!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
Informed consent: People are not against exploitation. They just want to switch sides. Why would you vote for something that cripples you once you got rich?
Uninformed consent: They honestly believe they are voting for their own interests.
Indifferent consent: Usually single issue or ideology-driven voter.
¯\_༼ •́ ͜ʖ •̀ ༽_/¯
In the US at least, the systematic demolishing of the education system has led to a vast reduction in overall education and critical thinking skills. This was done on purpose. That, combined with the unexpected boon of the Internet, has led to massive wealth shifting from the many to the few.
You see the results of this change everywhere, especially on the Internet. Lack of basic spelling and grammar skills are just one symptom. All of that is to say that humans are primates and easily trained.
Propaganda. Lack of education. There's a reason they want to defund public schools. They're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. :)
The rich have billions to spend on focus groups so they know exactly which buttons to push so that people vote the way they want.
One's "own best interest" can take a lot of different forms. Especially when the number and variety of plausible candidates are finite. Your preferred candidate for a given office will rarely line up perfectly with your own values. There's a compromise there.
If I vote for my own finances, it may come at the cost of my morals. It I vote for my own moral interest, it may cost me more. If I vote for my own power, it may cost someone else their freedoms. How heavily do I weight my own interests against those of a wider society? Political identities and philosophies are complicated, and can't necessarily be reduced to a single binary choice that is "best" in every scenario.
Because they want to see other people suffer
Fundamental flaw of the democracy: It assumes that people know what's the best for them
There's a substantial assumption that the wealthy know best how to manage wealth and the economy but it's all predicated on the notion that those wealthy people are willing to act in the interest of everyone, when in fact they tend to act on their own personal interest (I mean, if someone has a net worth of over a billion dollars and they're trying to accumulate even more money, that should give you a good idea how their policy will affect people who are making 40k/yr). They tend not to want to create jobs or increase wages more than they want to improve quality of earnings, because they stand to lose a lot and they somehow want more
It's hard to vote for one candidate that represents all your values or interests. Typically every candidate will be against your own interests in some manner. Preferential voting systems mostly curb this issue by allowing you to select many candidates in order of preference.
Manufactured consent
Probably unpopular answer, but it's not some clear cut "this political party has better policies for everyone". Republican policies usually are better for people living in rural areas, and Democratic policies are usually better for people in cities. I'm sure people will debate this, but this is the reason why people typically vote depending on where they live. At the very least, they believe that their party has better policies for them and their way of life.
My personal (anecdotal evidence) is that I work for a small business in a rural area, and our main customers are other small business owners (usually self employed or under 5 employees). Over the last 3 presidents, the Obama years were rough for our company, we had explosive growth during the Trump years, and then we've had stagnant growth over the past 4 years. Our largest competitor went out of business this past year, which sent us a lot of new customers, but we've also had a lot of our customers go out of business as well, so we've been pretty stagnant. Being stagnant isn't terrible, we don't have shareholders or anything, but the cost of living has increased and company profit/wages haven't which is a problem. That said I know we're doing pretty well compared to a lot of people here.
Another (once again anecdotal) example is that I have a friend who paints murals full time, for the past 30ish years. He told me that he does well with either Republicans or Democrats in office, but that his customers change. During republican presidents, his customer base is usually local businesses wanting to decorate their stores. During democratic presidents, his customer base is usually towns, state buildings, schools, etc.
But anyways, I'd be very interested to hear from some people living in cities if there's a visible uptick in income/etc when we have a democratic president, or in general what your personal observations are on how which president affects your local businesses/income/prices/etc.
Obama took office during the Great Recession and rebuilt the economy. Biden took office during COVID and rebuilt the economy. (I know you're going to try to argue with me on that, so I will just say that we recovered faster than any other developed nation before you do.) You're kinda dense if you think that as soon as a president from another party enters office it would affect the economy so much as these events did...
Republican policies usually are better for people living in rural areas
I'm surprised you read past this complete fallacy. I stopped there.
For small businesses, a president taking power can immediately affect business. Small business owners make decisions based on their expectations of future, colored by their emotional state, so if they believe that a Republican President will be good for business, then they're more likely to order new machinery, hire an extra person, etc. In an ecosystem of small businesses, that optimism feeds on itself.
Happens in big business, too. S&P500 gained 3+% the day after election, which (if you don't believe the daily stock market is just gambling) presumably means that 'the market' expects 3% more growth out of all those companies, just by Trump's win being formalized. Stock price up makes it easier for companies to raise capital to expand, buy out competitors, etc
Neither of those things is "the economy," but they can feel like it, if you're close enough.
S&P500 gained 3+% the day after election
and considering that index gained 90% over the course of last 5 years and 700% over the last 30, that is a strong indication of... something. probably random variance 😆.
which (if you don’t believe the daily stock market is just gambling) presumably means
yeah, that is strong assumption 😂
I started working this job after Obama had already been in office one term, so I was mainly comparing the final 4 years. I'm really glad I was still in college for the first term when the economy was really rough.
Covid did have an undeniable effect on the economy at the start of Biden's term, and I don't consider that his fault or anything. It does feel like we generally haven't really recovered from it though, gas prices finally came back down but everything else is crazy expensive still. For example, I do electrical work, and a 250' roll of 12/2 wire went from $35 in 2019 to $140 today.
I think it's funny you call people dense when in fact they see the difference with their own eyes. Like a small business owner is making less money and people try to convince him that it has nothing to do with the elected government. I don't think Fubar is the dense one here at all.
macro economy does not work like that. any complex system has inertia like an ocean-liner. you turn a wheel and it turns after 10 miles.
seeing something is nice, but analysis of what you see is not necessarily withing the reach of "common sense", which is why we have scientist who study the problem for all their life and professionals in their field.
and that is why people trying to manipulate masses are trying to convince dense people not to trust the science and trust their common sense. because such gullible people can then be convinced about anything they decide to.
also @Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz's story reads like a really bad republican fan-fiction. "explosive growth" under trump and doom and despair under democratic president. come on, no administration has that big effect on your daily life. there are countries where it takes time to establish government after the elections and guess what, the day to day life still goes on even with no government present.
Something to consider is not everyone's interests are aligned. I'm not American so I can't comment on that specific area of the world, but that sort of question comes up a lot in my country and one of the biggest reasons is one party wants to make my hobbies/job harder and the other doesn't. So I don't think I'll vote for them. Now you, someone who doesn't have said job or hobbies, probably doesn't give a fuck about that. So you support said positions.
Bexause you have a two party system where both sides are corrupt
Can you really not see the difference between the parties?
Any rational person can see the difference, doesn't mean he's wrong. Just because democrats are way better than republicans doesn't mean they are GOOD. Both parties attract corrupt greedy powermongers. MAGA / GOP just gets the lion's share.
Kind of an indirect answer, but I've heard people state that they vote against their own personal beliefs because they think that there needs to be a balance between "good and bad". Obviously, this is complete bullshit. Even if there should be a "balance", we already have enough problems as is, we don't need the government making it worse.
What would be an example of this? It's not obvious to me that by simply voting in a manner that benefits "the rich" then also means it's against your own interests. When someone gains something it doesn't mean I must lose something in exchange.