fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2475 ]

[ SECRET POST #2475 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2475 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02. [repeat]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Supernatural, Watchmen]

__________________________________________________

04.

[a case of exploding mangoes (2008 novel)]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Brothers in Arms]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Agents of SHIELD ]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Transformers: IDW Generation One]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Sarah Michelle Gellar]

__________________________________________________

09.

[Young Guns 2]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 057 secrets from Secret Submission Post #354.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

"If you're paying to send three of your kids off to expensive colleges, you're not going to vote for someone who will raise your taxes, even if you might agree with that person on social issues. Because when it comes right down to it, people care more about themselves and their families than random strangers."

What? Yes you will. A Democrat wouldn't view higher taxes as necessarily a bad thing, as long as their funding society. And I'd be more than willing to bet that most people probably do vote based on social issues, those are "easy" hot button topics.

Er, I'm talking about Republicans in my comment, not Democrats. And no, despite whatever you may be willing to bet, most voters do prioritize the economy. According to polls conducted during the 2012 election, over 80% believe that the biggest issues are the economy and jobs (http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/24/for-voters-its-still-the-economy/). Young people will most likely vote based on social issues, but when you start supporting a family, people's priorities generally tend to shift.

To the selfish?

That's not okay anon.

it's selfish now to care about your family more than random strangers? lmfao. You must have a very, very loose definition of the word selfish. I mean, humanity as a whole obviously needs to feel more empathy and compassion, that much is obvious. But when it comes down to voting for a candidate who will impact your family's future for the next four years, obviously you are going to go for the guy who can help you the most. It's just basic human nature to care about things that concern you the most, and it's idiotic to pretend otherwise.

Yes.

Caring about yourself to the expense of everyone else, and the effects that has when voting for governments is the very definition of collective action problems.

If every family wasn't voting against for example taxes so they could afford to pay for private schools, it wouldn't be an issue in the first place.

And I'm sorry that you're so base that you put what matters to you above everyone else. I suggest working on your moral failings.

"Caring about yourself to the expense of everyone else"

That's the thing though, it's NOT just about "yourself." It's about your FAMILY. I don't see why that's so hard for you to comprehend.

"If every family wasn't voting against for example taxes so they could afford to pay for private schools, it wouldn't be an issue in the first place."

lol! Lets just forget about sending our kids to good colleges. No biggie. It's not like where they go could help them get jobs or anything.

"And I'm sorry that you're so base that you put what matters to you above everyone else. I suggest working on your moral failings."

Oh honey, if you ever decide to get off your high horse try looking in a fucking mirror.

But you only value your family above others because of complicated dynamics which essentially boil down to them being an extension of yourself, or at best your tribe. Selfish still aptly describes your behaviour.

The schools point is an excellent example. Most of the best educated kids go to countries with very high tax rates, and per capita plenty of countries with significantly cheaper or free universities have better representation in the top hundred universities worldwide.

Don't get me started on cutting taxes to get more jobs, and how your behaviour contributes to your family landing in a shit show because of capitalist interests.

"But you only value your family above others because of complicated dynamics which essentially boil down to them being an extension of yourself, or at best your tribe."

I stopped reading right there, because quite frankly, I can't deal with any more of this bullshit. Do you even have kids? Because you clearly have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. If you think everyone should care about John Doe as much as they care about their own son or daughter, then hey, that's your opinion. But your kidding yourself if you think that most people do, or should. In Rainbow Land it would be great to care about all people equally, but that's just simply not the reality of the world we live in, whether you like it or not.

And just to be clear, because I have a feeling you may be projecting, I am not a member of the Republican party, nor am I sympathetic to many of their causes. But I do have many friends and family members who vote Republican, and I find this trend of demonizing the other side to be unproductive and a bit unsettling. I understand why it's appealing to imagine everyone who votes Republican to be fat white men swimming in tubs of money who wipe their asses with pictures of minorities, but that's not reality (well, most of the time, anyway). There are many reasons someone could vote for a candidate; someone who feels more strongly about gay rights than they do abortion might vote Democrat, for example, even if they label themselves pro-life.

