Where Do You Want to Live: Red State or Blue State?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Pretty straightforward.

 

 

https://www.prageru.com/video/where-do-you-want-to-live-red-state-or-blue-state/ 

[Dashinka 24,790]

I’ll pick a Red State.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

I’ll pick a Red State.

Having lived in a few of each color, I am with you 110%.  Thankfully, during my recent stint in NY, I was able to avoid their tax system.  Never again will I live there.  

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Any state that actually values their economy and freedoms. The the color of the state on a political map matters not to us. That being said, moving back to California was not an option.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Any state that actually values their economy and freedoms. The the color of the state on a political map matters not to us. That being said, moving back to California was not an option.

If you don't care about your vote counting, I would agree.  But I have a friend in NJ and CA who are each Trump supporters, and both feel their votes don't matter at all.  Sad way to feel, if one actually cares about the outcome.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

3 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

If you don't care about your vote counting, I would agree.  But I have a friend in NJ and CA who are each Trump supporters, and both feel their votes don't matter at all.  Sad way to feel, if one actually cares about the outcome.

I voted, my vote counted. That's all that matters. I don't view voting as a social team sport, it's an act of individuality (my choice based on my criteria), so letting others make that decision for me with the party logic you used makes voting (not to mention individuality) pointless entirely. I can see then why so many opt not to vote, but I'm someone who makes my voice heard not caring what any "side" thinks. 

 

Also, when I left CA the governor was a Republican. One of my best buddies of over 20 years still lives in CA and I've been trying to get him to leave forever, he's even said he wants to (now that he sold his house his only barrier is financial, he's still single), but he's too attached to family and the environment he's in. People talk up change, and even vote for supposed change, but you can see how afraid a great many people are of actual change, even if it's something as simple as not diluting one's vote to others. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

3 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

I voted, my vote counted. That's all that matters. I don't view voting as a social team sport, it's an act of individuality (my choice based on my criteria), so letting others make that decision for me with the party logic you used makes voting (not to mention individuality) pointless entirely. I can see then why so many opt not to vote, but I'm someone who makes my voice heard not caring what any "side" thinks. 

 

Also, when I left CA the governor was a Republican. One of my best buddies of over 20 years still lives in CA and I've been trying to get him to leave forever, he's even said he wants to (now that he sold his house his only barrier is financial, he's still single), but he's too attached to family and the environment he's in. People talk up change, and even vote for supposed change, but you can see how afraid a great many people are of actual change, even if it's something as simple as not diluting one's vote to others. 

Well, I could argue that unless you vote for one of the two logical candidates (Trump/Biden this year), then your vote is wasted, because your (other-party) candidate isn't going to win.  Ditto casting a republican vote in a democrat state like NJ.  Even if you filled out all THREE ballots for Trump (because he's who you believe in), your vote will matter not, as long as the electoral voting system is in place, and your electorate is voting for Biden.  

 

Now, if we moved to a popular vote, your vote would matter... but only if you voted as the blue states do.  

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

35 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Well, I could argue that unless you vote for one of the two logical candidates (Trump/Biden this year), then your vote is wasted, because your (other-party) candidate isn't going to win.  Ditto casting a republican vote in a democrat state like NJ.  Even if you filled out all THREE ballots for Trump (because he's who you believe in), your vote will matter not, as long as the electoral voting system is in place, and your electorate is voting for Biden.  

 

Now, if we moved to a popular vote, your vote would matter... but only if you voted as the blue states do.  

The logic you're describing.. where did it come from? Did an American pioneer concoct the idea that you're wasting your vote if you don't reduce your options and vote for the "winning team"? The "vote wasted" thing you're suggesting is a concoction of the parties themselves. The parties utilized brand marketing to invent a way of thinking that many simply follow on. It's no different than the way DeBeers changed the way people think of diamonds, psychologically tying diamonds to marriage to where people can't conceive of a marriage without them, even though it has no historical basis until they made it up. 

 

The logic you're telling me has people cheerleading for being on the "winning team" while regularly saying most of their winning team sucks with approval ratings near 0. Of course, because they're fricken fans of the people they're supposed to be overseeing. The goal of the parties clearly was to change your role from an elected person's boss to their fan. And you're telling me it's better to be a fan because "winning". Doesn't jive with our understanding of roles.

 

I'll never be on board with that logic, to me it's an abandonment of the point of voting. 

Edited October 10, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

12 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

The logic you're describing.. where did it come from? Did an American pioneer concoct the idea that you're wasting your vote if you don't reduce your options and vote for the "winning team"? The "vote wasted" thing you're suggesting is a concoction of the parties themselves. The parties utilized brand marketing to invent a way of thinking that many simply follow on. It's no different than the way DeBeers changed the way people think of diamonds, psychologically tying diamonds to marriage to where people can't conceive of a marriage without them, even though it has no historical basis until they made it up. 

 

The logic you're telling me has people cheerleading for being on the "winning team" while regularly saying most of their winning team sucks with approval ratings near 0. Of course, because they're fricken fans of the people they're supposed to be overseeing. The goal of the parties clearly was to change your role from an elected person's boss to their fan. And you're telling me it's better to be a fan because "winning". Doesn't jive with our understanding of roles.

 

I'll never be on board with that logic, to me it's an abandonment of the point of voting. 

It's not about voting for the winning team.  It's about voting along party lines.  While I'd guess the majority of us in this forum would LOVE to see an independent or libertarian win, the two-party system we have just isn't going to allow it any time soon.

