Against your interests

[Quantum Windbag]

Some people on this forum marvel that anyone votes against their interest. Personally, I marvel that more people don't. If the true goal of your life is to put others first, and to support your country of your party, you should always be willing to vote against your interests. Not voting against your personal interests in the pursuit of a better life for everyone is the sign of a selfish person, not a healthy, well adjusted, individual.

 

[Vidi]

Some people on this forum marvel that anyone votes against their interest. Personally, I marvel that more people don't. If the true goal of your life is to put others first, and to support your country of your party, you should always be willing to vote against your interests. Not voting against your personal interests in the pursuit of a better life for everyone is the sign of a selfish person, not a healthy, well adjusted, individual.

You're correct. "Against your own interests" is a stupid way to say it. I have used that phrase in exactly the way you have described and I shall not do so again. You have convinced me.

Thank you for an excellent point.

 

[PratchettFan]

Some people on this forum marvel that anyone votes against their interest. Personally, I marvel that more people don't. If the true goal of your life is to put others first, and to support your country of your party, you should always be willing to vote against your interests. Not voting against your personal interests in the pursuit of a better life for everyone is the sign of a selfish person, not a healthy, well adjusted, individual.

I always vote to my own interest. I just understand that voting to my short term interest is not necessarily to my long term interest.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Here's the thing: There are millions of us Lefties who genuinely believe that the income disparity in this country is a major problem, threatening all of our prosperity. So to me, it is voting against EVERYONE'S best interests when you put people in power whose number one economic goal is keeping rich people rich. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but Progressives aren't going anywhere.

 

[Si modo]

Some people on this forum marvel that anyone votes against their interest. Personally, I marvel that more people don't. If the true goal of your life is to put others first, and to support your country of your party, you should always be willing to vote against your interests. Not voting against your personal interests in the pursuit of a better life for everyone is the sign of a selfish person, not a healthy, well adjusted, individual.

I think you are being too narrow in your definition of personal interests. OB alluded to it, as well.

I ALWAYS vote for what I believe is minimal law and just law, because THOSE things are always in my best interests. My personal freedom is always in my best interests.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Some people on this forum marvel that anyone votes against their interest. Personally, I marvel that more people don't. If the true goal of your life is to put others first, and to support your country of your party, you should always be willing to vote against your interests. Not voting against your personal interests in the pursuit of a better life for everyone is the sign of a selfish person, not a healthy, well adjusted, individual.

I think you are being too narrow in your definition of personal interests. OB alluded to it, as well.

I ALWAYS vote for what I believe is minimal law and just law, because THOSE things are always in my best interests. My personal freedom is always in my best interests.

Sometimes, voting for the greater benefit of all means voting for more laws.

 

[Si modo]

Some people on this forum marvel that anyone votes against their interest. Personally, I marvel that more people don't. If the true goal of your life is to put others first, and to support your country of your party, you should always be willing to vote against your interests. Not voting against your personal interests in the pursuit of a better life for everyone is the sign of a selfish person, not a healthy, well adjusted, individual.

I think you are being too narrow in your definition of personal interests. OB alluded to it, as well.

I ALWAYS vote for what I believe is minimal law and just law, because THOSE things are always in my best interests. My personal freedom is always in my best interests.

Sometimes, voting for the greater benefit of all means voting for more laws.

Since when is freedom not THE greatest benefit to all?

 

[Oddball]

Here's the thing: There are millions of us Lefties who genuinely believe that the income disparity in this country is a major problem, threatening all of our prosperity. So to me, it is voting against EVERYONE'S best interests when you put people in power whose number one economic goal is keeping rich people rich. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but Progressives aren't going anywhere.

Keeping the rich people rich...Like Ted Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller, Dianne Frankenstein, Herb Kohl, Mark Dayton, Harry Reid, Nancy Piglosi, Robert Rubin, Tim Geithner, Warren Buffett, Richard Branson, 95% of Hollyweird...

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but your golden calf is rusting out.

 

[Oddball]

Some people on this forum marvel that anyone votes against their interest. Personally, I marvel that more people don't. If the true goal of your life is to put others first, and to support your country of your party, you should always be willing to vote against your interests. Not voting against your personal interests in the pursuit of a better life for everyone is the sign of a selfish person, not a healthy, well adjusted, individual.

I think you are being too narrow in your definition of personal interests. OB alluded to it, as well.

I ALWAYS vote for what I believe is minimal law and just law, because THOSE things are always in my best interests. My personal freedom is always in my best interests.