I have no idea how old you are. I have no idea if you have a family you need to support. But I sincerely hope you're young, either a teenager or early twenties, because your complete inability to understand or accept political nuance is frightening. You might be patting yourself on the back right now due to some misguided sense of self-superiority, but if you take away nothing else from this comment, I want you to understand this: When you get out into the world you will realize that things are rarely black-and-white; it's mostly a grey world out there. People, regardless of political affiliation, religious belief, or personality are, at their core, human beings. Don't ever assume you know everything about a person, or their motivations, because they are just as complex and layered as you are. Keep your ideals, but don't be afraid to listen to other perspectives as well. Yo don't have to agree, but hearing what others have to say and evaluating our own preconceived notions is what helps us grow as people.

And with that, I'll step off the soapbox. Reply, don't reply, I don't care either way. Like I said, I'm done with this bullshit for tonight. Peace out.

That's an awful lot of words to say not much at all about 'fuck you until I've got mine'.

And I'm sorry you are once again hiding behind such a trite claim (this, like uncountable other situations, in not one of nuance and neither is your original point), I hope you at some point find it in yourself not to be a coward.

Re: Republican /=/ Racist Homophobic Tea Partier

(Anonymous) - 2013-10-13 16:59 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Republican /=/ Racist Homophobic Tea Partier

(Anonymous) - 2013-10-13 20:18 (UTC) - Expand

*applauds*

Moral failings? That's ridiculous especially in an argument about American politics. But, if the separation of church and state isn't important to you, I'll throw you one from the Bible: Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

Get off the other nonny's back about his/her "moral failings" and focus on your own.

Er, no. Not always. My husband and I make upwards of a combined 81K a year NET - not rich, but comfortable with a side of saving just a little each month. We have two kids - one is eight very short years away from graduating high school.

And both of us vote more based on social issues than economical ones.

Imagine if people voted against Civil Rights issues because they were more concerned with their pocketbooks than whether a human being had a right to eat at a lunch counter or sit at the front of a bus. That's what I keep in my head when I vote.

Well, the difference between then and now is that the economy wasn't suffering back then like it is today. After WWII we were pretty well off. Today, not so much. If, God forbid, we lost the war and the nation was basically in poverty, it would have taken a hell of a long time for civil rights to get to where they are today. I'm not saying it's right, but that's basic human nature.

I'm glad you and your husband prioritize social issues. And that's a genuine "I'm glad," not a patronizing or sarcastic "I'm glad." But, and I know I'm going to come across as a presumptuous bitch here, I strongly suspect your views will change in seven years, provided the economy doesn't change drastically. I know those eight years go by quick, but once it becomes a reality and you're actually looking at colleges and their tuition costs, well, that's a totally different ballgame. Imagine if your child gets accepted into an Ivy! And I have no idea how old your other child is, but if he or she is going to college the same time or right after, it's going to be taxing (pun partially intended), to say the least.

I doubt it. I live in California, and until very recently, we had our own budget crisis that affected me very personally. I still voted socially rather than economically.

I don't want to sound condescending myself because I don't mean to be, but the thing about money is that no matter how much you have, it's never enough to meet your needs. When my husband and I started out, we made so little, it was ridiculous, but we got by. Over the years, the more hours and days and months and years we put in, the more we began to make, the more our needs increased. We'll always need more, we'll always want more. My kids, when they get to college age...well, we'll do what we have to do just like we've always done.

On the other hand, a woman's right to choose, a gay person's right to equality under the law, these are not fluid things. Not negotiable based on how comfortable I am in my life. They are fixed and they are more important than how much I get taxed or what level of college my kids can go to.

I don't want to be poor, I really don't, and I want my kids to go to a good college, but more than that, if my son were gay or my daughter found herself in need of an abortion one day, I want to be able to say that I did what I could in those areas as well.

I'm sorry to hear that you suffered during the budget crisis. Hopefully things will start to look up for your family soon.

I'm not faulting you for voting socially, or denying that it's possible for people to do so during economically stressful times. I just don't imagine that it's the norm; in another post I showed how 87% of American thought the economy was the biggest issue in the 2012 election. I imagine that will still be the case 3 years from now.

You're absolutely right in saying that money never seems to be enough to meet your needs. But surely you can understand why some would choose to do all they can to prevent losing it? I don't think I could ever vote for someone I know for a fact would cause my family economic hardship. That wouldn't mean that I would necessarily be thrilled with the other candidate, but it all comes down to priorities.

