I think that question pretty much answers itself, especially if one looks at voting demographics by income.
The idea of the republican working class party has always been more of a clever rhetorical strategy than a reality.
(perhaps, on a more speculative note, also a reflection of the seemingly general conservative pattern of wanting to see oneself as "normal", to the point of sometimes fabricating "silent majorities" and such, even when there is overwhelming counter evidence)
I agree. So, the question is if you want lower spending etc, who do you vote for?
It’s not obvious. Take a corporate tax loophole, is that spending and or a form of economic control? Foreign ownership of US companies compounds this, is it giving money to foreigners or good economic policy etc.
Paying less taxes is not government "spending". A person's income is not government property that the government generously allows the person to keep some of it.
That’s at best a semantic argument as refundable tax breaks can result in a net payment by the government. As in you can revive 1,400$ having never paid any money to the government.
A more common example is to pay nothing and also get a rebait to avoid paying taxes in the future.
Not that 1,400$. 1,400$ of the 2,000$ child tax credit is refundable and that’s not a stimulus the GOP made part of the child tax credit refundable back in 2018.
Some nonrefundable tax tax credits cap at zero or the AMT for that year.
Other nonrefundable tax tax credits can get rolled over into future years, so people with actual incomes can still pay zero in some years. Aka they go to zero and roll over savings to next year.
However refundable credits mean an actual check even in years you paid zero taxes: American opportunity tax credit, Earned income tax credit, Child tax credit, Premium tax credit. Aka they go to zero then send you a check.
It not that common for people to get a check for the full amount, but it does happen.
Although you are correct, the point goes further than that because any system of taxation is effectively a subsidy to whatever doesn't get taxed. Income taxes cause over-allocation to assets, wealth taxes cause over-allocation to short term spending, taxing left handed people causes allocation to right handed people, etc. I like the idea of a land value tax/Georgism, from a philosophical belief that we should under-allocate to people whos claim to fame is that they got to the land first.
But nevertheless the original point stands - the state may be handing out advantages but it is not a form of spending. Not taking stuff is different to handing something out even if in some models they have equivalent effects.
A tax break on any farmer that grows corn is a corn subsidy. It’s the classic definition of a subsidy in that it reduces costs to create something.
Often things are written so exactly one company benefits when they agree to build something like a sports stadium in exchange for zero property taxes for N years. If that subsidy isn’t large large enough they may also hand out cash.
“subsidy is a benefit given to an individual, business, or institution, usually by the government. It can be direct (such as cash payments) or indirect (such as tax breaks). The subsidy is typically given to remove some type of burden, and it is often considered to be in the overall interest of the public, given to promote a social good or an economic policy.” https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp
That’s literally the first two definitions from searching DDG, here’s Wikipedia.
“A subsidy or government incentive is a form of financial aid or support extended to an economic sector (business, or individual) generally with the aim of promoting economic and social policy.[1] Although commonly extended from the government, the term subsidy can relate to any type of support – for example from NGOs or as implicit subsidies. Subsidies come in various forms including: direct (cash grants, interest-free loans) and indirect (tax breaks, insurance, low-interest loans, accelerated depreciation, rent rebates).[2][3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy
Forward carried interest is a loophole created for the express purpose of letting the wealthy occupy a lower tax bracket. It has no other public benefit.
While perhaps technically true, I think you are taking a word's general strict meaning, and are attempting to apply it to something where the meaning is often stretched a bit liberally.
While yes, it is true that a "loophole" is something that is unintended but allows some subset of people to benefit, when it comes to "tax loophole", that has colloquially come to mean "any means by which a special interest group gets to avoid taxes". "Tax loopholes" can be intentionally added to the tax code, even if "loophole" implies something unintentional.
Remember that English is a living language, and meanings change to suit how people use words, not how the dictionary may have once defined them.
> when it comes to "tax loophole", that has colloquially come to mean "any means by which a special interest group gets to avoid taxes". "Tax loopholes" can be intentionally added to the tax code, even if "loophole" implies something unintentional.
You're wrong. You just have been using the term wrong and listening to people who do as well. Loopholes are unintentional. The things you are referring to are intentionally placed in the tax code for people to take advantage of.
Do you consider the solar credit a tax loophole for people with solar?
>Remember that English is a living language, and meanings change to suit how people use words, not how the dictionary may have once defined them.
Great but this doesn't apply to "loophole". You're just wrong and doubling down.
