Trump MAGAThread V: March Comes In Like A Lion

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Voting for your own interests is a terrible way to safeguard your interests.

Actually, no.

Voting against my own interests would be stupid, and it would do nothing to safeguard my interests. So I can only vote for my own interests in order to safeguard them. That doesn't mean you should believe everything politicians tell you. Judge by what they do, not what they say.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I find it amusing that not sucking the right's dick or apologizing for not sucking the right's dick is far-left.

I don't suck the right's dick, and many people have taken me as a leftist.

I also don't suck the left's dick, and many people think I am on the right.

It's a matter of perspective.

I think that perhaps we're all generalizing too much. Or there is a tendency to do that. When either the left or the right protest, one shouldn't call it anything but protesting.

[Conserative Morality]

Actually, no.

Voting against my own interests would be stupid, and it would do nothing to safeguard my interests. So I can only vote for my own interests in order to safeguard them. That doesn't mean you should believe everything politicians tell you. Judge by what they do, not what they say.

Using a method of collective decision-making that engages in collective action made for the benefit of the collective for personal gain is about as counter-productive as you can get. It's the kind of short-sighted 'tragedy of the commons' style shit that damages the government's ability to respond in a reasonable manner to collective problems without exceeding its mandate.

In other words, in voting for individual interests, you're voting for both inefficient AND overlarge government.

[Conserative Morality]

Let me put it this way: if some politician promised to screw over 49% of the population for a 51% that you and those you care about were a part of, wouldn't it be in your interests to vote for them, assuming you had reason to believe they could/would do so?

As an extreme example, of course, just to discuss the principle of the thing.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I don't suck the right's dick, and many people have taken me as a leftist.

I also don't suck the left's dick, and many people think I am on the right.

It's a matter of perspective.

You've always struck me as an American centrist (I regard centrists as a liberal allies but not liberals, if that makes sense), the kind of rare swing voter that is actually able to be swayed one way or another.

That's true. One way to put it in my case is that I don't really support causes that, to me, are irrational and are not founded in a grounded argument.

I can support keeping the status quo, as long as there is a valid reason to do so. I also can support a progressive cause, as long as there is a valid reason to do so. The left can make ungrounded arguments for progress as much as the right can make ungrounded arguments for keeping the status quo or bring back a practice that we've left behind long ago. Not to say I haven't been swayed by either side before, as I have, but in general I don't fall for pretty rhetoric because, to me, all politicians are corrupt, so I don't trust what they say to me right off the bat unless they can show numbers that we can all agree on as a matter of convention, and not a matter of rhetoric, and how would changing things to X would benefit people and, in the end, benefit me due to the benefit of these people.

[Conserative Morality]

That's true. One way to put it in my case is that I don't really support causes that, to me, are irrational and are not founded in a grounded argument.

I can support keeping the status quo, as long as there is a valid reason to do so. I also can support a progressive cause, as long as there is a valid reason to do so. The left can make ungrounded arguments for progress as much as the right can make ungrounded arguments for keeping the status quo or bring back a practice that we've left behind long ago. Not to say I haven't been swayed by either side before, as I have, but in general I don't fall for pretty rhetoric because, to me, all politicians are corrupt, so I don't trust what they say to me right off the bat unless they can show numbers that we can all agree on as a matter of convention, and not a matter of rhetoric, and how would changing things to X would benefit people and, in the end, benefit me due to the benefit of these people.

Ultimately almost any benefit for people that falls under the powers of modern government *does* benefit you, though. Government services maintaining social order and economic stability are greatly underappreciated.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Let me put it this way: if some politician promised to screw over 49% of the population for a 51% that you and those you care about were a part of, wouldn't it be in your interests to vote for them, assuming you had reason to believe they could/would do so?

As an extreme example, of course, just to discuss the principle of the thing.

No, why the hell would I do that?

If 49% of people are screwed over, that's a pretty fucking huge amount of the population getting fucked over, and it wouldn't benefit the 51% I am a part of. Also, it depends on what you mean by "screwing over". If we're talking about something as trivial as their ideas being dismissed then yes, I'd screw them over that way, because I want my ideas to win. However, if it means screwing them over physically or monetarily, no, I wouldn't support that, because they're people, too, and their benefit benefits me in the long run, even if I am voting for my interests, that doesn't mean that my interests are not tied to others' interests.

If I was running a successful multimillion dollar enterprise, I'd care about my clients, because their comfort benefits me with their money and other people's money through recommendations by word of mouth. Same here.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Ultimately almost any benefit for people that falls under the powers of modern government *does* benefit you, though. Government services maintaining social order and economic stability are greatly underappreciated.

Yes, but the question then becomes "what is ultimately beneficial for people which fall sunder the powers of modern government?".

In that, the left and the right differ, and I am not going to pick sides on that one because both sides can have very good ideas about what would be beneficial for people in the short term or the long term, as long as they show their homework.