I admire that you have your ideals and stick to them. But whatever I may feel towards social issues, the deciding factor when I consider who is going to be in power for the next 4 years is the person who could help my family the most. Once my family is secure, then I can worry about everything else. Regarding the hypothetical examples you gave regarding social issues: if I found my son or daughter was gay for example then yes, my voting priorities would change. But until then I can't think about what-if's and instead have to vote based on the here-and-now, which usually comes down to the almighty dollar.

So basically, you're free to vote however you want, just as I am. And again, I don't think it's bad that you prioritize social issues, I just don't believe the majority of the population does so, which was the point of my original comment in this thread.

Re: Republican /=/ Racist Homophobic Tea Partier

(Anonymous) - 2013-10-13 04:43 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Republican /=/ Racist Homophobic Tea Partier

(Anonymous) - 2013-10-13 05:05 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Republican /=/ Racist Homophobic Tea Partier

(Anonymous) - 2013-10-13 05:12 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Republican /=/ Racist Homophobic Tea Partier

(Anonymous) - 2013-10-13 05:37 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Republican /=/ Racist Homophobic Tea Partier

michelel72 - 2013-10-13 14:07 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Republican /=/ Racist Homophobic Tea Partier

(Anonymous) - 2013-10-13 16:47 (UTC) - Expand

God, I hate this "you're going to turn into a nice Republican when you get older" condescending crap conservatives try. I'm an adult Democrat, and guess what - a good half if not a few more adults are Democrats. And you know what? I am economically liberal, too. I detest conservative fiscal policies. I vote liberal FOR MY FAMILY - both economically and socially.

Good for you?

I honestly don't give a single fuck about your beliefs or who you vote for, random person. You can be as liberal as you want, and I will just continue to stay here at my computer, not giving a shit. In my response to the other anon, my intention was not to be condescending (hence the whole "I don't mean to be a presumptuous bitch" part), but to let her know that when your 2+ kids actually go off to college and you have to pay for it then people generally start to think more about the economy, and which candidate would benefit them more. I am not trying to change anyone's political views or deny that adult Democrats exist (seriously, wtf are you even on?) , but rather express why some might choose to vote Republican, even though they disagree with their social policies.

I was raised an extremely conservative Republican (in the Deep South), and I now loathe the ideals of most Republicans. I'm very liberal, and I also donate money to candidates on occasion.

I believe most Republicans' policies are bad for society in general, unless you're part of the 1%.

Re: Republican /=/ Racist Homophobic Tea Partier

(Anonymous) - 2013-10-13 16:51 (UTC) - Expand

A Democrat wouldn't view higher taxes as necessarily a bad thing, as long as their funding society

Oh honey

Mainline Democrats are NIMBYs pretending to be socialists. As soon as something affects them they either neuter it or vote republican.

Both parties are rotten, Anon. I know you think voting for D instead of R makes you awesome but it really doesn't.

Edited 2013-10-13 00:34 (UTC)

nayrt

Voting D makes me more awesome than voting for a party that allows people who think women's bodies shut down pregnancy in the event of rape into public office.

True fax.

Voting for the party that only got on board with that when it was popular enough to get them votes doesn't make you awesome, Anon. Voting for the party willing to waffle doesn't make you awesome.

Voting against people trying to ban abortion just makes you rational about being pro-choice. Managing some basic adult decision making is nothing to be proud of.

It's not as if there are any viable third options at this point; with the American political system in its current state, failing to vote for the lesser of two evils usually just works out to the same net result as voting for the greater evil.

Part of the problem is the view that a vote for anybody not in the big two is a wasted vote. So people end up voting for the person they dislike least.

The way I see it, every vote for another party is a message to the big two that we're not happy with either of them. The more people voting, the bigger message it sends. Eventually, one might even be able to slip through.

Is there a possibility of the person you *really* didn't like getting elected? Of course! But that's a possibility even if you vote for the other guy.

This won't happen overnight, of course. Societal changes take time, sometimes generations, but they have to start somewhere.

god, I don't even know what you're going on about half the time

That explains your position, then.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only