Poor whites who vote GOP ARE NOT voting against their own interests

CoTtOnMoUf

DUMBED DOWN TO BLEND IN
BGOL Legend
Very interesting thread.
...and yes, I've heard that "I may
be rich one day" so I vote
republiKKKan line too many times
from stupid CACs. Has to be a cult. :dunno:
 

darth frosty

Dark Lord of the Sith
BGOL Investor
Why aren’t Republican voters more upset about the terrible healthcare system we have in America? Do they get an absurdly expensive medical bill and think, “Yeah, this is fine”?

Originally Answered: Why aren’t republican voters more upset about the terrible healthcare system we have? Do they get an absurdly expensive medical bill and think “yeah, this is fine”?

No, they don't think it's fine. But they would rather go bankrupt on their own medical bills than contribute to a system where people whom they think don't deserve healthcare might benefit.

I've had the same conversation dozens of times with different people over the years.







Why aren’t Republican voters more upset about the terrible healthcare system we have in America? Do they get an absurdly expensive medical bill and think, “Yeah, this is fine”?

My father is a die-hard Republican. A 24/7 Fox News playing, Trump flag waving in the yard Republican. We've butted heads about the concept of univeral healthcare a few times. From what I can tell, there are two part to this answer:
  1. He (and other people in rural red areas who think and vote like him) don't seem to think past the sound bytes given to them by Fox News. Fox News says “single-payer government-run health insurance is socialism” and “socialism destroys countries: just look at Venezuela”. It’s ALWAYS Venezuela they compare to. They cherry-picked one country out of the list of all countries providing universal health care (which includes most of Europe and Asian, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada) and say “look at them! Their country is falling apart! The Democrats want us to be just like them!” and everyone watches and hears this day in and day out and buys into it because they have no other source of information.

    In their minds, they are saving the country from overly idealistic fools who think they can have their cake and eat it too.
  2. A pervasive recurring thought pattern that I have noticed across multiple issues with Republican I have known in my life:

    If it happens to me: I’m a good person struck in a bad situation through no fault of my own. I deserve help.

    If it happens to someone else: Well they shouldn’t have been so lazy. They should have had a better job or tried harder to save money. They should have eaten better and exercised more. Why should I have to pay for their bad habits with my tax money?

    Case in point, my Dad works road construction. He got t-boned by a high driver on the job last year and sustained major injuries including brain injuries that still leave him unable to function normally. He can no longer drive nor run excavation equipment safely. He is still on worker’s comp but just got a call from the county a few weeks back to tell him they were cutting off his benefits including his health insurance.

    His response was what bullshit that was: he worked for them for years, was an extremely hard worker, never late, barely took time off, never hesitated to do anything no matter how dirty or dangerous, and now he’s left without health insurance unless he wants to pay $840 a month! I told him I agree that it’s bullshit, but that this is the exact kind of situation that people find themselves in every day in this country and this is exactly why I and other Democrats are in favor of univeral healthcare: so that people can’t have their lives destroyed through no fault of their own.

    He didn’t have anything to say back to that. He would still rather tow the party line than have empathy for the people who are in the same boat as himself. Because in his mind the other people this happens to are still most likely lazy and entitled.
EDIT: here is a link showing the manner in which Venezuela is usually used to flag the unfeasibility of universal health care by Republicans

Venezuela Showcases "Universal Health Care," according to the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- While "universal health care" sounds wonderful and is often promoted as a goal for the U.S., the recent results in Venezuela,...
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/venezuela-showcases-universal-health-care-according-to-the-journal-of-american-physicians-and-surgeons-300474829.html
 

darth frosty

Dark Lord of the Sith
BGOL Investor
196977144_340930724061712_870309845520301647_n.jpg
 

mangobob79

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Originally Answered: Why aren’t republican voters more upset about the terrible healthcare system we have? Do they get an absurdly expensive medical bill and think “yeah, this is fine”?

No, they don't think it's fine. But they would rather go bankrupt on their own medical bills than contribute to a system where people whom they think don't deserve healthcare might benefit.

I've had the same conversation dozens of times with different people over the years.