>tax loophole
>A provision in the laws governing taxation that allows people to reduce their taxes. The term has the connotation of an unintentional omission or obscurity in the law that allows the reduction of tax liability to a point below that intended by the framers of the law.
> The idea of the republican working class party has always been more of a clever rhetorical strategy than a reality.
I tend to agree, but then again I really don't grok the Trump thing, and I can't claim that I saw it coming or sticking around as long as it has. At this point I would not be terribly shocked to see a bit of role reversal between the two major parties.
I've been a conservative since I had a minimum wage job, for one reason: I want the government out of my life as much as possible. I firmly believe nobody will care about my family as much as I do and I don't want the government's golden handcuffs. Leave me alone, let me work, and I'll happily live with whatever happens.
I think this is the fundamental disconnect in left-right (economic) politics. The left, as I see it, wants some guarantee of a good outcome. The right wants liberty, recognizing that comes with risk.
In my early 20's, I would have agreed 100% with your stance.
But, you know what really gives people freedom and liberty? The freedom to fail without worrying about how they're going to keep a roof over their head and a meal on the table. Without worrying that they're one medical emergency away from losing everything they've worked for.
You want people creating small, lifestyle businesses? Give them a safety net and let them take that step without risking everything.
I'm not convinced. There are plenty of countries with social safety nets galore, and all of them seem to have fewer freedoms and fewer small businesses created per capita than the USA.
I'm looking for a better source still, so if you find one please post it here.
EDIT: I found this. Numbers are a bit old (2007), but it shows self-employment rate per capita on page 4, which is exactly the metric we're interested in discussing.
I'm not sure where that first link is getting its numbers, or why they're so outdated, but the US Small Business Association puts the number of small businesses in the US at around 31.7 million [0], or just over 100 per 1,000 people, which would top that list (excluding Indonesia, which, BTW why is it so high?)
That's because good safety nets means people don't have to take risks on business. So that leaves only the people who want to start a business.
Who tend to leave for countries where it's easier to run a business and where they don't have to pay for the safety nets, but that's besides the point.
As for freedoms, I don't know. Not that much of a difference between US, UK and Germany from what I can tell.
> Companies are started in the US and grown because the opportunity to make money is much greater.
I'm not convinced that this is the case. Like, the US market is cheaper to operate in relative to other markets the same size (e.g. the EU) because you have an over-arching system of laws, contracts and (most importantly) language.
If your theory is correct, then one would expect the US to remain the largest source of profitable companies globally. If my theory is correct, one might expect China/India to take it's place. Come back in 20 years, I guess?
> Venture capital? An awful lot of the venture capital comes from foreign investors.
Can you point to some sources on this. A quick Google didn't reveal much information, and I really would like to know. Modulo Softbank, I suspect that it's mostly US based institutions giving VC's their money.
> Monolingual? The global business world runs on English.
All of the big companies you mentioned sell to consumers, not businesses, so the global language of business is kinda irrelevant. My point was that the US is a relatively integrated, large market with one language. Most startups begin in their home company. While a startup from Greece would likely have to hire more people to scale across the EU (20+ languages), the equivalent US based startup can scale happily without worrying about languages for a much longer period.
> Outliers? When it's all of them, the idea it is a coincidence starts getting pretty unlikely.
FAANG are 100% outliers, I don't see how you can believe otherwise.
However, Europe has produced SAP (uggghhhh), Spotify, and a bunch of second-tier fintechs (but given the regulatory advantages of the EU in this space, I suspect one of them will conquer the world).
No, but I've heard it many times. I've also seen plenty of talk about the trade deficit not being a deficit at all, as the balance is foreign investment in the US, which is not counted.
> so the global language of business is kinda irrelevant
Attend a trade show. They're in English, even in foreign countries. Every single one I've attended.
The bottom line is, which companies do you invest in?
As a European… The problem with safety net is it brings taxes to cover that safety net. And regulations for companies to make them part of that safety net. In the end it makes it harder to start a small business and more comfy to be employed. Essentially helping big businesses to stamp out competition.
Some safety net without the negatives would be nice. But where will the money come from?
And if one were to consider healthcare premiums in the US as a "tax", the US looks very much like a European country. We in the US are already paying for the safety net, but without actually getting one.
You absolutely can have both, because the world does not boil down to simplistic either or choices. You can argue that freedom and security are oppostite poles of a sliding scale, and most people would agree with you. But nobody wants absolute freedom (anarchy and literal lawlessness) nor does anyone want absolute security. People want degrees of both.
It's a naieve mindset to think it's all or nothing.
