|
Historically speaking, campaigns based on fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency were once very successful, although devotion to the Pope has gone way downhill recently.
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 20:38 |
|
|
I mean, Barack Obama should be the number 1 example that running a campaign of fear-mongering isn't the best way to motivate at least the segments of the population that vote for Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Happy Noodle Boy posted:Good poo poo. People voting against their own interest realizing what they did is always good. Except this guy (and many others like him) are probably not gonna live until the next election, so....
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
zoux posted:I'm not sure what you're arguing. Fear campaigns are bad motivators unless they can inspire other emotions, and nonstop fear-mongering is (according to people that do this for a living) a really bad way to go about starting a movement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:Fear campaigns are bad motivators unless they can inspire other emotions, and nonstop fear-mongering is (according to people that do this for a living) a really bad way to go about starting a movement. the Tea Party?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Historically speaking, campaigns based on fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency were once very successful, although devotion to the Pope has gone way downhill recently. Now I'd only we had access to nice red uniforms...
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:Fear campaigns are bad motivators unless they can inspire other emotions, and nonstop fear-mongering is (according to people that do this for a living) a really bad way to go about starting a movement. History does not bear this out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
zoux posted:History does not bear this out. Doesn't it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Logikv9 posted:the Tea Party? I feel like there's a pretty big but subtle difference between fear and anger. It seems to me Tea Party is a lot more anger than fear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
 of the day, “I’m not some weirdo that’s out here just kinda running crazy, I’m the former governor of the state of Virginia. I’m the former chairman of the Republican National Committee. I am world traveled, I not only have the credentials of being the chief executive of a state but I have deep foreign policy credentials. I am a United States army veteran. I was the governor during the 9/11 attack when the pentagon was struck. I have the credentials to deal with foreign policy issues that the other former governors simply don’t have. So I have a right to come out here to tell the people of New Hampshire they ought to be supporting me and to campaign for it.” ~ Jim Gilmore
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Lemming posted:I feel like there's a pretty big but subtle difference between fear and anger. It seems to me Tea Party is a lot more anger than fear. Now it definitely is but maybe when it first started off it was a better mix of the two. They "feared" what Obama would hypothetically do and were "angered" by it. Now it's just anger at everybody. One definitely led to another, but I agree that there is a difference between the two.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Joementum posted:
He is correct that he has a right to campaign for president. He just doesn't have an inalienable right to be popular while doing so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Zombie Samurai posted:
It's mesmerizing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I’m the former governor of the state of Virginia You'd think he'd have learned to say commonwealth
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:I mean, Barack Obama should be the number 1 example that running a campaign of fear-mongering isn't the best way to motivate at least the segments of the population that vote for Democrats. You're right, it's easier to motivate using hate rather than fear. Obama just got the freebie of GWB to gin up more hate than his campaign ever could.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
zoux posted:Well thank god, it's about time we had some hysterical overblown fear about peanuts in this country. Well the movie did just come out so it's perfectly timed!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Joementum posted:
if only there existed some place for unpopular presidential candidates where they could voice their opinions and people could actually hear it. some sort of safe space...perhaps in one of the nation's many fine universities!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
In case you've ever wondered what people in Vermont are like, it's this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmyIYYFbpOs
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Joementum posted:In case you've ever wondered what people in Vermont are like, it's this: Clicked, was relieved to not recognize the old woman from the NEK.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Joementum posted:In case you've ever wondered what people in Vermont are like, it's this: God bless. Does everyone call it "the northeast kingdom?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Carrasco posted:God bless. The NEK is a region in Vermont composed of Orleans, Essex, and Caledonia counties that is the most rural and generally poorest part of the state.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
 suckin dick bought this office
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Here's what I don't understand about "voting against your interests." How come you want poor people to vote for candidates who will help them economically, but then you get mad when people vote against the expansion of civil rights to include groups that make people uncomfortable? Isn't it in my own interest to be comfortable? So shouldn't I vote that way? Clearly if everyone voted for their economic interest, the "99%" (as nebulous as that term is) would make big gains. But some people value their social interest in preserving their way of life over their economic interest in material goods. Why is this a bad thing? By the way, I'm not a poor and I don't value social interests over economic interests. But if I were to vote for my economic interest, I get called a "selfish" "rear end in a top hat!" What!! Anyhoo, that's my take. Cheers! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Carrasco posted:God bless. Among Vermonters, yes. It also contains what little remains of Old Republican* Vermont, which you might well have already guessed since Joe already said it's the poorest, most rural part of the state (two reasons why I don't go home all that often). *There are still some "TAKE BACK VERMONT" signs to be seen outside there on the sides of mostly-fallen-in barns, a relic of the rather feckless reaction to the passage of Civil Union legislation back in 2000.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Milk Malk posted:Here's what I don't understand about "voting against your interests." How come you want poor people to vote for candidates who will help them economically, but then you get mad when people vote against the expansion of civil rights to include groups that make people uncomfortable? Isn't it in my own interest to be comfortable? So shouldn't I vote that way? Because groups you irrationally hate receiving the same rights you already enjoy does not effect you in any real way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Because groups you irrationally hate receiving the same rights you already enjoy does not effect you in any real way. It impacts your ability to get better treatment and opportunity at their expense....
