They chose fascism over egg prices. Too bad.
replies(1):
>"I don't care that working people find things expensive"
Literally no one is saying that.
1) The president doesn't have a magic dial to bring down prices, and
2) Trump loves tariffs which have inflationary effects no matter how you spin it
So all the complaints about high prices was just for show since they don't actually care.
EDIT: 3) Inflation was a global phenomenon and the U.S. was actually outperforming most countries in bringing the rate of inflation down.
Notwithstanding that Biden was punished for inflationary spending, all Trump had to do was lean on the perception that people "had it better" in his term. You don't need to lower prices if your wages go up, and notwithstanding that this lags, the perception has been that wages have not kept up. Obviously the intuition was that electing Trump would lead to better outcomes, not some nefarious hidden motivation behind every voter.
> So all the complaints about high prices was just for show since they don't actually care.
That is not what it shows. All it telegraphs is that expectations are distorted. The polls were clear that inflation was the #1 motivating factor.
Black, hispanic, and Asian voters all shifted right. Harris did ok with whites. Is that because those voters do not care about prices? Is that because you think those people of color are stupid? Be serious.
It wasn't obvious to the voters. And at the risk of repeating myself, calling people stupid is not effective.
> it's hard to see how you interpreted it that way.
Try in good faith.
> Literally no one is saying that.
"but egg prices!!!". They might as well be.
It would be very uncharitable to extrapolate that to "the people joking about eggs don't care about working-class people". The people joking about it largely are affected by grocery store prices. That is, of course, not the point. The "culture war" has a lot of stupid things about it, but also real, unavoidable things that would be unrealistic to expect even level-headed people to ignore.
Edit: Perhaps a more straightforward example: I am personally affected by grocery prices. Some of my closest friends and family are impacted severely by grocery prices. If a wealthy person says to me, "egg prices don't matter", I'm going to say, "Fuck off, they matter." If another person says to me, "Vote for <insert the scariest politician you can think of>, he says he'll lower egg prices," I'm going to say, "because of the egg prices? are you crazy?", even though I think egg prices matter. Relativity matters to actual humans. Some percentage of people in poverty who are desperate enough will feel forced to take that trade-off, especially if they haven't seen the hatefulness (or if they share it, but that's moot), but that doesn't mean the people making jokes about the egg price promise don't care about those people. That's not how humans work.
No one is saying these people can't complain about high prices, but that we can't lie to ourselves about the solution. It was obvious to many that Trump would not fix this on day one and possibly make it worse. Now we're seeing the start of a potential trade war.
0: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/americans-wages-are...
I put it to you that the conservative opposition and bigots are very uncharitable at the outset, in interpretation of messaging from the other side. In this case they didn't have to do any work, it was literally said for them.
Don't forget that working people and moderates are the ones you need to convince. If people didn't change their votes, election outcomes would always be the same. Educated people tend to be more committed to a worldview (and overconfident), whether left or right. They are listening when you mock egg prices.
Most of it had no bearing on my point in the first place, but your claim that voters "didn't actually care" was refuted and you haven't offered a credible reason to believe it.
> It was obvious to many
Not to Trump's voters.
This is only true if the composition of the electorate never changes, which of course it does: people become, and stop being, eligible voters all timhe time, and those that remain eligible change constituencies. Even if each individual’s voting behavior was constant, election results would change all the time.
I disagree. The egg criticism, while sarcastic (something almost universally bad) is not unclear. It obviously does not imply people should never care about grocery store prices. Effectively nobody makes that argument - obviously.
And just as obviously, political opponents of the people making these jokes will characterize them that way, as always (something both sides do all the time). So, you may certainly make the argument that people shouldn't be making these jokes for politically strategic reason, to avoid that comparison. But to suggest that the comparison is rational and honest isn't convincing to me.
This is a very common line of disconnect in tribalism. Another high profile example was people saying that the phrase "BLM" meant that other lives don't matter. When a tribe has a catch-phrasified position, the opposing tribe is motivated to convince those in their tribe of a bad-faith interpretation. The degree to which the bad-faith interpretation is genuinely, mistakenly believed, vs a knowing uncharitable interpretation, is certainly arguable. But it's not convincing to argue that the bad-faith interpretation is broadly true.
Finding out an adult is preoccupied about egg prices means finding out they’re extremely susceptible to propaganda, and not very close to household finances.
Again, not at all. It's said when instead of actually working to help the average American this administration is starting trade wars with our allies and taking time out of their day to remove gender identity language from all federal websites. Try in good faith is some advice you might try to follow your self.
Nobody is disagreeing with this and I can see only a single [flagged] [dead] comment which actually does this.
You might think that this isn't a very satisfying answer for those who aren't already onboard.
I'm not saying that this is a steel-man rational argument for Republicans, but I think it is a popular narrative to quell cognitive dissonance within their ranks (applied to other issues as well).
The pain is easier to endure if you truly believe that the pain is for your own benefit.
That's literally the opposite of your original claim.
> We went from Biden to Trump: do you want to explain that with electoral composition?
If I wanted to do that, I probably would have actually claimed that particular change could be explained that way.
> Nobody is disagreeing with this
Perhaps, but they obtusely cling on to the idea that there's no possible way that snark couldn't be well interpreted.