It's a sliding scale between security and freedom. Every bit of security you want means giving up a corresponding freedom.
Also, most people do not include "freedom to harm others" when they're talking about freedom. I've never heard of anyone carrying a sign saying "FREEDOM" and meaning they want to be free to hurt others.
Neither of those is free. You still pay for it, plus you pay for the government's cost of administering it. You're worse off.
With "free" government health care, you're not only paying more for it, but you no longer get to choose what health care you get. You get what a government bureaucrat says you get.
Walter, it’s amazing how often I see you weigh in on economic and political issues on this forum when you have a poor grasp of even the basics. Claiming that privatised healthcare is somehow more efficient in spite of overwhelming real world evidence to the contrary, or that people are capable of meaningfully informed choices in picking a healthcare plan and somehow find it life-enhancing to have to do this, or ignoring the fact that funding it through taxation rather than insurance results in more universal and equitable access, and entirely glossing over adverse selection problems, is just amateur house stuff. You’d get laughed at in a high school classroom with this stuff but here you are trying to talk about it with authority.
I've never made the claim that privatized health care is more efficient. I have claimed that free market health care is more efficient. If you've got evidence that government health care is more efficient, let alone overwhelming evidence, I'd like to see it.
From what I've seen from high school economics, they can laugh at me all they want. But they don't know anything as they are taught by high school teachers who don't have any training in economics and have never held a private sector job or run a business.
Here's a reference for you with plenty of evidence that contradicts your claims. Read it and get back to me.
BTW, you made one of my points for me. You just said that having the government force a plan on you is better than you picking your own plan. You gave up your freedom for security. Exactly what I was talking about.
Google "US health expenditure vs life expectancy" and "adverse selection in healthcare", read the top few links and get back to me.
You're making several basic mistakes thinking about freedom, because once again you're not even familiar with basic knowledge of the topic. In particular:
- Confusing the quality and quantity of choices. Free healthcare increases freedom because it increases overall quality of choices people can make - if you'd even encountered the concept of the capability approach to human welfare (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_approach) you wouldn't have made this basic mistake.
- You're conflating capitalism with freedom, when in fact capitalism is built on top of property law, a very anti-freedom system. Property is the biggest government program their is, and is enforced with violent anti-freedom, liberty-destroying government force.
You didn't read the article I cited. Please return when you have.
BTW, the Soviet Union didn't allow people to own property, and had free healthcare. People were so free there they had to build a wall around it and shoot people who tried to escape. Ditto for every other communist country.
And where do those freedom-loving people want to go? The US. So many, in fact, that the US had to build a wall to keep them out.
People in Norway with high taxes, high state ownership of the economy, and a great welfare state seem to be happily staying in Norway rather than clamouring to move to the USA for the extra “freedom”, even in spite of the weather. What do all these people know that you missed?
No, I'm simply restating Maslov's hierarchy of needs. You cannot reach self-actualization without first covering basic needs. One of which is, ironically, called "safety". As in, perhaps, a safety net...
Or, in other words, to have the freedom to self-actualize, you must have security in your basic needs.
No. Any government big enough to bail everyone out, is big enough to take away everything we have. One of the parent posters said they didn't get the Trump thing. It's easy. Trump whether worth $1 or Ten Billion dollars got what converservatives and the majority want; government out of the way. And preferably the end of career politicians.
So most federal conservatives. Who are career politicians. Want to get rid of career politicians? After doing nothing to get rid of career politicians their whole career?
This doesn’t track. No politician from either side wants to limit themselves out of a job.
>The left, as I see it, wants some guarantee of a good outcome. The right wants liberty, recognizing that comes with risk.
I think it's more that the left believes government has a responsibility to guarantee equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome in what is assumed to be a fundamentally inequitable system. The big philosophical difference to me is in what each side believes the proper role of government should be. The right (tending to be the side that supports the military, police, harsh criminal penalties, etc.) believes government's only legitimate purpose is enforcing the laws and defending the borders, in other words the exercise of violence, whereas the left also believes the government has a duty to provide for the social welfare of its citizens in exchange for the power granted to it by social contract.
And when the right says it wants liberty, what it tends to mean is that it wants liberty from the social obligations that the left tend to want government to support.
> The big philosophical difference to me is in what each side believes the proper role of government should be.
I think you're close here, but I don't think that's the root of it. That difference in position is important, but it comes from even deeper philosophical differences. I think this boils down to the argument over positive vs negative rights (freedom to vs freedom from).
