Straight Dope Message Board

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by XT

I don't know. THEY seem to think they are. Obviously you disagree, but the problem is your view on what is or isn't good for them is from your perspective. And at least one of them probably IS good for the country as a whole, if he just wasn't so stupid in how he's doing it.

By analogy: I might think that a Ketogenic diet is good for me because I've lost a ton of weight and I do love my protein. My cardiologist has an entirely different opinion when he tests my cholesterol levels and does a calcium scan image of my heart. One of us has a more informed opinion on my state of health. (That's a hypothetical. Please don't worry. I'm in perfect health and eat a balanced diet.)

Originally Posted by XT

Problem is, 'poor whites' don't necessarily believe they can get those things, or that progressives actually want to give THEM those things...or that they even can GIVE those things to them or anyone else. Hell, I'm not convinced that those things are progressives to give to anyone either, and I'm much more sympathetic to at least a liberal point of view than most of the folks under discussion. There is also the fact that many progressives look down on 'poor white' people, or at least'poor white' folks THINK they do...which gets back to the first part I responded to here, which has to do with perception.

They are objectively wrong. Universal Healthcare covers everyone, regardless of your social status or party affiliation. It's in the name.

I'm not looking for an argument on the two points above. I'm trying to understand why Trump voters hold the "Don't care" attitude and deny certain facts out of pure spite. Let me put it another way... I don't oppose child separation because I want to deny folks opposed to immigration the opportunity to prevent illegal immigration. I oppose it because it is a cruel policy.

I suspect you see my point. I'm trying to understand why Trump supporters can't/won't. Unless it's simply that they "don't care". Rinse, repeat, as manson1972 suggests. 51

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by manson1972

That's not what I said. I've said nothing about what the President does.

And I find it highly unlikely that you are personally affected by anything the President simply says via some form of media.

You really are working hard to split hairs and I'm not sure I have the patience for it. I'm sorry if that sounds curt or blunt. 52

[manson1972]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

You really are working hard to split hairs and I'm not sure I have the patience for it. I'm sorry if that sounds curt or blunt.

Sorry, I know you are asking in good faith. I just wanted to make it clear I was only speaking about "verbal statements" from the President. I do actually care about what he DOES. Of course, I'm not a Trump supporter, so there's that. 53

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

If they don't give a shit about climate change, why take an opposing position at all? I don't understand this mindset.

If you don't give a shit about climate change and I say we should pass a law that makes everything more expensive and disrupts our economy, then do you support or oppose my efforts?

But are those things really good for them?

A good argument can be made that the value of manual labor in America has suffered because anything that can be outsourced has been outsourced and that anything that cannot be outsourced has been filled by cheap illegal immigrant labor.
Is affirmative action really good for poor white liberal males?

Progressives want to give poor whites healthcare, affordable education, career training for th 21st century. But all they want is conservative judges?

Conservatives want conservative judges.

Poor whites want other stuff. Mostly they want someone on their side.

It may not be a fair assessment but progressives seem much more interested in social justice than white people. More interested in the struggles of gay, minorities, etc.

They want to be protected from labor competition by foreigners. Regardless of whether that comes in the form of outsourcing or illegal immigrant labor.

And health care is popular among poor whites. So is the idea of free tuition. They love free stuff as much as the next guy. The namecalling and acucusations of racism, etc. they can do without. 54

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Velocity

Another related factor, I think, is that many young Americans are being taught these days what is right and wrong (racism is wrong, bigotry is wrong, sexism is wrong, etc. etc.), but they aren't being taught how to effectively communicate, or make a persuasive case for their side.

So when they are confronted by real-life examples of racism or sexism, they have little resort but to scream, "RACIST! SEXIST!" etc., which, while perhaps technically accurate, isn't a persuasive form of communication, nor does it win votes.

We have taught them that screaming "racist" and "sexist" is effective. It is frequently used as a cudgel against people who disagree with them and this happen frequently enough that the words have lost much of their meaning. And it's not a new phenomenon. This has been going on for generations, it's just become somewhat ridiculous lately.

Political correctness is fascism disguised as manners - George Carlin 55

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by Mdcastle

Give us a chance to work had and be able to support a family working in the mines, the steel mills, the auto plants (with healthcare with shorter wait times than what the government would provide) rather than degrading and humiliating us by offering us government handouts. Stop throwing open the prison doors to release criminals to prey on us, then try to take our guns so we can't defend ourselves against those criminals. Slow down immigration until every American that needs a job has one. Pay attention to our pain instead of deciding the name of a lake or a sports team is politically incorrect and is a hot priority to change or that we should be held accountable for something our ancestors that have been dead for generations did.

Okay. Good. Now we're talking.

I would love, LOVE, to assure you that the way of life you're parents have known will remain unchanged for you and your children. Hell, I'd love to be assured of that myself and for my own children. Reality demands otherwise. I've experienced upheaval in my own career path and have had to adapt and adjust my own expectations. There were times when I wasn't sure I'd be able to recover from the setbacks. I'm sorry. I wish there was a better answer, for all of us.

Universal healthcare and affordable education is not a handout. It should be a basic human right in a country as wealthy as ours. There are democracies around the world that achieve this goal and their citizens thrive without feeling like beggars. Because they actually pay for these shared benefits through taxes.

If you can view that gun ownership is a human right, why is it so difficult to imagine that healthcare, education, clean water and air are also a human right?

With respect to criminal law, were you opposed to the First Steps law, signed by Trump? Or do you primarily see this as the fault of liberals?

I'm for sensible reform of immigration laws. I'd like to see large corporations punished for encouraging illegal immigration by hiring cheap illegal laborers. Is there common ground for agreement here for us?

I'd like to understand more about the pain you feel which is caused by the suggestion to rename a sports team. Would the enjoyment of the game be less if it was the Washington RedBeards? I'm curious because I follow a sport where team names change from year to year and I still love watching my favorite athletes compete on the world stage despite the team name changes.

Do we have common ground? 56

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by manson1972

Sorry, I know you are asking in good faith. I just wanted to make it clear I was only speaking about "verbal statements" from the President. I do actually care about what he DOES. Of course, I'm not a Trump supporter, so there's that.

Understood. No offense taken. 57

[Urbanredneck]

I think your confused with a person being a "Trump supporter" and a person who voted for him because quite frankly, Hillary sucked even worse.

I mean I didnt like Bush either but I detested Al Gore and John Kerry equal or more.