 

Voting your conscience is certainly a valid, logical thing to do.  To want your candidate of choice in office, man, that would be great!  But to use your diamond example, imagine if we Americans could vote on the #1 "marriage stone". The three choices are 1) Natural diamonds, 2) Lab diamonds, or 3) Garnets.  You love garnets, you really want them to be the new "in thing".  So you vote for them.  But... your stone will never become the "marriage stone", no matter how badly you want it to be.  It will simply never happen, at least not in our lifetime.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

15 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

It's not about voting for the winning team.  It's about voting along party lines.  While I'd guess the majority of us in this forum would LOVE to see an independent or libertarian win, the two-party system we have just isn't going to allow it any time soon.

 

Voting your conscience is certainly a valid, logical thing to do.  To want your candidate of choice in office, man, that would be great!  But to use your diamond example, imagine if we Americans could vote on the #1 "marriage stone". The three choices are 1) Natural diamonds, 2) Lab diamonds, or 3) Garnets.  You love garnets, you really want them to be the new "in thing".  So you vote for them.  But... your stone will never become the "marriage stone", no matter how badly you want it to be.  It will simply never happen, at least not in our lifetime.

There are often a lot more choices than those, especially for President. For the sake of avoiding analysis paralysis, we find shortcuts, but really, as long as they're our own, there isn't any issue. But the people who tell me I'm wasting my vote wind up utilizing the shortcuts others derived. The change in mentality here mirrors ingroup outgroup thinking, which is why personalized brand marketing is so effective (think "Trump Train", "redpill", "GEOTUS", terms you never see me use). Honestly, it comes down to simple experimentation. 

 

For fun, one can experiment.. find those who don't know anything about the parties. Put a ballot in front of them. I guarantee you, 99 out of 100 times, completely inverted from how things are done now, they don't decide to limit themselves to "D" and "R" and utilize the logic that they're wasting their vote if they vote for any other. The criteria applied is learned, and social. These are huge clues about how non-individual it is, especially when factoring who reducing your choices benefits, along with their other methods like trying to kick other parties off ballots, prevent them from participating in debates, getting public funding for elections, etc. People would quickly rebel against a single party, the next best thing is facilitating an "illusion of choice" that they dictate. Seems weird to turn this into a self fulfilling prophecy, doesn't it?

Edited October 10, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

16 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

There are often a lot more choices than those, especially for President. For the sake of avoiding analysis paralysis, we find shortcuts, but really, as long as they're our own, there isn't any issue. But the people who tell me I'm wasting my vote wind up utilizing the shortcuts others derived. The change in mentality here mirrors ingroup outgroup thinking, which is why personalized brand marketing is so effective (think "Trump Train", "redpill", "GEOTUS", terms you never see me use). Honestly, it comes down to simple experimentation. 

 

For fun, one can experiment.. find those who don't know anything about the parties. Put a ballot in front of them. I guarantee you, 99 out of 100 times, completely inverted from how things are done now, they don't decide to limit themselves to "D" and "R" and utilize the logic that they're wasting their vote if they vote for any other. The criteria applied is learned, and social. These are huge clues about how non-individual it is, especially when factoring who reducing your choices benefits, along with their other methods like trying to kick other parties off ballots, prevent them from participating in debates, getting public funding for elections, etc. People would quickly rebel against a single party, the next best thing is facilitating an "illusion of choice" that they dictate. Seems weird to turn this into a self fulfilling prophecy, doesn't it?

I know for me, it comes down to picking the one candidate who is the least bad of them all, but I also consider whether the candidate has a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected.  This year, it comes down to taxes, 401k, guns, and the green new deal (for me).  

 

When was the last time an independent won the presidency?  As much as we might both WANT it to happen, I don't think we are there yet.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

2 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

I know for me, it comes down to picking the one candidate who is the least bad of them all, but I also consider whether the candidate has a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected.  This year, it comes down to taxes, 401k, guns, and the green new deal (for me).  

 

When was the last time an independent won the presidency?  As much as we might both WANT it to happen, I don't think we are there yet.

Offhand, if there ever was an independent, it would've been within the first dozen or so, but I'm gonna guess 0. But tailor that logic to any other individual act you engage in. The logic of wasted vote actually appeals to a single party but psychologically (if you ever watched those Century of the Self videos I suggested shortly after making this account) people wouldn't allow it in the US so there has to be a concept of choice.. under a controlled environment. With the reasoning that not voting for a "winner" is a wasted vote... apply that to the most individual acts you engage in, I use marriage because it's an easy one here to relate to. Also it would even render a vote for Hillary, Romney, McCain, Kerry, Gore, etc. to have been a waste. 

 

Anyhow, I know this thing goes in circles, and I know we'll likely not see eye to eye completely here (even though we understand each other's position), but I enjoy the fact that we can disagree and with good faith debate without the animus or shoddy tactics. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

3 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Anyhow, I know this thing goes in circles, and I know we'll likely not see eye to eye completely here (even though we understand each other's position), but I enjoy the fact that we can disagree and with good faith debate without the animus or shoddy tactics. 

Totally.  Just words and viewpoints.  And if we DO get to a point in our lifetimes where a non-dem/pub stands a chance at election, I will probably be right there beside you voting them in.  Fingers crossed!

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 minute ago, Voice of Reason said:

Totally.  Just words and viewpoints.  And if we DO get to a point in our lifetimes where a non-dem/pub stands a chance at election, I will probably be right there beside you voting them in.  Fingers crossed!

Here here, brother. 🍻

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Here here, brother. 🍻

Hear, hear! as well...