A worldview built on negative rights has to have a much smaller legitimate role for the government than one built on positive rights. In the former, the government can never make anything better, only potentially rectifying wrongs (usually via punishing the offender). Within that framework, the goal of the government becomes to rectify the worst of the wrongs while disturbing things as little as possible. A worldview built on positive rights inherently leaves a bigger space for the government to behave legitimately, because this worldview sees the government as having a role in making things better.
Of course, there are very few people who adhere 100% to either of these, so reality is a bit more complicated.
> I think it's more that the left believes government has a responsibility to guarantee equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome in what is assumed to be a fundamentally inequitable system.
There is a section of the left-right spectrum that believes in equality of opportunity, but that it’s certainly not the leftmost people in that spectrum. The left pole is not “equality of opportunity for all” and how far left you are is defined by how strongly you believe in that.
I think it’s more the middle of the spectrum who hold the view and the left extreme is much closer to equality of outcome.
> (tending to be the side that supports the military, police, harsh criminal penalties, etc.) believes government's only legitimate purpose is enforcing the laws and defending the borders
People who support police when police breaks laws are not pro-enforcing laws. People who make it increasingly hard to prosecute and investigate cop when those are suspect of breaking law are not pro-enforcing laws. People who make it legal for police to use escalating aggression are not pro law enforcement either.
These people are pro state violence people. Simple as that. Whether it is happening in Russia, America or elsewhere.
Most safety net programs are far more focused on "avoiding a catastrophic outcome" than guaranteeing a good outcome. This is why we don't see a mass migration from tech jobs to welfare...
But for catastrophe prevention... you don't have to think the government will care as much about your family as you do to want there to be a support system in for your family if you die, become unable to work, etc...
And "liberty" alone is so undefined as to be meaningless for these purposes. Is "paying less taxes so that the disabled don't have as much help" an example of liberty? For you? For them?
> Most safety net programs are far more focused on "avoiding a catastrophic outcome" than guaranteeing a good outcome.
Right. It's weird to me to see so many people framing it in the ensures-good-outcome sense.
A "safety net" is literally a thing that catches you when you fall. That's it. It doesn't push you higher in general; it just helps you avoid the lowest of the low.
This is an uncharitable reading. Almost no one would answer that they want the government to impose positions over their personal views on those topics
Except it's accurate. Most conservatives are fair-weather individualists who only care about "liberty" in loose terms as long as the liberty that they believe is being affected is their own.
We had to drag conservatives kicking and screaming over the past 30 years to allow gays to have the right to marry and openly serve in the military, just like we had to drag them kicking and screaming 60 years ago to allow minorities the right to vote, or allow mixed-race couples to marry.
No conservatives lost liberty in any of those instances. They lost their "special" status, which is what they're really worried about and why the populist rhetoric resonates so strongly with them.
I don't think the parent referenced Republicans or Democrats at all. The parent was talking about "conservatives". And anyone who opposed same-sex marriage in 2004 -- Obama included -- should absolutely be counted as having (at least some) socially-conservative views.
Obviously many people changed their minds since then. It is perhaps notable, though, to consider that most of the people who changed their minds since then identify as Democrat, while many more Republicans continue to hold such backward, discriminatory views.
Are you including Obama in that? He was against gay marriage until the tide turned.
What about the CA Prop 8 against gay marriage that was widely supported by minorities? Were you "dragging, kicking and screaming" those minorities as well?
Clearly you're trying to go for a "gotcha!" type comment, but... so what? People who believed same-sex marriage should be illegal are just as wrong as people who believed interracial marriage should be illegal during much of the last century. It doesn't matter if they called themselves Democrats or Republicans or whatever. It doesn't matter if they were part of some majority or minority. They were just as wrong regardless.
Some people -- Obama included -- changed their minds, for whatever reason. Many people, sadly, still have not. It might be interesting to look at what kind of person still hasn't seen the light on this, and what political party that kind of person is overwhelmingly more likely to identify with, but that still doesn't really matter much to the rightness or wrongness of a previous belief.
There are people who identify themselves as conservatives. They are subculture that very much exists. It is not true that there is no such thing as conservative.
These people call themselves conservative. They read what other self described conservatives write or listen to their talkshows. They alter their own views to conform to what those talkshows say.
These people hated Obama. Obama did not shared all that many views with them.
So? Yes there is such a thing as a conservative or liberal oe whatever. And then there are people who are not conservatives and still hold some socially or economically conservative view.
It is hard to know whether you are trolling or genuinely ignored politics and culture from wherever you got born.
So, you are trolling then. I answered these in upper comments.