So maybe we should turn this around and you try to explain how Hillary was so darn awesome, why the DNC leadership told us to shut up and vote Hillary and we get no other damn choice, and the current crop of dems offers anything better for 2020?

Quite frankly the democrats deserved to lose in 2016 because they offered just ONE candidate (remember Sanders wrote himself in) and one who hardly even campaigned and when she did she did a lousy job.

PS. I actually did like Sanders and would have voted for him but the DNC said hell no. 58

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

If you don't give a shit about climate change and I say we should pass a law that makes everything more expensive and disrupts our economy, then do you support or oppose my efforts?

There is no evidence that supporting alternative fuels disrupts the economy. Is a quickly growing new industry that offers jobs with a long future. So I don't accept this premise and neither should you or those who support Trump.

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

A good argument can be made that the value of manual labor in America has suffered because anything that can be outsourced has been outsourced and that anything that cannot be outsourced has been filled by cheap illegal immigrant labor.
Is affirmative action really good for poor white liberal males?

"Affirmative Action" in this context is a non-sequitor and possibly a dog whistle. So I reject it thus.

As to outsourced jobs, I'm afraid this is a result of the global economy. Republicans are every bit to blame for it as well as Democrats. Yet, somehow they have not lost support. Please explain that dissonance to me.

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Conservatives want conservative judges.

Poor whites want other stuff. Mostly they want someone on their side.

It may not be a fair assessment but progressives seem much more interested in social justice than white people. More interested in the struggles of gay, minorities, etc.

I'm "white people" and I'm progressive and I support social justice and human rights. I'm reasonably sure there are others like me. You must mean some specific subset of "white people" that have other interests.

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

And health care is popular among poor whites. So is the idea of free tuition. They love free stuff as much as the next guy. The namecalling and acucusations of racism, etc. they can do without.

MDcastle stated that he/she doesn't want handouts. 59

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck

I think your confused with a person being a "Trump supporter" and a person who voted for him because quite frankly, Hillary sucked even worse.

I mean I didnt like Bush either but I detested Al Gore and John Kerry equal or more.

So maybe we should turn this around and you try to explain how Hillary was so darn awesome, why the DNC leadership told us to shut up and vote Hillary and we get no other damn choice, and the current crop of dems offers anything better for 2020?

Quite frankly the democrats deserved to lose in 2016 because they offered just ONE candidate (remember Sanders wrote himself in) and one who hardly even campaigned and when she did she did a lousy job.

PS. I actually did like Sanders and would have voted for him but the DNC said hell no.

With all due respect, please don't derail this conversation. Feel free to start your own thread.

ETA: But feel free to stay and explain why the derailment with the introduction of HRC or Obama is such an easy go to for Trump voters. 60

[Sage Rat]

Originally Posted by Scumpup

I'm not sure what question you thought this reply was answering. Let's try again.

You said

How is "telling them" things like that working out as a strategy to get rid of the present POTUS? Remember, we are not talking about me (though I am fascinating) or you. We are talking about saying things like you just said to real people as a political strategy.

Think of it like this:

There are two brothers, John and Bill. Their dad is dead. Recently, Mom has been getting sick. Real sick. John thinks she has cancer.

Bill, on the other hand, refuses to accept that. Anytime you even mention that his mom's not looking too good he'll cut you off before you can even imply that there might be something seriously wrong and he'll start preaching Jesus to you and telling you how God is caring for us all and he puts people through trials every once in a while but they get through it, cause they have a connection to the Spirit.

Now, let's say that John is non-confrontational. He tries to talk to Bill but, as said, he just gets a bunch of nonsense from him. And, sure, he can just decide that it's more important that Bill is able to live in his little fantasy and deny what's happening all the way until Mom's in the ground. And if he does that then, well, that's what's going to happen.

Alternately, John can say, "Hey look, you see this trail of blood across the bathroom floor? You know where that came from? Mom's asshole. See those smears over there? That's where she collapsed in her blood, after crapping.

"God's testing her? Fuck that, you delusional ass. Your fucking mother is dying and you need to get your shit together and face reality. Now, shut the fuck up and call 911."

Ultimately, there are times and places to be nice, to be non-confrontatiinal, and allow people to live in their little fantasy worlds.

But there are times where you have to slap some sense into them. It's not pleasant, but it's just what you have to do. 61

[XT]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

By analogy: I might think that a Ketogenic diet is good for me because I've lost a ton of weight and I do love my protein. My cardiologist has an entirely different opinion when he tests my cholesterol levels and does a calcium scan image of my heart. One of us has a more informed opinion on my state of health. (That's a hypothetical. Please don't worry. I'm in perfect health and eat a balanced diet.)





They are objectively wrong. Universal Healthcare covers everyone, regardless of your social status or party affiliation. It's in the name.

I'm not looking for an argument on the two points above. I'm trying to understand why Trump voters hold the "Don't care" attitude and deny certain facts out of pure spite. Let me put it another way... I don't oppose child separation because I want to deny folks opposed to immigration the opportunity to prevent illegal immigration. I oppose it because it is a cruel policy.

I suspect you see my point. I'm trying to understand why Trump supporters can't/won't. Unless it's simply that they "don't care". Rinse, repeat, as manson1972 suggests.

Well, it's bundled together in a basic miscommunication that I suspect is at the disconnect concerning the OP. You see your positions as objectively correct, and the opposing position as objectively incorrect, so you see the other sides argument as being disingenuous. You see your position as you arguing that gravity exists with someone who knows things fall down but insist that there is no gravity. So, in your mind, there isn't any common ground because you are of course correct and they are lying/deceitful/or cluelessly ignorant. Your example of immigration policy really illustrates this, if your other two examples didn't.

So, yes...I do see your point, or the point you think you are making. I just see it differently. At any rate, I'm not manson1972...I gave my own perspective on what 'don't care' actually means in real world terms, and why people are prickly about some things but not others. It's about Gores and oxes and partisan tribal bullshit as well as just simply what people are concerned with...or aren't concerned with and are willing to let slide. This goes for everyone...everyone is going to dig in their heels on some things, but let others slide, especially depending on whether their side is doing it or the other is. It really is a universal 'both sides do it' kind of thing. Not only do both of your ridiculous sides (plus all of your sub-sides ) do it, but I do it too. 62

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by XT

Well, it's bundled together in a basic miscommunication that I suspect is at the disconnect concerning the OP. You see your positions as objectively correct, and the opposing position as objectively incorrect, so you see the other sides argument as being disingenuous. You see your position as you arguing that gravity exists with someone who knows things fall down but insist that there is no gravity. So, in your mind, there isn't any common ground because you are of course correct and they are lying/deceitful/or cluelessly ignorant. Your example of immigration policy really illustrates this, if your other two examples didn't.