Wrong. Those defending this guy see this as him killing N word lovers. He’s a hero to white supremacy just like police and klansman during the civil rights movement who killed whites who supported civil rights. For you to fail to see why boogaloo boys and proud boys support this racist cracka is pretty pathetic.
We get it , you’re a Republikkklan and fail to see why an underaged cac can take an assault rifle to a BLM rally and kill people and possibly get off claiming self defense. Other racists will see this and try the same thing but will start killing us claiming self defense but you’re a clown ass moron pretending to be obtuse
You know you have black folk who do not observe direct racism. So forget about indirect racism perpetrated on black folk.
again & again,..
when i learned that shit as a kid in highschool///
the ultimate test was O's HEALTHCARE !! they were wlliing to forgo their own health to own the libs , becos , to them granting everybody healthcare would mean that their little tax dollars somewhere, somehow, some black folks would get better healthcare for a change and they'd rather lose their own healthcare than to see any blackperson access it
 

easy_b

Look into my eyes you are getting sleepy!!!
BGOL Investor
Racism is making white people broke especially in the south. Black people has been coming up big time in Atlanta and (Metro Atlanta) over the last 20 years…Hell we have a good chance on getting a black governor in this state later year. Right now the white people have to get on board or get out of the way. Also the change in demographics is making this very rough for certain white people because there’s nothing they could do about it.
 
Last edited:

VAiz4hustlaz

Proud ADOS and not afraid to step to da mic!
BGOL Investor
Racism is making white people broke especially in the south. Black people has been coming up big time in Atlanta and (Metro Atlanta) over the last 20 years…Hell we have a good chance on getting a black governor in this state later year. Right now the white people have to get on board or get out of the way. Also the change in demographics is making this very rough for certain white people because there’s nothing they could do about it.

bullshit
 

darth frosty

Dark Lord of the Sith
BGOL Investor


Thread Reader


317 views
Will Stancil


19h • 16 tweets • 3 min read
Bookmark Save as PDF My Authors
Fine, here’s what I think is going on:

White men have long been a minority in US society (currently 29%), but until very recently, they controlled all the ladders of ascent into cultural, political, media, or economic relevance.

That doesn’t mean that women and people of color weren’t visible in politics or culture. But it means the people who rose up the ladder into a position of influence generally had political beliefs that white men found tolerable, if not outright appealing.
You’re a woman or especially a minority, and you want to be a Times columnist, a judge, a congressional leader of note, a TV anchor?

If your ideas conform with the ideas of the white men who run these institutions, you can rise, rise, rise. If they don’t you likely won’t.
Now it’s important to switch perspectives and imagine what this system looked liked to white men themselves: consensus.

They could look out their window and see that almost everyone notable agreed with them on really divisive cultural issues!
Occasionally someone would break into the cozy unanimity with ideas that ran against the consensus, like a Jesse Jackson running for president. But even when this happened, all the major cultural and political power centers would reiterate that this was radical fringe politics.

Today… this system mostly remains in place, actually! Most political, cultural, and economic institutions are still controlled by white men! Many nonwhite, nonmale people who advance in these institutions do so by being agreeable to white male gatekeepers! (No names, sorry.)
But cracks are starting to emerge. There are people appearing in politics and culture who do not appear to have really been let in by white male gatekeepers - in fact, who express ideas that the vast, vast majority of white male gatekeepers find incorrect or even annoying.
What are these ideas? It varies but generally they are, naturally, ideas that challenge the power structure itself, point out the ways in which white people and men hold disproportionate power, and point out the way that power is exercised, often unfairly.
Why are cracks emerging now? Partly it’s a cultural evolution. Partly it’s technological (Twitter plays a big role here). But I think most of it is just demographic. America’s white majority is rapidly becoming a white plurality. Total societal control just isn’t sustainable.

And as this has happened, the world as experienced by white men (who, let’s remember, do still control the vast majority of political, cultural, and economic institutions) has also changed: where they once saw consensus, now there’s conflict.
For many white men, including many who hold vast power and influence, it feels like a bunch of malcontents - espousing ideas everyone previously agreed were radical, no less! - have forced their way past the gatekeepers, and are now making everything complicated and unpleasant.
The response of white men has varied. Some have argued that we need to restore the consensus of earlier years, unaware it was illusory and achieved partly by exclusion. Some have desperately kept trying to gatekeep.

And a whole lot of them have just gotten really, really angry.
And that’s where we are now: a small but growing number of people with perspectives that are not agreeable to white male gatekeepers pushing into the public eye, and white men seeing it as radicals smashing a consensus they were told was shared by everyone worth listening to.