> If you say no, then how many conservative views must one hold to belong to the group?
When you proclaim proudly "I am conservative" and share 70% of conservative opinions or more. Or, when you talk about liberal snowflakes. Same thing, really.
This is clearly a spectrum. On one hand we have Mad Max-style "might is right" anarchy, which is over-prioritizing freedom. On the other we remove all personal choice in order to "keep people safe."
So the question is, "how much risk is acceptable?" Are we okay with the idea that getting sick can ruin your entire financial future? Are we okay with child labor? Personally I lean towards providing a social safety net, and I think most people actually want _some_ version of that as well -- but perhaps have not thought deeply about where exactly the balance is for them.
There's also a question of how personal freedom interacts between people. If one person has a contagious disease, and knows it, do they have a right to put others at risk of infection without those others' consent? If so, that infringes on the personal freedom of the others. If not, then isn't their personal freedom infringed? "Prioritizing freedom" and "keeping people safe" can each claim either position!
That’s an awfully selfish outlook, isn’t it? Shouldn’t we be willing as a society to care for the poor and needy among us? So far every other group and organization has completely failed at that, except for government. I am happy to pay my taxes so that my government can take care of those who not as well off as I am.
This is all well and good, but we have essentially had this for 40 years where anti-trust enforcement is concerned. I don’t think anyone can honestly say this has been a good things, especially not for small businesses. There is a conservative argument for breaking up big businesses thereby enabling democratic control over our economic destiny, which has been largely lost, to the detriment of 99% of us.
> The right wants liberty, recognizing that comes with risk.
The right are proponents of right-to-work legislation that force unions to represent non-dues paying members for free, and nullifies their private contracts. That's not exactly liberty, and it minimizes risk for owners.
Those union members are perfectly free to create was is called a members only union, which only represents its own members who voluntarily join the organization.
Doing that avoids any of those conditions that you are talking about.
The NLRA has historically been interpreted in a way that denies bargaining rights to members-only unions. It hasn't been tested in a while, and it's possible that the current NLRB would view the issue differently, but unless and until that happens minority unionism is not a viable strategy in the US.
> that denies bargaining rights to members-only unions
Then you don't understand what "bargaining rights" are. It is absolutely fully legal for a members union to negotiation on behalf of its members, if those members consent to it.
In the same what that it is fully legal for me to hire a lawyer friend of mine, to bargain on my behalf.
What it can't do, is force everyone else, who is not in the members only union, to go along with that bargained contract.
So please, do not say that their bargaining rights are taken away. Instead be honest and say that their ability to force everyone else to have their bargaining rights taken away, and given to the union, against the wishes of those employees, is being removed from them.
Employers have a legal obligation to negotiate in good faith with unions which are the exclusive representatives of an entire bargaining unit. They have no such obligation to members-only unions. This is what the "right to collectively bargain" refers to in the context of US labor law. If you don't like the terminology, you can try to take it up with the NLRB, but it doesn't change the facts on the ground.
> If you don't like the terminology, you can try to take it up with the NLRB
Well, I am talking to you here though right? And there is context here, to this subthread that you are ignoring/missing.
If you want to say "Non union members cannot force 3rd parties to work with them, if they don't want to" Then yes I agree.
But the context of this subthread was about the idea of who is or is not forcing people to do things.
So, to get back to the point of all of this, I was initially responding to someone else who tried to claim "That's not exactly liberty".
But it is liberty. Liberty is the idea of consenting parties, not being forced to do things. So yes it is liberty to say that people can join non-members unions, but that those non-members unions cannot force other people to do certain things.
Do you understand the point and context of this all? It was about whether that is "liberty" or not, which just means who is or is not forcing others to be in the group, or forcing people to work with your group.
Except when all the jobs in your industry are union jobs.
Unless you're suggesting someone in this position should have to retrain for a different industry. Which, sure, ok, I guess, but the cost to do so might be quite high to the point of being life-ruining.
Those workers are also free to use right to work laws, to make it so they are allowed to get jobs at whatever company wants to hire them while also not joining the union.
And then workers who prefer the union, can join members only unions that are not forced to represent people not in them.
I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with the topic at hand but statistics show the far majority of minimim wage workers, for many of whom it is not just a short phase, will disagree with you on this.
I don't think people ask for social support from goverment as "emotional" support or "expression of deep love" - the way you seem to interpret it. It is way more about practical down to earth "do I get health care or not" thing. It is also about what kind of environment is build - both social and physical.