So, yes...I do see your point, or the point you think you are making. I just see it differently. At any rate, I'm not manson1972...I gave my own perspective on what 'don't care' actually means in real world terms, and why people are prickly about some things but not others. It's about Gores and oxes and partisan tribal bullshit as well as just simply what people are concerned with...or aren't concerned with and are willing to let slide. This goes for everyone...everyone is going to dig in their heels on some things, but let others slide, especially depending on whether their side is doing it or the other is. It really is a universal 'both sides do it' kind of thing. Not only do both of your ridiculous sides (plus all of your sub-sides ) do it, but I do it too.

I appreciate your insight. Do you see my OP and associated arguments as having misinterpreted or mis-stated the opposing view positions on matters of fact, i.e. gravity, etc.?

No need to remind me that opposing sides view things through a different lens. I don't deny that there may be multiple ways to resolve a challenging problem. But we must first correctly define the problem. i.e. Common ground. My hypothetical cardiologist and I can't both be right about the state of my health as a result of my Keto-diet. 63

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Mdcastle

Give us a chance to work had and be able to support a family working in the mines, the steel mills, the auto plants (with healthcare with shorter wait times than what the government would provide) rather than degrading and humiliating us by offering us government handouts.

??? It's hardly the left's fault that capitalism is gonna capitalize in a typically soul-crushingly capitalist way. I think you'll find ardent anti-capitalists aren't in Mr. Trump's party .

As it stands, capital only gives you the choice to either work as hard as a Chinese sweatshop slave on a bowl of rice a day (which is basically impossible as your living costs & industry safety costs are much higher) ; or find a new job. There's no third choice, and anybody telling you different is a huckster on some kind of grift.

At least the left cares enough about the situation you're in to try and give you a hand. Not a handout, a hand - you're supposed to use that help to keep on living while you figure your shit out, get into some training, get some degree, make movies, whatevs. The stereotypical image of rural US culture is one of tight knit communities where people help each other all the time, give each other lifts and so on because it's hard out there for everybody etc... ; why does it become shameful when it's the government trying to help ?
And when has the right *ever* helped you ? Did Dubya make the coal mines come back ? His Daddy ? Reagan ? And Trump isn't either - his biggest coal baron supporter declared bankruptcy recently. Coal's not coming back, period.
Nor should it really, because it's global warmy as fuck, but that's a different story.

Stop throwing open the prison doors to release criminals to prey on us

The US prison population per capita is the highest in the world (except for maybe China, can't really know since they cook their books). If throwing more people into more jails for longer worked, you'd know it by now. Prison isn't the solution to crime, addressing the structural problems that lead people to crime is. Throwing someone in jail is an admission of failure.

Slow down immigration until every American that needs a job has one.

Again, how is the whole "immigrants taking our jobzzz" thing on the left ? The people who hire undocumented immigrants to quietly work for shit pay in shit conditions typically aren't Bernie bros... And it's not like immigrants have it any easier, or less painful, than you guys. 64

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Mdcastle

Yup. The "Racist bitter basket of deplorables that cling to guns an religion" got tired of being at best completely ignored and at worst called nasty names spoke at the last election.

And is it your opinion or experience in your daily life that you're less likely to be called a racist when you wear a MAGA hat ?
This is one Trumpist argument I seriously don't get. "We're tired of liberals calling us a bunch of racist hicks so we elected the most incoherent, uneducated racist of the whole bunch, that'll learn 'em !" 65

[XT]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

I appreciate your insight. Do you see my OP and associated arguments as having misinterpreted or mis-stated the opposing view positions on matters of fact, i.e. gravity, etc.?

No need to remind me that opposing sides view things through a different lens. I don't deny that there may be multiple ways to resolve a challenging problem. But we must first correctly define the problem. i.e. Common ground. My hypothetical cardiologist and I can't both be right about the state of my health as a result of my Keto-diet.

Facts are facts. I have no problem busting someone over the head with facts. The issue is when you move from things that are factually incontrovertible (gravity is real) to something that is more about policy or opinion based, yet thinking that your policy opinion IS basically factual and the only way to look at it, therefore the other side is just disingenuous, lying or stupidly clueless. The common ground would be starting with what is, in fact, incontrovertible fact and then discussing various ways to address that, or even if it needs to or can realistically BE addressed. Your comment about the no-brainer nature of 'universal healthcare' being universal simply because it's in the name, therefore anyone who doesn't see it that way is just wrong, for instance.

There are levels here. For one thing, I think that the fact that Trump lies IS an incontrovertible fact, so anyone denying that is wrong (depending of course on which lies we are talking about at any given time). Saying 'I don't care' about some lies he's told is a different matter, because, again, it's going to depend on who's ox is being gored as well as just partisan tribalism. For some things, I can see why people who know he is lying don't care, because the result is what they want...this is, essentially, how our political system works. We KNOW that politicians lie, or at least distort the truth, yet if the means justifies the ends (and if it's our side doing it, for the greater good of course) we are ok with that usually.

For my part, there are things Trump does that doesn't rise to the same level of outrage as others, or, basically, that I don't care about. His acting like a mafia boss wrt the Ukraine is, to me, less of an issue than his betrayal, for absolutely stupid and clueless reasons, of the Kurds in Syria and the damage (the FURTHER damage) he's done to US foreign policy, is MUCH more a reason why he should be impeached and gotten out of there. I know it is not an actual, actionable reason, while his acting like a mob boss might be (I hope IS), but my outrage meter is a lot higher on his idiotic actions in Syria than his trying to leverage someone in the Ukraine. I realize that MMV on that, as on many things, however. 66

[Tamerlane]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

I appreciate your insight. Do you see my OP and associated arguments as having misinterpreted or mis-stated the opposing view positions on matters of fact, i.e. gravity, etc.?

Just sitting here in the cheap seats I see you trying to argue what are ultimately more emotive points and feelings with logic. Arguing in a way that I suspect many Trump voters would feel is both patronizing and paternalistic.