And I think it's not a coincidence that the figures and groups that attract the most obsessive ire, who are blamed for causing all the trouble, are also the figures and groups that seem to have most dramatically circumvented the gatekeepers: AOC. Nikole Hannah-Jones. BLM.
One last thing I'll say: in my experience, white men are skeptical of the idea of white male gatekeeping (which makes sense, because it's not like we all got together and decided to do it).
But women and people of color are often acutely aware that their ability to exist in elite circles depends on not challenging certain ideas, and not rubbing powerful people the wrong way. Where do those ideas come from? What do most of those powerful people have in common?
• • •
 
Last edited:

darth frosty

Dark Lord of the Sith
BGOL Investor
It Wasn’t Abortion That Formed the Religious Right. It Was Support for Segregation.

BY AMANDA MARCOTTE


4a9ac84d-9956-46c2-9859-2f47700e0fbd.jpg

Jerry Falwell got his start fighting for segregation.

The modern religious right formed, practically overnight, as a rapid response to the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade. Or, at least, that’s how the story goes.

The reality, Randall Balmer, a Dartmouth professor writing for Politico Magazine, says, is actually a little less savory to 21st century Americans: The religious right, who liked to call themselves the “moral majority” at the time, actually organized around fighting to protect Christian schools from being desegregated. It wasn’t Roe v. Wade that woke the sleeping dragon of the evangelical vote. It was Green v. Kennedy, a 1970 decision stripping tax-exempt status from “segregation academies”—private Christian schools that were set up in response to Brown v. Board of Education, where the practice of barring black students continued.
ADVERTISEMENT

As Balmer shows, feelings about Roe v. Wade were mixed in the conservative Christian community in the early 1970s, with quite a few evangelical leaders agreeing with the court that abortion is a private matter. Desegregation, however, was a different issue altogether. Anger about forced desegregation of private schools galvanized conservative Christians. Bob Jones University stalled and resisted admitting black students, forcing the IRS to strip its tax exempt status in 1976, an event that spurred evangelical leaders to action. Jerry Falwell and Paul Weyrich, two conservative activists who had been seeking a way to marshal evangelicals into a Republican voting bloc, pounced. Balmer writes:



ADVERTISEMENT

The argument they used to defend school segregation will sound familiar to anyone following the lawsuits against mandatory contraception coverage in health insurance plans or the battles over whether businesses have a right to refuse gay customers: “religious freedom.”

So what changed? How did abortion eclipse pro-segregation as the rallying cause of the evangelical right? Balmer argues that Weyrich, in particular, was a sharp enough political thinker to realize that pro-segregation sentiment was enough to get the ball rolling, “but they needed a different issue if they wanted to mobilize evangelical voters on a large scale.” They took their new coalition of evangelicals and pointed them in the direction of fighting abortion. The strategy worked. In 1978, religious right leaders got their first victories by pushing the anti-abortion agenda, defeating Democrats in statewide elections in Minnesota and Iowa in campaigns that focused heavily on abortion.
ADVERTISEMENT

Why were conservative Christians more interested in hearing about the supposed evils of abortion in the late ’70s than in the early ’70s? Balmer suggests that “the spike in legal abortions” after Roe was the shock to their system that made them realize that women really were going to use this new right they’d been granted. There was also a more concentrated effort to put out anti-abortion propaganda that framed the procedure as “murder” and suggested the next step was legal infanticide.

Balmer doesn’t mention it, but there was one other shift in the public consciousness going on at the time. The “Stop ERA” campaign, headed up by Christian right leader Phyllis Schlafly to kill the Equal Rights Amendment banning sex discrimination, got moving in 1972. By the time male Christian conservative leaders like Weyrich and Falwell decided to make abortion a centerpiece issue, Schlafly had done the yeoman’s work of convincing huge numbers of evangelical Christians that feminists were a threat to the very fabric of society. With hostility to women’s equality rising, making the anti-abortion pitch was probably much, much easier.

Balmer notes at the top of his piece that it’s common for anti-choicers to compare themselves to abolitionists. Once you know the pro-segregationist history of the religious right, however, it becomes clear that this comparison is not only obnoxious, but offensive.
 
Top