Also, golden handcuff means enough money so that you don't want to leave. I don't think such high govermental support exists all that often.
I recently moved from a conservative state to a liberal one. The government at the former was far more controlling then my new home. I’ve never understood this argument. Conservatives are just as invested in intervening in our lives. See recent legislation limiting medical access, voting rights, environmental protections in the Southeastern US.
In my new home. I have better access to medical care, the outdoors are better funded, voting is simple and easy.
Both parties want control over the populace. The idea one party is advocating for more “liberty” is a reductive way of viewing politics
In a idealogical vacuum, totally fair. But in a (spiritually) capitalist economy, the federated nature of government is an effective instrument when applied properly. It’s not either the left or right’s fault that government is dysfunctional, it’s that greed is the root of all evil and subversion necessitates complex regulation over time.. it’s a double edged sword. Hands off and risk irreversible damage to millions, hands on and risk irreversible damage to millions. I do not envy the job of governing (justly).
I also want government out of my life as much as possible.
I don't want them controlling what I do with my body or who I love, or how I present myself.
Who should I vote for?
Is bailing out banks and huge corporations a left wing or a right wing thing to do? Clearly the second, judging from reality. Your second paragraph is a ridiculous tale of the right that has gotten to the minds of many. "Liberty together with the risk" only concerns non rich people. Look at all those entities getting saved when in a pinch by sweet government money, and tell me if they have liberty or not. Is there a reason EVERYONE cannot be bailed out the same way? US government just threw 3 billion and counting in a heartbeat at Ukraine but somehow a safety net for its own citizens is non feasible?
I'm not completely sure what you mean, the 2016 votes leaned approximately democrat for <75k and and republican >75k like every other election in recent US history, although admittedly by a lower margin than the previous years. In 2020 it seems to have returned to a larger gap again.
The idea of the republican working class party has always been more of a clever rhetorical strategy than a reality.
I find this a funny criticism considered when Trump won a big swath of non-college graduates (presumably blue collar workers) he was ridiculed for having the “dumb” vote.
You introduced "dumb" as a euphemism for poorly educated. You did that in this discussion. The poster than quotes directly Trump saying he loves the poorly educated, and then you presumably feign being upset at the use of the word "dumb" that you introduced.
I didn't introduce "dumb". That's why I put in quotes, I was quoting what others had said.
And regardless, clearly Bilal_io was accusing Trump of something negative or why else share that clip? He literally sad "Trump was ridiculed" and shared that clip. So he agrees Trump was ridiculed for loving the "uneducated vote", which was entirely my point.
You either missed that or are intentionally trying to gaslight me.
Then please share the quote from a legit source (and not joe schmo on the internet).
And again, it's not clear if you know what you wrote. Bila_io didn't accuse Trump of something negative. You again said:
> Trump won a big swath of non-college graduates (presumably blue collar workers) he was ridiculed for having the “dumb” vote.
You specifically introduced Trump being ridiculed. Do you again not see that you introduced this concept to the discussion and yet are accusing the other person of doing it? You both wrote "dumb" and the concept of "ridicule" and are assigning responsibility to both of those to the person who responded to you. You introduced both of those in the context of Trump.
Google it, plenty of articles with headlines like this “Now there's proof: Trump's voters lack "cognitive sophistication," often believe Bible is literal word of God”
Or maybe "Trump Won Because Voters Are Ignorant, Literally" which includes "Donald Trump always enjoyed massive support from uneducated, low-information white people."
Happy to provide another dozen similar articles if you’d like.
I introduced nothing. I quoted articles (like the above). Sure you can be pedantic and nitpick over “cognitive sophistication” or "low-information" or "ignorant", but you know exactly what they meant - "dumb".
And what did Bila_io say? "No, he was ridiculed for [loving] the dumb vote, because he said so." I would read that as agreement that he was ridiculed for loving the "dumb" vote, the only argument being made was that Trump agreed they were "dumb" (which the clip doesn't support in the least).
And if Bila_io wasn’t accusing Trump of something negative, what was the point of the reply? Just sharing a random clip for fun?
It's a scheme for the wealthy who the party exclusively serves to win elections by pandering with negative messaging designed to appeal to the disaffected. They can't win seats as the party of big business and special interests.
The idea of the republican working class party has always been more of a clever rhetorical strategy than a reality.
(perhaps, on a more speculative note, also a reflection of the seemingly general conservative pattern of wanting to see oneself as "normal", to the point of sometimes fabricating "silent majorities" and such, even when there is overwhelming counter evidence)