as to why those who live there continue to vote for policies that leave them at the bottom of all most every health and welfare statistic? Same question for an inner city black activist, if there are any out there, btw.
Appalachia has been at the bottom of most every health and welfare statistic since the area was settled, so does that mean that when Appalachians were supporting FDR and the New Deal that it was because they were voting for polices that leave them at the bottom ? Does the fact that West Virginia up until these last few elections voted Democratic mean that they were voting for failed policies ? Does it mean that urban African Americans who vote overwhelmingly for Democrats and remain mired in poverty continue to vote for failed policies ? If so, speak up, I'm sure there are a number of conservatives running for office who would love to use that as a campaign poster.
Earlier you were talking about Mississippi, etc, being at the bottom, yet they only started voting Republican over the past 40 years, and West Virginia even more recently, Republicans didn't start winning in that state until the 1990's, and have only become a power in West Virginia in the past few elections. Even where I am, voting against Democrats is very recent, and I know people personally who were Democrats until very recently, and I would have considered myself more of a Democrat well into my late 20's.
You keep accusing me of not listening to you, but I ask the same question over and over and you refuse to answer it, so hard to listen to your ideas on the matter when you can't seem to articulate them.
Except that my second post on this thread was an answer to your question, and if that didn't answer your question the responses to JSOP in this thread should have cleared up any ambiguity .. so ... yeah.
My issue with handing money out to people who "need it", is that it is actually counter-productive from the standpoint of people learning independence, learning to be self-reliant, learning effective strategies to deal with an uncertain world, etc. The means of taking care of themselves is what is important, and universal basic income isn't helping them to do that. You wouldn't want your own children to be dependent on others, so why do you want other people's children to take handouts ? You want your own children to be self-actualized, independent, assertive, forces of nature ... so why don't you want that for other people's kids ? Universal basic income is trying to treat symptoms, not causes, and would make the cause and later the symptoms even worse.
On a philosophical level I don't like the idea of people as pets.
Last edited: