Scandinavia and the World

Comments #9775731:


Play date 30 6, 3:07am

@Xaphan

"I was just pointing out that you were setting up a false dichotomy between 'Republican voter' and 'leans Democrat'"

No you weren't. You where ridiculing my English, while being a native English speaker yourself.

The passage of mine you quote had nothing to do with "leans Democrat" like you claim now - in fact I DIDN'T EVEN WRITE what you "quoted" me as writing!

I just realized that now, when I tried to look it up and it wasn't there!
You FABRICATED a quote by me and then tried to ridicule me for writing something I didn't actually write! Wow - you must be REALLY insecure when you go to such lengths to feel superior.

Anyway, it's obvious to anyone reading what I wrote that I in no way talked about voters who "leans Democrat", like you falsely try to claim now.

Instead I mistakenly wrote that "But almost all Republican voters did", talking about overall voters, when I of course should have written "But almost all Republican supporters did" - because obviously ALL Republican voters voted - that's what makes them Republican voters.

I made that little error and you pounced on it, because you're one of those people who's sense of importance comes from their ability to belittle and ridicule others.

I pushed back on that shit and you now try to invent a completely different excuse for writing what you did - by claiming I meant something I clearly didn't.

Then you try to hide behind being Irish and pretend like English isn't native to you.

In your reply you'll now probably continue this nonsense by claiming you're actually one of the handful of native Irish speakers that do exist but A) that's probably not true and B) even if you where, you would still have had a tremendous advantage at learning English, as that's by far the predominantly used language in Ireland.

Which brings us back to the fact that you felt the need to ridicule someone at a clear disadvantage to yourself. Which some people do only because it gives them a sense of superiority. So apparently you're one of those.

"Yes, I am aware of that - and it means that there is a group of Americans who would like to vote but can't. But that group doesn't nearly cover all the people who don't vote - and I was objecting to "So the vast amount of the people that doesn't vote aren't Republicans and if they'll ever vote it will be for the Democrats.". Voter suppression doesn't account for a majority of the 55% of America that didn't vote. Honestly, I doubt it accounts for 5.5%.

Besides, we were talking about people who don't vote but might. Not the people prevented from voting by unjust laws."

You're completely missing the point - and you're probably doing it deliberately.

The point isn't how many people might actually be disenfranchised in any election - the point is that Republican voter suppression laws proves that Republicans themselves realize they have nothing to gain by increasing the general turnout, but are instead working hard to suppress it as much as they can.

You may fantasize about what percentage of voters voter suppression laws actually stops from voting, but that's only a small part of the GOP strategy to suppress the vote.

In Republican controlled areas polling places in minority communities are often fewer and their opening hours reduced compared to in white communities.
At the same time early day voting is often shortened for the entire state (because such rules can't be written to target minority communities specifically), but with fewer polling stations in minority areas the lines on election day (which more people are forced to use when early voting is less of an option) become insane.

It's not uncommon for people in minority communities to spend HOURS in line to be able to cast their vote - while doing so in the white community in another part of the state is quick and easy.

This is by design, and no laws need to be changed to do this - the Republican controlled county election boards are free to do these things, even when they're obviously discriminatory.

The likelihood of them loosing a court battle over it later is small - and either way the discriminatory result stands as it's obviously impossible to prove how many voters simply gave up on voting all together:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/07/those_insanely_long_early_voting_lines_were_a_result_of_republican_voter.html

This is just one example mind you - there are many other tactics being employed to make voting as difficult as possible for millions upon millions of Americans.

Like the fact that elections are always held on workdays in the US.
And there is no right for workers to take time of to vote, and with abysmal worker protection laws most workers don't dare to even ask their employer for any such thing.

More affluent workers or the self employed are obviously more likely to be able to take time of - but they're also more likely to vote Republican.

There is no simple national registration to vote - you have to do it all yourself, again disadvantaging the poor, elderly, less educated and minorities - again all groups that tend to vote Democratic.

There isn't a western democracy that makes voting as hard as the US - which is obviously a big part of the reason why they have such abysmal turnout.
And again - it's all by design by the Republicans, who obviously has no interest of ever changing a gamed system that's benefiting them.

"So, if it is a well known fact amongst political scientists that people who don't vote will vote Democrat, I trust you have some kind of source? Political scientists do at least tend to write down their 'well known facts' somewhere."

Ok then, so I've proven (but you pretended to not get that) that the Republicans by their own actions show they believe that an increase in turnout would hurt them - I.E. that most people who don't vote would vote Democratic if they did.
A fact you also acknowledge yourself as being true at the very bottom of your reply - but still you ask me to prove what you then acknowledge as true?!
And why on earth would the Republicans believe a higher voter turnout would hurt them - if that hadn't been proven in numerous studies?

And why would countless political journalists and election experts claim as general knowledge that a higher turnout favors the Democrats, if it wasn't general knowledge?

Well, the answer is of course that IT IS general knowledge (even so general that you yourself admitted it) - but still you demand that I cite a source for it.

Again with your need to feel superior, nitpicking on complete bullshit you already know the answer too. Sad really, how insecure you must be deep inside to need to behave like this.

Now I'll predict that you will try to pretend you interpreted me as claiming that literally EVERY non-voter would ONLY vote for the Democrats - if they ever voted.
Now an intelligent person would of course understand any such claim is nonsense - and would also understand that no intelligent person would even make such a sweeping claim, because that would obviously be impossible to prove.

But since I've realized you're not actually interested in understanding or discussing anything here, but only to stroke your own ego, I fully expect you to do claim precisely that nonsense.

Suffice it to say that the people who don't vote are overwhelmingly disproportionably poor, minorities, young and/or lower educated - all groups that trend strongly Democratic.

There are obviously many, many studies on this but I'm not going to jump through hops for your pleasure, so I'll let this single one suffice:

http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2017/06/why-are-millions-of-citizens-not-registered-to-vote

"Don't get too cocky, most countries get similar results. Yes, America is particularly bad. But it's by no means an outlier. It is simply not worth most people's time to keep up with politics. As shown by the fact that the correlation between political knowledge and education isn't actually that strong once you account for demographic factors (and it's absolutely dwarfed by the strongest correlation, which is with the degree to which one finds politics interesting). No citations here, since you're the one making the claim (that the USA is worse than other democracies), so you're the one who needs evidence if you want to support it."

You're the one's that cocky here - and probably everywhere else (you're not terribly popular, socially - are you? Might be a clue in there, is you can figure it out...).

Again you want to be a dick - but then in the next sentence you confirm what I just said! And then you walk that back again?!

The answer is yes, the US is particularly bad and yes, it is an outlier.

Give me an example of one other western democracy where a major TV personalities can just walk down the road and find people answering REALLY simple questions stupidly enough to make for "fun" TV?

Late night host Jay Leno famously did that in a segment on his show called "Jaywalking" and he's said in interviews they never needed more then 30 minutes to talk to enough idiots to have material for a segment.

And we're talking "What continent are we on right now?"-easy fucking questions, OK?

But since you brought us here, let's see how the shoe fits your foot:

Now cite to me the sources for your claim that "the correlation between political knowledge and education isn't actually that strong once you account for demographic factors (and it's absolutely dwarfed by the strongest correlation, which is with the degree to which one finds politics interesting)".

I in no way distrust your claim, but since we're obviously only trying to show how superior we are here let's make you jump through hoops for my amusement.

Isn't this fun? :)

"In any case, being better informed about politics doesn't correlate with being on the Left. If anything, it correlates with being more Libertarian (high-information voters are more concerned with both economic and personal freedom according to, f.e., S Althaus, Collective Preferences in Democratic Politics, 2003). "

And there you go again - claiming shit I never said. Like when you fabricated that "quote" of "mine".
First of all the Democrats aren't "left" - they're just the least right-wing party in the US.
Compare them to parties in any other western democracy, and they'd be considered to be a regular right-wing party.
You obviously fancy yourself a libertarian (which isn't surprising, as many assholes online do), but that's generally just an excuse for not having the balls to admit they're right-wing but also like weed.

So you probably believe the Democrats are "left" and this led you to assume I ever claimed they where - but I didn't.

It is however a fact, that between the right-wing Democrats and the far-right Republicans, the majority of US voters - and especially non-voters (who we've already established is poorer, more likely from a minority and less educated then the general electorate) - would obviously benefit more from the Democrats policies.

They at least offer their voters a ban-aid - while all the Republicans offer is to screw some other group (with brown skin) even worse then they screw their low to middle class voters.

"Well... yes. Though I'd point out that Pew only claims that part of the difference is due to demographic factors."

And I'd point out that you're yet again falsifying sources.
Pew doesn't "only claim that part of the difference is due to demographic factors" - they say that "The partisan gaps in knowledge are at least partly a consequence of demographic differences".

Which last time I checked isn't the same thing at all - now is it?
"At least partly" doesn't say "only party" - now does it?

Being serious about their work (unlike you), they express themselves carefully because it's obviously not completely knowable exactly what would explain all of the partisan gap.
But it could also be that what is partly known to be an explanation is the whole reason - something your rewriting of their actual quote prohibits.

Strange how you, being a native English speaker, have such a hard time understanding your own language?

Oh, isn't it fun to be a dick? :)

"This has actually been studied a *lot*. So I'll just give you a couple of citations or we'll be here all day. According to research such as D Chong Degrees of Rationality in Politics and L Huddy, J Jones and R Chard, Compassion vs. Self-interest: Support for Old-Age Programs among the Non-Elderly, 2001, pretty much *no* voter is self-interested. In general, the members of the electorate (both Democrat and Republican) genuinely do seem to vote for what they believe to be in the national interest. To me, this doesn't really seem like a bad thing, tbh."

Ok, we both know you're a smug little git, but let's not pretend you've read the whole sources you list - shall we?
Just post the links to where you found them like a reasonable person instead of trying to hide between the name of a study we both know I probably couldn't get a hold of even if I tried.

Here I predict you'll try to hide between the bullshit "But this is how it's done at University!"-line - but let's face it - that's not where we are now, are we?
Citing a study by author and name was the best thing an academic could do when writing a paper a century ago - that's why that's the standard.
But online, today, that's obviously NOT the best way to cite a source, so stop hiding behind that, thank you!

Regarding your opinion it's obviously stupid to vote in what you "believe to be in the national interest" when you're being screwed by the nation in question - like most Americans are.
It's also doesn't explain why ANYONE vote Republican in that case, as at the rate they're going the US is heading for disaster under their rule.

Either they'll usher in the Trump dictatorship or they'll end up in a revolution and civil war.
Wealth inequality in the US is now at levels higher then in pre-revolutionary France - and the Trump tax cut for the super rich will only make it worse.
While the UN has recently sent it's special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights to look at the country, which he then issues a scathing report on. Here's the introduction:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/15/extreme-poverty-america-un-special-monitor-report

Sound like one of them shit-hole country's - doesn't it?
Not really the richest nations in the history of the world?

Well, that's what happens when a minute minority steals all the wealth from the vast majority.

The next thing that happens after that is that the small minority looses their heads.
That's been proven time and time again throughout history.

"So no, the majority of Republicans voting against their own interests is simply not unexpected behavior in any way. By itself, it indicates neither lack of information, nor lack of rationality. If anything, it indicates a lack of selfishness."

Bullshit! It indicates a lack of knowledge - which they have because they're kept ignorant by a political class that want them like that.
Informed voters are troublesome - they demand things and ask tough questions.
It's much easier to just dumb everything down to "me good - them baaad".

And you should be fucking ashamed of yourself to talk about the majority of Americans having a "lack of selfishness" when they're being exploited by a über-selfish, sick little minority of the greediest assholes on earth!

Ordinary Americans deserve much better then they're getting from the leeches that suck them dry and exploit them and it won't be fucking "selfish" the day they realize that!

If you're actually Irish, you have a better average standard of living and safety net then the average American does - do you think that's fair?
Them being a much richer nation then Ireland - but still they treat a majority of their own citizens as shit, just so a small minority can increase their insane wealth even more?!

"That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence."

More bullshit. What I described there is standard GOP political propaganda. Either you're unfamiliar with it or you support the same lies - but neither is an excuse really.
Not when you pretend to be such an academic.

Even the briefest look at GOP propaganda tells you it's all about fear - and as I said before, their operatives aren't even denying it.

"Honestly, that's probably true of certain Republicans - but I really doubt the assessment of a low-information Democrat would be any better. Based on that Pew article, 54% of them might be voting to reduced the size of the government."

The difference is of course that Democratic voters aren't subjected to deliberate partisan propaganda intended to fill them with lies.
Since, as I said before, the Democrats at least want to offer the average American a band-aid against the ills that afflict him, they can truthfully sell their own policies as benefiting most Americans.

While the Republicans can't - because their policies DON'T benefit most Americans. So they have to lie, lie and lie. Which is why Fox News and right-wing talk radio exists in the first place - to push Republican propaganda.

So if Democratic voters don't understand what the Democratic party stands for, it's not because they've been lied to by the party or their propaganda. Because the Democratic doesn't need to lie to sell it's policies, and they have no one pushing any propaganda for them.

"Again, it doesn't matter *why* the Republicans are better informed, it's simply a fact that they do tend to be, and in general, the better informed someone is, the less likely they are to be voting for a reason that isn't true."

Oh you clearly lost the plot now! Republican voters are clearly NOT "better informed" in a general sense - I certainly never agreed to that and there is certainly no data to prove that either!
What I wrote was that "Yes the average Republican is more knowledgeable on basic survey questions, like "Which party is generally considered more supportive of oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge?" - but that sure as shit doesn't mean they're generally "better informed"!

Because at the same time they don't absorb unbiased information as easily as Democrats or Independents do - which multiple studies have shown, see for instance:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/06/sharing-fake-news-us-rightwing-study-trump-university-of-oxford

and

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/11/why_conservatives_are_more_susceptible_to_believing_in_lies.html

And going back to Pew, a MAJORITY of Republicans now believe colleges and universities are bad for America!:

http://www.people-press.org/2017/07/10/sharp-partisan-divisions-in-views-of-national-institutions/

Which is explained in the Slate article above. It's not that Republicans are more stupid - it's simply that they refuse to accept the scientific knowledge being produced, because it doesn't confirm their own ideological beliefs.
I usually call this that people are "actively stupid", as in no merely stupid person could come up with all the excuses and illogical twist and turns people on the right have to bend themselves into to get their failed ideology to make sense.

But anyway, by drawing the completely erroneous conclusion that Republicans would be generally "better informed", you then draw the further - and equally wrong conclusion - that they are thus less likely to "be voting for a reason that isn't true"

HUGE numbers of Republicans believe some really fucked-up things they've been told by right-wing propaganda, like the Slate article says:
"As recently as 2016, 45 percent of Republicans still believed that the Affordable Care Act included "death panels" A 2015 poll found that 54 percent of GOP primary voters believed then-President Obama to be a Muslim."

And these are obviously not the only false things they believe - but it shows the penetration of right-wing propaganda in the Republican base as NO OTHER media spread these repeatedly disproven lies.
The ONLY place you can ever find anyone giving credence to lies like these are in right-wing propaganda, and as the first article shows Republicans are by far more susceptible to outright lies like these.
So they're clearly NOT generally "better informed".

"Oh, related, my understanding is that the D-R gap is still there when you compare the median scores on quizzes like that one. Which should at least significantly reduce the influence of wealth. Though if that *wasn't* the case, and it really was just a small group dragging everyone else up, that would imply that almost all high-information voters would have to be Republican (since there are so few high-information voters to start with, you need a lot of them to significantly influence the average). Which, since voters aren't selfish, would actually be a solid reason to think the Republicans might be right. In the same way that when pretty much everyone who knows a lot about science says that global warming is a thing, you listen."

I understand you apparently thought you where very smart there - but I'm afraid it made no sense what so ever.
So I'd just like to point out that if believing that global warming "is a thing" is a sign of intelligence or high level of information in voters, then Republicans are obviously stupid as rocks - and they've actually become even more stupid and uninformed since Trump took office:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/231530/global-warming-concern-steady-despite-partisan-shifts.aspx

Which again aligns with what the psychology professor from the Slate article talked about above - their refusal to acknowledge facts that contradict their ideological beliefs, and their greater willingness to put trust in their leader.

"[Citation needed]"

Actually it's not needed at all. Republicans have done nothing but push fear-based propaganda built on lies for the last decades. As I showed you above 45% of Republicans believe "death panels" is a thing, for instance. And as we both know, lies like that isn't spread by anyone else then right-wing propaganda.
Which leads to the obvious conclusion that the Republicans have done the very best they can to scare the bejesus out of all American voters they can reach, to drive them to the polls with fear.
Those that still haven't succumbed to that propaganda are obviously either not reached by it or they simply don't believe it.
It's simply a logical conclusion.

"Especially since a lot of non-voters probably don't bother with boring politics stuff long enough for said propaganda to reach them. Even a steady diet of Brietbart would probably tell you which side are the baby-killers who want to make Our Brave Soldiers fight ISIS with sticks and stones. And yet you'll note that on the survey you linked, a lot of people simply didn't know the answers. Fox News can't influence you if you never watch it and skip all the links on Facebook because politics is boring."

There you go again conflating things that have no connection. Pew doesn't ask people the kind of loaded question you talk about here - because they're serious.
But as studies asking about insane right-wing propaganda nonsense shows - a massive amount of Republicans believe in those.
I doubt Breitbart ever spent a single article talking seriously about a policy issue like oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge - they, and the right-wing propaganda machine in general isn't interested in the "boring" stuff. They sell on sexy lies and fake outrage over nonsense like "The War on Christmas" or how Hillary Clinton runs a child sex-ring from the basement of a pizzeria (that doesn't even have a basement, by the way).
And as I've shown with the links above - Republicans don't absorb unbiased news or information very well. They far more then Democrats or Independents live in their safe little right-wing bubble where they only trust their own safe sources of information. Which are feeding them straight up propaganda.

I'll jump past a lot of bullshit you wrote there...

"If you want to claim that something is commonly accepted knowledge, prove it. Because so far you have provided two sources, and that's being generous and count Wikipedia. It is not commonly accepted knowledge *I've* ever heard."

Well maybe you should start reading some more, when you're unaware of commonly accepted facts? Especially more varied sources, since you seem to subsist on a diet of right-wing propaganda yourself.

"Republicans suppress the vote, generally speaking, in demographics that tend to vote Democrat. There will never be a Republican law that makes it harder for old rich white men to vote. Stopping Democrats from voting is obviously good for them, regardless of starting position."

Well thank you for stating the obvious there, Sherlock.

"You are correct that higher turnout is generally good for the Democrats. But that doesn't mean what you seem to think. Divide America into 'voters', 'maybe-voters' and 'non-voters'. The Republicans have more in the 'voter' group, the Democrats have more 'maybe voters'. But the maybe voters have already been 'awaken'ed - they're just not reliable. This tells us nothing whatsoever about what the non-voters might do. And turnout hasn't been above 60% since 1968, so my guess is that probably 30-40% of the population (the majority of those who didn't vote last time) fall in the 'non-voter' group."

Yes I am - but still you felt the need to jerk of in public by writing that pointless reply, so here we are.

And again then - let's be a dick like you and demand your sources for your claims in the rest of that bit. Because that's apparently how you roll.

So, are we done here now or do you want to jerk of some more?







America wearing England's shirt