How Do Conservashits rationalize voting against their own economic interests?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-15/trump-orders-government-to-stop-work-on-y2k-bug-17-years-later
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>I have the moral highground because I endorse voting for a living

kys

I pay 15k in taxes every year. I'm not even close to rich. In fact I'm in debt up to my asshole and I could really, really use that extra $15k. Fuck taxes and fuck commie scumbags.

>Why don't white people vote for gibs like our pet nonwhites?!?!?

>voting for trump isn't in the poor's economic interest

Literally what

/thread

rural retards

sage
and
report

The republican states are just getting the taxes from the republicans in the blue states. As a "conservative" in a heavy blue state I am glad to see some of my 45k in taxes go to someone besides the useless crap in my state. They would just waste in on another fucking program that will be gamed and abused.

Flat tax when?

>only billionaires get tax cuts
wew. liberals sure are peabrained mentally ill subhumans amirite?

One party wants poor people, one party doesn't. Who would you choose, you don't want to be poor, right?

It's almost like some people care about what's right instead of what's only beneficial to them.

sage

Conservatives tend to want tax cuts for EVERYONE, that includes billionaires.

Olympic levels of mental gymnastics here.

>voting against their own economic interests

I know this thread isn't worth a reply but I just love this statement so much; it perfectly encapsulates liberal thought.

>own interests
Such an intoxicatingly arrogant statement dressed up all nice and helpful, it implies that either the speaker is some smug omniscient savant that knows exactly your interests or that you are too dumb to understand it yourself
>economic interests
It completely disregards that people may have senses of altruism and may attempt to be economically disadvantaged at the cost of having a stronger country; its as if that idea is completely null and never existed. In a sense it admits that liberals only believe in socialist transfer of money in that they themselves benefit economically; none of those veils of bullshit about helping out the little guy, its all "my own economic interests."

The whole statement is wrapped up to sound like the speaker is confused and at some level pitiful and helpful to their opposition, as if they are some temporarily confused socialist and not republican. It comes of as smarmy and could be considered a form of gaslighting in some situations. All in all, I think this statement perfectly defines liberals.

>Why don't people give money to a completely inefficient government to be inefficiently put into programs that benefit people that don't work, are illegal, and abuse the system in every way they can.

bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-15/trump-orders-government-to-stop-work-on-y2k-bug-17-years-later

>Why don't I want to be more like a leftshit retard where everything is the fault of people more successful than they are.

Reminder not to reply to him, he does this every day and mods apparently don't care enough to permab& rampant shitposters. Just hide these threads and move along, nothing said here is worth your time.

...

There's no incentive to make more money if you're going to have to give it away. Why do you think raising taxes on the rich would result in more money in MY pocket?

Your tax data is literally 12 years old.

What's "right" about a billionaire paying 15% vs 30% of their income in taxes?

They don't understand, hence the term "useful idiots"

Farm subsidies and niggers