Many if not most voters don't carefully reason their way into a political stance. They filter it through their tribal affiliations and feelings and back engineer arguments to arrive at the result they wanted in the first place. Lecturing them as to why they are wrong comes off as snide and condescending. It really doesn't matter if you think you have the more rational argument. People aren't going to listen.

As has been said many times, political junkies arguing on the SDMB, 538 or similar boards/discussion groups/comment sections full of engaged intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals is not the real world. By and large the electorate as a whole doesn't engage that way- it's why rah-rah stuff that personally makes me roll my eyes works so well. For most people facts are certainly useful, but you must engage on an empathic level first. If you can't empathize with an evangelical social conservative first, you will never change their mind no matter how many facts you have at your command about how much worse Trump is as a Christian human being . 67

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

These are generally either conservatives or poor whites. As long as you nominate conservative judges, conservatives will vote for you. Trump has been pandering mostly to poor whites. AFAICT poor whites don't see the racism at least not compared to the racism they have seen leveled against them in recent decades.

You can only dump on poor white people as a group for so long before they start to feel like maybe you don't care about them.

I meant to come back and explore this a little deeper.

Honest question: What type of racism have white Americans suffered from in recent decades?

Additionally: What is the implied need to maintain the purity and standing of the "white race" as an identity if not white supremacism?

In a time where a simple OTC genetic test will tell you everything you may not want to know about the "purity" of your race, it seems absurd to place so much importance on the tone of one's skin. 68

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by XT

Facts are facts. I have no problem busting someone over the head with facts. The issue is when you move from things that are factually incontrovertible (gravity is real) to something that is more about policy or opinion based, yet thinking that your policy opinion IS basically factual and the only way to look at it, therefore the other side is just disingenuous, lying or stupidly clueless. The common ground would be starting with what is, in fact, incontrovertible fact and then discussing various ways to address that, or even if it needs to or can realistically BE addressed. Your comment about the no-brainer nature of 'universal healthcare' being universal simply because it's in the name, therefore anyone who doesn't see it that way is just wrong, for instance.

I hope that I've come across as trying to do so in this thread to a handful of the Trump supporters that have responded.

Originally Posted by XT

There are levels here. For one thing, I think that the fact that Trump lies IS an incontrovertible fact, so anyone denying that is wrong (depending of course on which lies we are talking about at any given time). Saying 'I don't care' about some lies he's told is a different matter, because, again, it's going to depend on who's ox is being gored as well as just partisan tribalism. For some things, I can see why people who know he is lying don't care, because the result is what they want...this is, essentially, how our political system works. We KNOW that politicians lie, or at least distort the truth, yet if the means justifies the ends (and if it's our side doing it, for the greater good of course) we are ok with that usually.

I try to pace my outrage through the days as well. Some days I simply avoid it altogether.

Originally Posted by XT

For my part, there are things Trump does that doesn't rise to the same level of outrage as others, or, basically, that I don't care about. His acting like a mafia boss wrt the Ukraine is, to me, less of an issue than his betrayal, for absolutely stupid and clueless reasons, of the Kurds in Syria and the damage (the FURTHER damage) he's done to US foreign policy, is MUCH more a reason why he should be impeached and gotten out of there. I know it is not an actual, actionable reason, while his acting like a mob boss might be (I hope IS), but my outrage meter is a lot higher on his idiotic actions in Syria than his trying to leverage someone in the Ukraine. I realize that MMV on that, as on many things, however.

Despite Capone's long criminal resume including: gambling, prostitution, bootlegging, bribery, narcotics trafficking, robbery, “protection” rackets, and murder, he was convicted of tax evasion and sentenced to 11 years.

I'd love to see Trump jailed for being a lifelong asshole. But I'll settle for impeachment for bribery and extortion of a foreign government. 69

[Urbanredneck]

I support universal healthcare but I dont think it will work with our current immigration problems. Yes, I'm against companies that employ illegals but I'm also the policies of "sanctuary cities" where illegals immigration authorities cannot go after illegals even if they have committed crimes. All of those "sanctuary cities" are run by democrats.

BTW, I say "open borders" because thats basically what current 'immigration reforms" propose even though they are afraid to call it that. They basically say if someone is caught being here illegally, they will NOT be sent back. If the border patrol catches someone who just jumped the fence, they dont want them sent back but instead, processed and given a court date and sent on their way. And again, with democrat controlled "sanctuary cities" even those committing crimes wont be sent back. Basically "open borders". Also all someone has to do is show up at the border with a child and they get a free pass.

Our immigration SHOULD discourage people from coming here and jumping the border illegally. But democrats want to end that.

Now you say you want discussion. I welcome that. But dont call me KKK or racist crap because I'm against open borders.

We cannot have all these dream programs like universal healthcare with open borders. 70

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck

Yes, I'm against companies that employ illegals but I'm also the policies of "sanctuary cities" where illegals immigration authorities cannot go after illegals even if they have committed crimes.

I don't understand your objection here, and I suspect you might have an erroneous notion of what "sanctuary city" policies involve. There's nothing in sanctuary-city policies that says undocumented immigrants ("illegals") can't be charged with and punished for committing crimes. It's just that they don't allow immigration authorities to continue detaining an undocumented immigrant after they've served their sentence for the crime they've committed. 71

[Isamu]

Originally Posted by Velocity

Schadenfreude is deep, ingrained, natural human sentiment. If you hate/dislike Category X of people...

I don't even get to that stage. What category do you hate? 72

[manson1972]

Originally Posted by XT

and the damage (the FURTHER damage) he's done to US foreign policy

If you don't mind, could you explain what damage to US foreign policy you think he's done, and what demonstrative harm it has done to the US as a whole? 73

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

There is no evidence that supporting alternative fuels disrupts the economy. Is a quickly growing new industry that offers jobs with a long future. So I don't accept this premise and neither should you or those who support Trump.

How much will these alternative fuels cost per mile driven per kilowatt produced if consumed at scale? How the heck do you get it to scale?

Right now the world gets 80% of its energy from fossil fuels.

We would have to build several nuclear power plants every week starting today in order to get that down to 20% by the year 2050. We can ramp up solar power but in order to meet the energy demand for america, we would need a solar panel the size of connecticutt. How much would a connecticutt sized solar panel cost? More importantly, how much would the battery for that solar panel cost?

Doing any of this on a timeline that would make any sort of difference in global warming would disrupt our economy.

"Affirmative Action" in this context is a non-sequitor and possibly a dog whistle. So I reject it thus.