Sometimes, voting for the greater benefit of all means voting for more laws.

At whose expense?

TNSTAFAL

 

[uscitizen]

I do not feel that either party has my countrys best interests as their primary focus/task.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think you are being too narrow in your definition of personal interests. OB alluded to it, as well.

I ALWAYS vote for what I believe is minimal law and just law, because THOSE things are always in my best interests. My personal freedom is always in my best interests.

Sometimes, voting for the greater benefit of all means voting for more laws.

Since when is freedom not THE greatest benefit to all?

Is that what I said?

 

[Si modo]

Sometimes, voting for the greater benefit of all means voting for more laws.

Since when is freedom not THE greatest benefit to all?

Is that what I said?

I think so. As I said in my previous post, I always vote for the minimum amount of laws that will keep justice because I believe personal freedoms to both succeed and fail is the best interest of all.

And, I am unclear of how there is ever a greater benefit to all, without a cost to many, unless personal freedom is the driving force of one's vote.

 

[Oddball]

I think you are being too narrow in your definition of personal interests. OB alluded to it, as well.

I ALWAYS vote for what I believe is minimal law and just law, because THOSE things are always in my best interests. My personal freedom is always in my best interests.

Sometimes, voting for the greater benefit of all means voting for more laws.

At whose expense?

TNSTAFAL

And by whose definition of "best interests" and/or "greater benefit"?

 

[Si modo]

Sometimes, voting for the greater benefit of all means voting for more laws.

At whose expense?

TNSTAFAL

And by whose definition of "best interests" and/or "greater benefit"?

Exactly. And, I just started a thread about the subjectivity of law. http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/238364-laws-and-tyranny.html

 

[daveman]

I'm sure it's just coincidence that liberals declare that's it's in everyone's best interests to keep liberals in power.

Yeah. Coincidence. Has to be.

 

[Vidi]

I'm sure it's just coincidence that liberals declare that's it's in everyone's best interests to keep liberals in power.

Yeah. Coincidence. Has to be.

I agreed that the phrase is incorrect, but is the sentiment?

For the sake of argument, strictly hypothetical, let's say that economics was the only factor in your vote AND what the left claims is true that the Republican party is working to protect the rich and powerful at the expense of the middle class and poor.

If that were true, then would voting for them if you're not in the upper class be logical?

 

[daveman]

I'm sure it's just coincidence that liberals declare that's it's in everyone's best interests to keep liberals in power.

Yeah. Coincidence. Has to be.

I agreed that the phrase is incorrect, but is the sentiment?

For the sake of argument, strictly hypothetical, let's say that economics was the only factor in your vote AND what the left claims is true that the Republican party is working to protect the rich and powerful at the expense of the middle class and poor.

If that were true, then would voting for them if you're not in the upper class be logical?

No, it wouldn't.

Yet your caveats are not based on reality.

"A rising tide lifts all boats."

 

[hortysir]

Some people on this forum marvel that anyone votes against their interest. Personally, I marvel that more people don't. If the true goal of your life is to put others first, and to support your country of your party, you should always be willing to vote against your interests. Not voting against your personal interests in the pursuit of a better life for everyone is the sign of a selfish person, not a healthy, well adjusted, individual.

I thought we were supposed to vote for which ever candidate promises me the most "stash"

 

[Immanuel]

Here's the thing: There are millions of us Lefties who genuinely believe that the income disparity in this country is a major problem, threatening all of our prosperity. So to me, it is voting against EVERYONE'S best interests when you put people in power whose number one economic goal is keeping rich people rich. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but Progressives aren't going anywhere.

Then why are you planning on voting for Obama? His goal is no different than Romney's, both seek the enpowerment of the elite at the expense of the middle and lower class. Yet, it seems to me that you endorse one to the point of Edited Keep it civil. Go figure.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm sure it's just coincidence that liberals declare that's it's in everyone's best interests to keep liberals in power.

Yeah. Coincidence. Has to be.

I agreed that the phrase is incorrect, but is the sentiment?

For the sake of argument, strictly hypothetical, let's say that economics was the only factor in your vote AND what the left claims is true that the Republican party is working to protect the rich and powerful at the expense of the middle class and poor.

If that were true, then would voting for them if you're not in the upper class be logical?

First I have to ignore that economics isn't the only factor, then I have to assume that everything I know about economics is wrong, then I have to believe that the Democrats are right that the Republicans want to wipe out everyone but the rich. If all of that happened, I still wouldn't vote for the Democrats because I don't vote for members of either party.