[Conserative Morality]

No, why the hell would I do that?

Because it benefits you.

If 49% of people are screwed over, that's a pretty fucking huge amount of the population getting fucked over, and it wouldn't benefit the 51% I am a part of.

We're operating under the assumption that the action taken would benefit the 51% you're a part of.

Also, it depends on what you mean by "screwing over". If we're talking about something as trivial as their ideas being dismissed then yes, I'd screw them over that way, because I want my ideas to win. However, if it means screwing them over physically or monetarily, no, I wouldn't support that, because they're people, too, and their benefit benefits me in the long run, even if I am voting for my interests, that doesn't mean that my interests are not tied to others' interests.

This contradicts my interpretation of your previous claim to vote according to your own interests. How do you vote for your own interests rather than the interests of the community without harming anyone else physically or monetarily within the context of modern government?

If I was running a successful multimillion dollar enterprise, I'd care about my clients, because their comfort benefits me with their money. Same here.

No it doesn't. Their comfort means jack shit. Only their money means anything. If you can run a monopoly, or a cartel, or demand pointless upgrades every two years, their gain/loss of comfort means nothing - only that you can convince them that their comfort gain/loss ratio is dependent on spending money on your company.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

In other words, in voting for individual interests, you're voting for both inefficient AND overlarge government.

That would be true, if my interests were Libertarian and individualistic.

I can assure you, they're not.

[Distruzio]

Hell, I'm not a Trump voter but the way Left has tantrumed and rioted since the election, I've certainly been pushed to regret NOT voting for him.

Remember kids, when the right does it, it's activism, but when the left does it, it's throwing tantrums.

Actually, it's outright rioting.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

In other words, in voting for individual interests, you're voting for both inefficient AND overlarge government.

That would be true, if my interests were Libertarian and individualistic.

I can assure you, they're not.

I don't think that's a fair assumption to make. Many Libertarian and individualistic people do want things that benefit themselves and others. Not just themselves.

[Conserative Morality]

That would be true, if my interests were Libertarian and individualistic.

I can assure you, they're not.

So when you say that you're voting for your own interests, you're actually saying that you vote according to the same criteria that nearly everyone else does ie what you think would be the best overall course of action.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

1. This contradicts my interpretation of your previous claim to vote according to your own interests. How do you vote for your own interests rather than the interests of the community without harming anyone else physically or monetarily within the context of modern government?

2. No it doesn't. Their comfort means jack shit. Only their money means anything. If you can run a monopoly, or a cartel, or demand pointless upgrades every two years, their gain/loss of comfort means nothing - only that you can convince them that their comfort gain/loss ratio is dependent on spending money on your company.

1. You're thinking that "my own interests" must mean my own individual interests. I don't come from a culture where individualism is rampant, so keep that in mind that my own interests differ from what Americans call "my own interests".

2. Having clients necessarily means doing what they want. They pay the bills. I don't pay my own bills.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

That would be true, if my interests were Libertarian and individualistic.

I can assure you, they're not.

So when you say that you're voting for your own interests, you're actually saying that you vote according to the same criteria that nearly everyone else does ie what you think would be the best overall course of action.

Yes, because the best course of action benefits me in the end.

It's not readily obvious to anyone, but in the end even the benefit of others benefits me, so it doesn't bother me thinking of others if this will benefit me in the long run. If there wasn't any ultimate benefit for me, I wouldn't care about other's benefits.

One of the major problems why I don't sway one way or the other is the fact that people nowadays focus on what the other party is going to do against them, not on how their plan is going to benefit people. They're just like "you must support this because otherwise you're against X". Tell me what are the benefits about supporting your idea and I will consider it, but don't tell me that if I don't support it I am somehow a pariah or against the idea.

[Conserative Morality]

1. You're thinking that "my own interests" must mean my own individual interests. I don't come from a culture where individualism is rampant, so keep that in mind that my own interests differ from what Americans call "my own interests".

We're talking within the context of American politics and voting within American elections.

Other than to sound unique, what's the point of bucking standard political terminology and causing miscommunications like this to happen?

2. Having clients necessarily means doing what they want. They pay the bills. I don't pay my own bills.

Having clients necessarily means getting their money. Low customer satisfaction means jack shit if you still maintain high repeat business, especially if the market is already fully tapped.

[Distruzio]

Hell, I'm not a Trump voter but the way Left has tantrumed and rioted since the election, I've certainly been pushed to regret NOT voting for him.

I personally find Trump an idiot, and I am not a leftist. I think I've made that absolutely clear. However, I do agree with you that there's elements of the left-wing that have been irritating over the loss, but I must also note that many Trump voters are regretting their vote because they feel betrayed and I do find that irritating as well.