These are all ways that poor whites have lost jobs to others.

As to outsourced jobs, I'm afraid this is a result of the global economy. Republicans are every bit to blame for it as well as Democrats. Yet, somehow they have not lost support. Please explain that dissonance to me.

Pennsylvania and Wisconsin used to vote Democrat. Now with Trump, they are voting Republican. Sure the Republicans used to be just as free market as everyone else but that's not Trump.

I'm "white people" and I'm progressive and I support social justice and human rights. I'm reasonably sure there are others like me. You must mean some specific subset of "white people" that have other interests.

Yes I mean different white people. In case you didn't know, most Trump supporters are white.

MDcastle stated that he/she doesn't want handouts.

Sure she does. She just wants some dignity too. 74

[RioRico]

Originally Posted by manson1972

If you don't mind, could you explain what damage to US foreign policy you think he's done, and what demonstrative harm it has done to the US as a whole?

Any nation's leadership would be batshit insane to believe anything this POTUS says. Fuck allies and alliances; cozy-up up to genocidal dictators; demand bribes. Dubya managed to assemble a large coalition to attack Iraq. Who besides BoJo would lend Tramp any aid in a similar exercise now?

Kim laughs heartily. 75

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

I meant to come back and explore this a little deeper.

Honest question: What type of racism have white Americans suffered from in recent decades?

Affirmative action?

Additionally: What is the implied need to maintain the purity and standing of the "white race" as an identity if not white supremacism?

Who said anything about purity or even standing? They just want to live an american lifestyle with third world skillsets. And because they were born here, they are in a position to elect people that will try and get it for them.

In a time where a simple OTC genetic test will tell you everything you may not want to know about the "purity" of your race, it seems absurd to place so much importance on the tone of one's skin.

They're not the ones placing importance on race. 76

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck

I support universal healthcare but I dont think it will work with our current immigration problems. Yes, I'm against companies that employ illegals but I'm also the policies of "sanctuary cities" where illegals immigration authorities cannot go after illegals even if they have committed crimes. All of those "sanctuary cities" are run by democrats.

BTW, I say "open borders" because thats basically what current 'immigration reforms" propose even though they are afraid to call it that. They basically say if someone is caught being here illegally, they will NOT be sent back. If the border patrol catches someone who just jumped the fence, they dont want them sent back but instead, processed and given a court date and sent on their way. And again, with democrat controlled "sanctuary cities" even those committing crimes wont be sent back. Basically "open borders". Also all someone has to do is show up at the border with a child and they get a free pass.

Our immigration SHOULD discourage people from coming here and jumping the border illegally. But democrats want to end that.

Now you say you want discussion. I welcome that. But dont call me KKK or racist crap because I'm against open borders.

We cannot have all these dream programs like universal healthcare with open borders.

I'm against open borders as well. I'm for a comprehensive review and improvement of US immigration policies. I don't quite know what to make of that article you linked to but I don't want to debate point made by someone who blogs for a living. Especially since he's talking about a single candidate and not an official DNC immigration platform. It's my sense that the next Democratic administration will closely follow the immigration policies of the previous Democratic administration. Which, IMO, worked.

But I believe what you're getting at is the fact that Democrats talk about decriminalizing illegal border crossing. I think the misunderstanding and assumption lies in that it will be "legal" to cross the border illegally. It won't. It will remain a crime, though a civil one. People apprehended doing so will still be subject to deportation. That said, there is more to stemming the flow of illegal immigration than simply putting up a wall, separating children from parents and creating detention camps. But this is not a thread for solving that issue. It's just to see if we can agree that illegal immigration is seen as a problem by progressives as well and is to be taken seriously.

As to extending benefits to those already here -- it seems to me that they too pay taxes and so would not be getting benefits for free. Because they are already part of the economy, the smart thing to do would be to fully integrate them economically, as legal residents, and eventually citizens. It's the more sensible thing to do than to have them go into hiding and spending money and resources to find and deport them, losing both the tax revenue and the labor force which is clearly needed.

So, common ground? 77

[Kearsen1]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

What has worked? Be specific. In what way have the lives of Trump supporters markedly improved since he took office?

This seems to be another problem. Reading comprehension or common misunderstandings based upon our own need to 'defend'.

I made no mention of anything Trump has done that has bettered anything or anyone.
His campaign promises worked in order to get him elected. Plain and simple.

But the economy is doing well, record unemployment and its ALWAYS about the economy. Whether or not that is a Trump thing (it isn't) isn't even on the table. President's always get credit for a good economy and they take the fall in a bad one. 78

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

How much will these alternative fuels cost per mile driven per kilowatt produced if consumed at scale? How the heck do you get it to scale?

The same we we got fossil fuels to scale. Innovation and infrastructure.

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Right now the world gets 80% of its energy from fossil fuels.

We would have to build several nuclear power plants every week starting today in order to get that down to 20% by the year 2050. We can ramp up solar power but in order to meet the energy demand for america, we would need a solar panel the size of connecticutt. How much would a connecticutt sized solar panel cost? More importantly, how much would the battery for that solar panel cost?[/quote]

Thing is, we don't have to relocate everyone in Connecticut to do so. It's not even that sunny there. We could distribute it and put it on roofs and in various other locations less populated and much more sunny than Connecticut.

Doing any of this on a timeline that would make any sort of difference in global warming would disrupt our economy.[/quote]

This is not the thread for a deep dive on the economics of renewable energy. More qualified people can rebut and address your concerns elsewhere. But, wouldn't it be great if we got ahead of the world and developed new technologies to lead the world into a future that depends on renewable energy instead of fossil fuels? Seems to me, US economy would benefit greatly from that sort of initiative instead of focusing on what the rest of the world currently does.

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

These are all ways that poor whites have lost jobs to others.

I've watched people striking at the GM plant. Plenty of people of color are also at risk of losing their jobs due to a changing economy. Yet, you are only talking about whites losing their jobs and subsequently turning to Trump for help. Why is that?

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Pennsylvania and Wisconsin used to vote Democrat. Now with Trump, they are voting Republican. Sure the Republicans used to be just as free market as everyone else but that's not Trump.

Yet, Trump gets the vote. Why?

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Yes I mean different white people. In case you didn't know, most Trump supporters are white.

I'm well aware. Why do you think that is?

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Sure she does. She just wants some dignity too.