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Because groups you irrationally hate receiving the same rights you already enjoy does not effect you in any real way. Whoa there, that's a pretty strong assumption you're making. Are you telling me that, in a hypothetical situation where I was irrationally afraid of a certain group, seeing a member of said group looking threatening, that doesn't effect me? Or is that just not real? And who said this feeling is irrational? I think it's very rational to be wary around say criminals, for example. Like sex offenders or felons. Sure, I bet some of them are "reformed", but rates of recidivism are awfully high. Besides, it's a highly individual thing. What's so wrong about voting against something that makes you uncomfortable (whatever that thing may be)?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
zoux posted:
Okay, you know what you do? You buy yourself a tape recorder, you just record yourself for a whole day...
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
I really hope the first George Bush's oral diaries he made on a tape recorder through out his presidency get released in full to the public. I just heard about them in a interview between his son and John Mitchum.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Milk Malk posted:Besides, it's a highly individual thing. What's so wrong about voting against something that makes you uncomfortable (whatever that thing may be)? It'd be in my best interests to kill my neighbor and take his poo poo (if I could get away with it), but that's obviously wrong and also not something I would want to do even if I could. Just because we want people to vote for their own self interests doesn't mean that we expect them to do so in a way that's hateful and harmful. Coincidentally, this also answers your question as to why the wealthy aggressively pursuing their own economic self interests is something a lot of people consider unacceptable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:It'd be in my best interests to kill my neighbor and take his poo poo (if I could get away with it), but that's obviously wrong and also not something I would want to do even if I could. Just because we want people to vote for their own self interests doesn't mean that we expect them to do so in a way that's hateful and harmful. So then the problem isn't "those idiots are voting against their self interests" but "they're voting for their self interests in a way I don't like".
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Carson's poll numbers plummeted. What the hell happened? No way those "scandals" over the weekend could have effected him this much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Milk Malk posted:Here's what I don't understand about "voting against your interests." How come you want poor people to vote for candidates who will help them economically, but then you get mad when people vote against the expansion of civil rights to include groups that make people uncomfortable? Isn't it in my own interest to be comfortable? So shouldn't I vote that way? Because "feeling comfortable" can't be qualified and thus shouldn't be used as a measure of anything. "Losing your healthcare" is quantifiable: you have healthcare, then you don't.. Same with things such as civil rights, worker's rights, etc etc. You shouldn't make rules for everyone based on the intangible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
computer parts posted:So then the problem isn't "those idiots are voting against their self interests" but "they're voting for their self interests in a way I don't like". I never said otherwise, so... yes? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. We generally don't expect people to act in a way that's self-interested to the detriment of others, and plenty of laws exist to discourage exactly that kind of behavior. I'm not sure why I should be okay with people who vote to harm themselves (and other people in the same situation) just because they think there's another group that they're going to hurt even more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Carson's poll numbers plummeted. What the hell happened? No way those "scandals" over the weekend could have effected him this much. Link?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
Milk Malk posted:Whoa there, that's a pretty strong assumption you're making. Are you telling me that, in a hypothetical situation where I was irrationally afraid of a certain group, seeing a member of said group looking threatening, that doesn't effect me? Or is that just not real? Weighing one group's basic human rights and the ability to exist in society against another's mild annoyance or discomfort isn't very proportional. For example I think religious fundies are odd but I also realize that throwing them in jail like they want to do to gays and heathens like me would be a bad thing to do and would require a sociopathic disregard for others rights and autonomy. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Nov 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Carson's poll numbers plummeted. What the hell happened? No way those "scandals" over the weekend could have effected him this much. even the most religious and conservative and distrustful of the liberal media republican voter still thinks that calling the pyramids granaries is so loving dumb that he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near any power at all
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
Milk Malk posted:By the way, I'm not a poor and I don't value social interests over economic interests. But if I were to vote for my economic interest, I get called a "selfish" "rear end in a top hat!" What!! Maybe because even if you're a priori not poor, voting republican is very likely not in your best economic interests. Funny how that works
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
zoux posted:Link? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 20:38 |
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Carson's poll numbers plummeted. What the hell happened? No way those "scandals" over the weekend could have effected him this much. It's more that one of the polls showing him up with Trump was a bit of an outlier. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:58
|
|