I mean, if Clinton would have won and shit would have gone down under her, I would not have regretted my choices. I would have fucked up, yes, but that doesn't mean I'd regret my choice. There is nothing to regret about voting as long as you did it for your own interests. Rule #1 of voting: we all vote for politicians who would benefit us. With Trump, I have far more respect for people who back him knowing that they voted their interests and they knew Trump was lying to them to get their vote, rather than someone who is disillusioned because they believed him and now are jumping ship.

Agreed.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

1. You're thinking that "my own interests" must mean my own individual interests. I don't come from a culture where individualism is rampant, so keep that in mind that my own interests differ from what Americans call "my own interests".

We're talking within the context of American politics and voting within American elections.

Other than to sound unique, what's the point of bucking standard political terminology and causing miscommunications like this to happen?

2. Having clients necessarily means doing what they want. They pay the bills. I don't pay my own bills.

Having clients necessarily means getting their money. Low customer satisfaction means jack shit if you still maintain high repeat business, especially if the market is already fully tapped.

Because you seem to believe that my interests are aligned with what Americans think are the interests I should care about.

I most certainly don't have to care about your interests if they don't offer any benefits.

Low customer satisfaction does mean something to someone who wants to maintain high repeat business.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

That would be true, if my interests were Libertarian and individualistic.

I can assure you, they're not.

I don't think that's a fair assumption to make. Many Libertarian and individualistic people do want things that benefit themselves and others. Not just themselves.

The assumption that I must want something for myself is not unfounded. I mean I do want, ultimately, for everyone to benefit because it ultimately benefits me in some way or another.

In that sense, I must think of others before I put myself first.

However, I still care about the benefit I gain from others having benefits. It's not just about myself. I mean, it ultimately is, but it's not like I live in an island or like I'm some kind of Fidel Castro ruling over an island full of people.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I don't think that's a fair assumption to make. Many Libertarian and individualistic people do want things that benefit themselves and others. Not just themselves.

The assumption that I must want something for myself is not unfounded. I mean I do want, ultimately, for everyone to benefit because it ultimately benefits me in some way or another.

In that sense, I must think of others before I put myself first.

However, I still care about the benefit I gain from others having benefits. It's not just about myself. I mean, it ultimately is, but it's not like I live in an island.

Many Libertarians share your sentiment. Being individualistic doesn't mean that you do not care about others or avoid benefiting others. Just FIY, Soli.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The assumption that I must want something for myself is not unfounded. I mean I do want, ultimately, for everyone to benefit because it ultimately benefits me in some way or another.

In that sense, I must think of others before I put myself first.

However, I still care about the benefit I gain from others having benefits. It's not just about myself. I mean, it ultimately is, but it's not like I live in an island.

Many Libertarians share your sentiment. Being individualistic doesn't mean that you do not care about others or avoid benefiting others. Just FIY, Soli.

I guess I used the wrong word, then, because what I meant to convey is that my own interests are not, necessarily, selfish interests.

I do admit I have a strong sense of self-interest, and I do, ultimately, try to find the best course of action that will benefit my interests in the end even if other people immediately benefit from it. That doesn't mean I am not thinking about myself, because I do have to think about myself and what's in it for me. Mostly because not everyone else will, and I don't necessarily expect them to.

[Philjia]

The assumption that I must want something for myself is not unfounded. I mean I do want, ultimately, for everyone to benefit because it ultimately benefits me in some way or another.

In that sense, I must think of others before I put myself first.

However, I still care about the benefit I gain from others having benefits. It's not just about myself. I mean, it ultimately is, but it's not like I live in an island.

Many Libertarians share your sentiment. Being individualistic doesn't mean that you do not care about others or avoid benefiting others. Just FIY, Soli.

Republicans in general are bastards; Libertarians in general are just naive. (And socialists and liberals in general are all hypocrites, just so I'm laying into everyone.)

EDIT: Also note that I have insults for every ideology and religion if needed, but writing them all out would be pathologically mean spirited

[Neo Balka]

Many Libertarians share your sentiment. Being individualistic doesn't mean that you do not care about others or avoid benefiting others. Just FIY, Soli.

Republicans are bastards; Libertarians are just naive. (And socialists and liberals are all hypocrites, just so I'm laying into everyone.)

wew lad. Not like democrats are the shining beacon of what ever standard you hold them too.

[Conserative Morality]

Republicans are bastards; Libertarians are just naive. (And socialists and liberals are all hypocrites, just so I'm laying into everyone.)

wew lad. Not like democrats are the shining beacon of what ever standard you hold them too.

Did you literally not read the whole post or...?

[Philjia]

Republicans are bastards; Libertarians are just naive. (And socialists and liberals are all hypocrites, just so I'm laying into everyone.)

wew lad. Not like democrats are the shining beacon of what ever standard you hold them too.

Where did you get the impression that the Democrats make me anything other than depressed?