And I want to provide that to her and every person in America. The dignity of not having to worry about affordable healthcare. The dignity of not going into financial ruin over a health scare or chronic illness requiring expensive medication. The dignity of affordable education. The dignity of retraining, retooling and rebuilding a 21st century infrastructure. The dignity of drinking clean water, breathing clean air, caring for the environment which sustains our lives. 79

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by Kearsen1

This seems to be another problem. Reading comprehension or common misunderstandings based upon our own need to 'defend'.

Not, 'defend'; Understand.

Originally Posted by Kearsen1

I made no mention of anything Trump has done that has bettered anything or anyone.

Now who is being defensive?

Originally Posted by Kearsen1

His campaign promises worked in order to get him elected. Plain and simple.
But the economy is doing well, record unemployment and its ALWAYS about the economy. Whether or not that is a Trump thing (it isn't) isn't even on the table. President's always get credit for a good economy and they take the fall in a bad one.

It's ALWAYS about the economy when there is nothing else good to talk about. And this administration can't even manage to get that bit right. But that's a different issue. 80

[Urbanredneck]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

I don't understand your objection here, and I suspect you might have an erroneous notion of what "sanctuary city" policies involve. There's nothing in sanctuary-city policies that says undocumented immigrants ("illegals") can't be charged with and punished for committing crimes. It's just that they don't allow immigration authorities to continue detaining an undocumented immigrant after they've served their sentence for the crime they've committed.

Oh, please. Cant you get it? A sanctuary city means ICE and other groups cant deport someone even if they commit a crime. Why the heck should they NOT be sent to immigration authorities and deported after committing a crime?

THIS IS open borders. If ICE raids a plant and picks up some illegals, they arent sent back. They are given passes and allowed to stay here illegally. How is this NOT the same as an open border? 81

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by manson1972

If you don't mind, could you explain what damage to US foreign policy you think he's done, and what demonstrative harm it has done to the US as a whole?

He's demonstrated to the entire world, in many ways and repeatedly, that the US could no longer be trusted to keep its word. And that demonstration isn't limited to Donald J. Trump being president - everybody who studies America and its politics knows he's not a cause but the symptom of a deeper rift and political dysfunction. And since you guys have elected one lying, uneducated, dictator-loving fascist today ; there's a good chance you might do it again tomorrow. Or find a worse one, even.

To what extent being sidelined from the geopolitical stage materially harms the US or its people is up for debate I suppose ; but the sideline-ing is real. 82

[Urbanredneck]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

But I believe what you're getting at is the fact that Democrats talk about decriminalizing illegal border crossing. I think the misunderstanding and assumption lies in that it will be "legal" to cross the border illegally. It won't. It will remain a crime, though a civil one. People apprehended doing so will still be subject to deportation. That said, there is more to stemming the flow of illegal immigration than simply putting up a wall, separating children from parents and creating detention camps. But this is not a thread for solving that issue. It's just to see if we can agree that illegal immigration is seen as a problem by progressives as well and is to be taken seriously.


So, common ground?

"Subject to deportation"? How will they be deported?

What criteria is there for deportation? Heck with sanctuary cities even if they commit a crime, they wont let immigration know about them.

Most important, is there an incentive to make them NOT want to come here.

You want to stem the flow of people wanting in, find a way to discourage it.

The ideas floated by democrats DONT DO THAT. They tell them that as long as they get across, they wont be sent back. They at most will be given a court date which can take years and they dont even have to show up.

Again, what is in the plans put forth by democrats to discourage people from wanting to come here illegally? 83

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck

"Subject to deportation"? How will they be deported?

What criteria is there for deportation? Heck with sanctuary cities even if they commit a crime, they wont let immigration know about them.

Most important, is there an incentive to make them NOT want to come here.

You want to stem the flow of people wanting in, find a way to discourage it.

The ideas floated by democrats DONT DO THAT. They tell them that as long as they get across, they wont be sent back. They at most will be given a court date which can take years and they dont even have to show up.

Again, what is in the plans put forth by democrats to discourage people from wanting to come here illegally?

Short of Nazi-like tactics (i.e. torture and mass murder), there is no discouraging people from wanting to come here. Not when the choices most of these migrants face is a sky-high risk of being murdered, or starving, at home, vs trying to come to the US.

These are just human beings facing utterly desperate circumstances, for the most part. Desperate people will do desperate things. Luckily for us, the vast majority are hardworking people who would make wonderful neighbors and Americans, and thus there is no need to dissuade them. We can just be careful and try and vet the ones who do arrive and do get through, whether legally or otherwise. A good, welcoming, and ordered border. This is a huge country with lots and lots of room, and lots and lots of work to do. 84

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck

Again, what is in the plans put forth by democrats to discourage people from wanting to come here illegally?

Obama deported something like 40% more illegal immigrants in his first three years in office than Trump has. Your starting point for asking these questions indicates you're only hearing from right-wing media platforms more interested in attacking Democrats than spreading facts. 85

[Gatopescado]

Originally Posted by Hamlet

I think I remember the film.

It's all just 'He said/She said'. 86

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck

"Subject to deportation"? How will they be deported?

What criteria is there for deportation? Heck with sanctuary cities even if they commit a crime, they wont let immigration know about them.

Most important, is there an incentive to make them NOT want to come here.

You want to stem the flow of people wanting in, find a way to discourage it.

The ideas floated by democrats DONT DO THAT. They tell them that as long as they get across, they wont be sent back. They at most will be given a court date which can take years and they dont even have to show up.

Again, what is in the plans put forth by democrats to discourage people from wanting to come here illegally?

I understand wanting simple answers for complicated problems. I'd like to give you that sense of security and assurance that this can be easily solved if only Democrats would get on board with the deportation and detention and family separation and building great big walls.

I'm not sure it's possible to convince you of something you don't want to accept as reality, which is, people will continue to try to enter America by whatever means they have, some of them illegally. Unless you are willing and happy to live in a country behind an iron curtain (like North Korea and former USSR), you are going to have to accept the reality that some illegal entry is unavoidable. One way to address it is through diplomatic and foreign aid efforts in countries where people are fleeing dangerous circumstances. Another way is to grant a larger number of temporary work status visas. Yet another way to address it is to make it easier for qualified applicants to take immigrate.

