I'm in agreement with you. Shoot, it's not just those on assistance either. I vote based on what will best serve my own interests and help me be better off than I am at present. I think it's naïve to say others don't do the same. As a matter of fact, IMO it'd be dumb not to vote for the candidate who's policies will help your personal situation the most.

 

THIS I can agree with. But the "welfare recipients vote protect their check"....no. if a candidate presented a platform that hypothetically promised higher wages or new jobs, most of those receiving aid (IMO) would vote for that candidate. ***I'm talking a REAL plan with something people could relate to, not tax reform, etc., which is so far removed from most of these people's reality.

THIS I can agree with. But the "welfare recipients vote protect their check"....no. if a candidate presented a platform that hypothetically promised higher wages or new jobs, most of those receiving aid (IMO) would vote for that candidate. ***I'm talking a REAL plan with something people could relate to, not tax reform, etc., which is so far removed from most of these people's reality.

100% agree. Where oh where is this unicorn?

100% agree. Where oh where is this unicorn?

 

I don't know. But I was just outside and I am pretty sure hell has indeed frozen over.

What % of voters do you feel voted blindly? I hear that all the time. It seems that when people say that, the assume NO one made an educated vote for him. Which is weird. I actually do not know a single person in my own life that voted for him, that did so blindly. You say "some did not vote blindly". What does that mean? That you feel the majority did?

 

That's like me saying people who voted GWB in the second time did so blindly...because I sure as hell can't figure out how anyone made an educated vote for him. But in reality, I know that we looked at the candidate and came to opposite conclusions.

Unfortunatly I think there are more people that vote blindly than people may admit. Not just in this past election, but in every major election.

 

I think there are a ton of people who simply vote along party lines and has always been that way.

 

Its more of a reality than some may think.

Give me an example (or five)

 

I'm confused an example of urban government program or laws? Are you disputing this ?

 

I'm confused an example of urban government program or laws? Are you disputing this ?

 

The abundance of urban programs you you accuse people like me of being dependent upon.

I don't care what color he is, I don't agree with him politically. Period. I would certainly vote for a person of any other color than myself as long as we agree on the issues important to me.

The abundance of urban programs you you accuse people like me of being dependent upon.

 

Laws recently would consist of what size soda you can buy or what private business you can smoke in or the higher personal income tax . People in urban areas allow government to tell them what to do in their personal lives more often.

Laws recently would consist of what size soda you can buy or what private business you can smoke in or the higher personal income tax . People in urban areas allow government to tell them what to do in their personal lives more often.

 

Neither one of those has anything to do with people being dependent on government programs...

Neither one of those has anything to do with people being dependent on government programs...

 

Examples of big government having more control of those citizens lives. It was a reply to why Urban vs Rurual voters vote certain ways. Living in the Detroit area I see it everyday.

Examples of big government having more control of those citizens lives. It was a reply to why Urban vs Rurual voters vote certain ways. Living in the Detroit area I see it everyday.

 

There are more people in urban areas, so wouldn't there naturally be more government?

There are more people in urban areas, so wouldn't there naturally be more government?

 

Why should government be large ever?

I'm in agreement with you. Shoot, it's not just those on assistance either. I vote based on what will best serve my own interests and help me be better off than I am at present. I think it's naïve to say others don't do the same. As a matter of fact, IMO it'd be dumb not to vote for the candidate who's policies will help your personal situation the most.

 

But there is still a different approach people can take on this....one approach is what is good for the country will be good for me....another is what is good for me will be good for the country. IMO...too many of the latter for us to continue to thrive as a nation.

But there is still a different approach people can take on this....one approach is what is good for the country will be good for me....another is what is good for me will be good for the country. IMO...too many of the latter for us to continue to thrive as a nation.

 

But that's always been said to disparage the other side. "Lefties" said this under Bush, complaining that wealthy Republicans wanted to neuter the domestic budget so their tax rates could go down a little, i.e. that they wanted what was good for themselves instead good for the country. And both Democrats and Republicans have claimed this to be false, that their policy ideas are meant for the good of the country.

 

So, where does that leave us? I just don't think claiming one side has a monopoly on righteousness is fruitful, especially when we know both sides have their self-interests, biases, and gamesmanship.

Why should government be large ever?

 

Because we as a society show on a daily basis we are completely incapable of doing it ourselves, IMO.