I do agree with you on the one thing you brought up. If in the course of law enforcement, an individual who has broken the law, has been so charged and convicted, and is found to be an illegal resident, he or she should be identified and made available to ICE for further action, including deportation if that is deemed appropriate. I have no qualms about that. Common ground after all? 87

[Urbanredneck]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

Short of Nazi-like tactics (i.e. torture and mass murder), there is no discouraging people from wanting to come here. Not when the choices most of these migrants face is a sky-high risk of being murdered, or starving, at home, vs trying to come to the US.

These are just human beings facing utterly desperate circumstances, for the most part. Desperate people will do desperate things. Luckily for us, the vast majority are hardworking people who would make wonderful neighbors and Americans, and thus there is no need to dissuade them. We can just be careful and try and vet the ones who do arrive and do get through, whether legally or otherwise. A good, welcoming, and ordered border. This is a huge country with lots and lots of room, and lots and lots of work to do.

No, we are full. Look at all the problems with homelessness in our major cities. Look at our overcrowded roads and schools. Look at the stress on our environment.

Look, if you want 'common ground" on this so I would vote against Trump, you have to prove that the democrat policies will discourage people from trying to come here and will remove those here illegally.

Or else you will have to prove to me that open borders will not be a problem. 88

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck

No, we are full. Look at all the problems with homelessness in our major cities. Look at our overcrowded roads and schools. Look at the stress on our environment.

Look, if you want 'common ground" on this so I would vote against Trump, you have to prove that the democrat policies will discourage people from trying to come here and will remove those here illegally.

Or else you will have to prove to me that open borders will not be a problem.

These are not problems that can be solved with "America First" policies. You've been sold a bill of goods not worth the billing. These are Global problems. We are well past the point in time where we have the luxury to think only about what happens within our borders. It's time to accept the global reality of climate change and population growth and economies that stop at the nation's borders. 89

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

... and economies that stop at the nation's borders.

Read: ...and economies that don't stop at the nations borders. 90

[Urbanredneck]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

I understand wanting simple answers for complicated problems. I'd like to give you that sense of security and assurance that this can be easily solved if only Democrats would get on board with the deportation and detention and family separation and building great big walls.

I'm not sure it's possible to convince you of something you don't want to accept as reality, which is, people will continue to try to enter America by whatever means they have, some of them illegally. Unless you are willing and happy to live in a country behind an iron curtain (like North Korea and former USSR), you are going to have to accept the reality that some illegal entry is unavoidable. One way to address it is through diplomatic and foreign aid efforts in countries where people are fleeing dangerous circumstances. Another way is to grant a larger number of temporary work status visas. Yet another way to address it is to make it easier for qualified applicants to take immigrate.

I do agree with you on the one thing you brought up. If in the course of law enforcement, an individual who has broken the law, has been so charged and convicted, and is found to be an illegal resident, he or she should be identified and made available to ICE for further action, including deportation if that is deemed appropriate. I have no qualms about that. Common ground after all?

Well dont forget people got thru the Berlin wall and other parts of the iron curtain because we welcomed them with open arms. The USA continues to welcome legal immigrants.

We just cant take in everyone.

Democrats enable and promote illegal immigration by giving them welfare, giving them drivers licenses, allowing them to vote (SF - in local elections), give them free healthcare, and protecting them from immigration thru "sanctuary cities".

Actually its the new democrats who are pro open borders (especially Harris). Obama did a good job of trying to deport them.

I do agree we need to do all we can to help other countries so their people wont have need to immigrate. 91

[Urbanredneck]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

These are not problems that can be solved with "America First" policies. You've been sold a bill of goods not worth the billing. These are Global problems. We are well past the point in time where we have the luxury to think only about what happens within our borders. It's time to accept the global reality of climate change and population growth and economies that stop at the nation's borders.

Again, I have no problem with polices that help other countries. For example I'm against the US dumping corn and beans on other countries which hurt their local farmers. I'm ok with other countries enacting tariffs to protect their home markets.

I'm also against "America first". When we help places like Mexico it helps us.

But we have to secure our borders, persuade illegals to leave, and discourage others from coming here. 92

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck

No, we are full. Look at all the problems with homelessness in our major cities. Look at our overcrowded roads and schools. Look at the stress on our environment.

This is due to bad policies (restrictions on building housing, insistence on favoring cars rather than mass transit, etc.), not being "full". The idea that we are "full" is ludicrous. There are countries that are far more densely populated than we are with fewer homeless, better transportation, better environment, etc. 93

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck

Well dont forget people got thru the Berlin wall and other parts of the iron curtain because we welcomed them with open arms. The USA continues to welcome legal immigrants.

We just cant take in everyone.

I'm not someone who needs an education on the process of getting out from behind the iron curtain. But I do recall that Western Germany was wringing their hands in concern over the fall of the Berlin Wall and how it was going to deal with such a large influx of East Germans. Seems to have worked out alright so far.

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck

Democrats enable and promote illegal immigration by giving them welfare, giving them drivers licenses, allowing them to vote (SF - in local elections), give them free healthcare, and protecting them from immigration thru "sanctuary cities".

Actually its the new democrats who are pro open borders (especially Harris). Obama did a good job of trying to deport them.

I do agree we need to do all we can to help other countries so their people wont have need to immigrate.

I'm not sure you've fully examined the ramifications of denying healthcare, work, public education, driving permits, etc... to 11M illegal immigrants. You wring your hands about the homeless situation and crime. Do you really think it's a good idea to put an additional 11M people into a desperate situation? Do you have any idea of the kind of social impact that will result in trying to identify, arrest and deport 11M people? What do you imagine our society would look like with a LOE/ICE operation of that scale? 94

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

The same we we got fossil fuels to scale. Innovation and infrastructure.

How much? And how long would it take?

Thing is, we don't have to relocate everyone in Connecticut to do so. It's not even that sunny there. We could distribute it and put it on roofs and in various other locations less populated and much more sunny than Connecticut.

I wasn't suggesting we evict everyone from Connecticut, the panel in question would have to be located somewhere much sunnier like death valley. But I think you knew that. I was just pointing out the scale of the project.

Solar energy has not reached grid parity. The cheapest solar energy available is rooftop solar and the panels provide electricity at grid parity in some parts of the US if you include subsidies and only while the sun is shining.

If you don't want to rely on subsidies, we have a ways to go. If you want to include the price of energy storage (batteries), we are even further away.

What exactly do you propose we do about solar energy that we are not already doing? We have subsidies, we have solar panels on federal buildings, there is about as much research in this area as we can throw at it. What is it that we aren't doing with solar energy that you think we should be doing?

This is not the thread for a deep dive on the economics of renewable energy. More qualified people can rebut and address your concerns elsewhere. But, wouldn't it be great if we got ahead of the world and developed new technologies to lead the world into a future that depends on renewable energy instead of fossil fuels?

Depends on how much it costs. If we break our economy to rush things and end up with the betamax of solar energy, it would suck.

Seems to me, US economy would benefit greatly from that sort of initiative instead of focusing on what the rest of the world currently does.

You don't want to get into the nitty gritty numbers and details but you think that we should bet the economy on it because "it seems to you" that it would be a good idea?

I've watched people striking at the GM plant. Plenty of people of color are also at risk of losing their jobs due to a changing economy. Yet, you are only talking about whites losing their jobs and subsequently turning to Trump for help. Why is that?

There are certainly people of all races being displaced by by the changing economy. There are certainly working class minorities being displaced by the changing economy, just like there are rich white people being displaced by the changing economy. But the impact is disproportionately on working class white who don't have the benefit of affirmative action. GM by the way is currently a corporate leader in affirmative action policies.

Yet, Trump gets the vote. Why?

Did you miss the part about trade wars to combat outsourcing, immigration crack down to combat insourcing?

They feel like he's doing stuff to help them and they feel like Democrats aren't.

I'm well aware. Why do you think that is?

Like i said, there are three groups of Trump supporters.

White supremacists. These folks are mostly white.

Partisan Republicans. Once again, mostly white.

Principled conservatives. Yet again, mostly white.

Working class whites who feel like Trump is trying to help them out. Working class whites are also mostly.

And I want to provide that to her and every person in America. The dignity of not having to worry about affordable healthcare. The dignity of not going into financial ruin over a health scare or chronic illness requiring expensive medication. The dignity of affordable education. The dignity of retraining, retooling and rebuilding a 21st century infrastructure. The dignity of drinking clean water, breathing clean air, caring for the environment which sustains our lives.

I don't think she believes you. 95

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck

Again, I have no problem with polices that help other countries. For example I'm against the US dumping corn and beans on other countries which hurt their local farmers. I'm ok with other countries enacting tariffs to protect their home markets.

I'm also against "America first". When we help places like Mexico it helps us.

Good. Common ground.

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck

But we have to secure our borders, persuade illegals to leave, and discourage others from coming here.

Secure borders and improve the border entry process: agreed. I might even be convinced of some additional physical fortifications in places where that makes sense. Along with other more technologically advanced measures.

Deport criminals that are illegal residence: sure.

Persuade illegals to leave: I'd like to know how you plan on going about it short of taking some very brutal and cruel actions. I say give them a path to legal permanent residence and citizenship. They are here. They are part of the economy and society. Why deport them?

Discourage others from coming here: Well, if their home countries are made safer and more prosperous with American aid, I can think of no better approach. Detentions and family separations - not so much. 96

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck

Well dont forget people got thru the Berlin wall and other parts of the iron curtain because we welcomed them with open arms. The USA continues to welcome legal immigrants.

The law protects people seeking asylum from violence. Trump is trying to undo that law. So much for "welcoming legal immigrants." 97

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

How much? And how long would it take?

If you own a Tesla (I don't), not happening soon enough but mostly I think you can criss-cross the country in an electric vehicle with relatively little fuss. So it's happening.

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Solar energy has not reached grid parity. The cheapest solar energy available is rooftop solar and the panels provide electricity at grid parity in some parts of the US if you include subsidies and only while the sun is shining.

If you don't want to rely on subsidies, we have a ways to go. If you want to include the price of energy storage (batteries), we are even further away.

What exactly do you propose we do about solar energy that we are not already doing? We have subsidies, we have solar panels on federal buildings, there is about as much research in this area as we can throw at it. What is it that we aren't doing with solar energy that you think we should be doing?

I don't think we've reached the apex of solar technology, storage and intelligent grid management. Stay tuned.

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Depends on how much it costs. If we break our economy to rush things and end up with the betamax of solar energy, it would suck.

You don't want to get into the nitty gritty numbers and details but you think that we should bet the economy on it because "it seems to you" that it would be a good idea?

Fortunately, the energy industry is not a startup that has to bet all it's eggs will be safe in that one basket. I trust we'll avoid being the Betamax of renewable energy. Maybe you know something I don't. I'm willing to listen and learn.

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

There are certainly people of all races being displaced by by the changing economy. There are certainly working class minorities being displaced by the changing economy, just like there are rich white people being displaced by the changing economy. But the impact is disproportionately on working class white who don't have the benefit of affirmative action. GM by the way is currently a corporate leader in affirmative action policies.

I may be wrong but I think your information is quite out of date with respect to GM. I did find an article about a 2015 case before the SC where corporations are petitioning the court to allow affirmative action in universities. GM is not on the long list of those companies (bottom of article).

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Did you miss the part about trade wars to combat outsourcing, immigration crack down to combat insourcing?

They feel like he's doing stuff to help them and they feel like Democrats aren't.

Feelings can be misleading.

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Like i said, there are three groups of Trump supporters.

White supremacists. These folks are mostly white.

Partisan Republicans. Once again, mostly white.

Principled conservatives. Yet again, mostly white.

Working class whites who feel like Trump is trying to help them out. Working class whites are also mostly.

I do understand them wanting to believe he would. Has he? It doesn't appear to be the case. But they don't appear to want to hear otherwise.

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

I don't think she believes you.

Why would I lie? 98

[Eonwe]

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck

I support universal healthcare but I dont think it will work with our current immigration problems.

So the primary obstacle to universal health care is current immigration policy? In what way?

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck

No, we are full. Look at all the problems with homelessness in our major cities. Look at our overcrowded roads and schools. Look at the stress on our environment.

Ah, so your priority is to support a candidate who promotes zero or negative population growth legislation? 99

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

That raises a good point. There are countless threads on the boards where liberals ask conservatives to explain why they support Trump and his policies. Mine is just another meager attempt. What I don't recall is even a single thread where conservatives show a genuine interest in why liberals oppose Trump.

Put it this way - in the whole history of the SDMB, has there ever been a thread even tangentially related to Trump, where liberals did not explain at excruciating length exactly why they oppose Trump?

It is not possible to read GD, IMHO, MPSIMS, or the Pit, without those reasons being made more than abundantly clear.

It doesn't matter if we are interested or not - "why I oppose Trump" is 24/7/365.

Regards,
Shodan 100