“Housewives” franchise would like to have a word.
No, the Hispanics that I have dealt with (many of them not legal) are the ones who left that world behind, and moved to less shitty areas of the country. They worked food service or construction, and sent their kids to the same schools that I went to.
Many of them lived with 3 or more families living in a 2 bedroom apartment, with a walk in closet serving as a bedroom for 3 people. Cramped, but safe. Spartan but not shitty.
Are you saying that the life as you describe is what they voted for Trump to maintain?
Once again, these ideas as presented are a caricature of the actual positions taken.
I can see how people would get this idea, as it is spoon fed to them by right wing media. But that doesn’t mean that it is even close to correct.
By who, and for what reason? Tell me what their concerns are, and I will tell you how the Democratic platform addresses them. But, if all they have is the caricature as you have said, then they will never support things that would solve the actual problems that they are facing.
But that is something that is counterfactual. It simply is not reality. IT may be the perception that one receives when one chooses to consume media that tells that them, but that does not mean that it has any basis in reality.
There is almost nothing that can be done to combat climate change on an individual level. Such things must be done by governments.
No, we expect to give them better lives and more robust communities.
People have the right to react to other’s speech. People have the right to be wrong, they have the right to be stupid. But just because they have the right to be wrong doesn’t mean that they aren’t wrong. The fact that they have the right to be stupid doesn’t mean that they aren’t stupid.
That’s not even close to my point, but yes, the things that my brother believes are things that are based on some small kernel of truth.
For instance, President Taft was born in Ohio. Ohio, at the time, had missed some little bit of paperwork that other states had done to become a state. These are truths. But, that does not mean that that means that Taft was invalid as a president, and therefore so is the Sixteenth amendment, so income tax is unconstitutional. That is hiding a lie among truth.
There are things that I disagree with iiandyiiii on. There are things that I agree with him on. That may mean that on trivial matters, I’ll take his word for it, but I would expect him to cite his claims just like any other. Anything to do with nuclear subs he chooses to share, I will 100% take his word on, but as to other matters, I’ll look into any claims he makes that I have not already verified.
No more so than when the occasional 9-11 truther that comes about (haven’t had one in a while, not that I’m complaining), is exposing himself to ideas about the physics of planes and buildings.
I’ve never seen a 911 truther, a moon hoaxer, a flat earther, or a young earth creationist show any sign of wavering of their convictions in the face of overwhelming evidence against them. They are not exposing themselves to liberal ideas or arguments and more than the fundamentalist campus preacher is exposing himself to science.
I think it makes sense to vote for change when things are this bad.
Here’s the problem:
(1) They make huge assumptions about who is and who isn’t acting responsibly that need assistance
(2) They make huge assumptions about who largely benefits from assistance
(3) They are mistaken about where the money for that assistance is coming from. Their taxes and fees don’t even pay for the benefits that they are receiving from the public system. If they were paying their true costs, they’d be paying a lot fucking more.
And can you see how, if they do look at what liberals are saying, they could conclude the right wing media is correct? Have a look at @asahi’s comment.
How should I know? I’m saying the fact they are ‘unreachable’ on one issue does not necessarily mean writing them off as voters to attract. Maybe that isn’t what BigT was implying and no one actually thinks it, but that’s how it sounded to me. There’s a certain air of ‘well, we don’t want those people’s votes anyway’ that pops up in these discussions.
The new left has a big issue with censorship, ‘purity tests’, and forbidding people to talk about inconvenient facts, but even if you refuse to believe it, you’ve still got the problem that other people do.
I wouldn’t want to be forced to give up my job that I know how to do and have experience in, and train to do another that may or may not be better, and may or may not have openings, where I’d be starting from the beginning again, and for which I may well have to move to a new town. If you offer this to people who are already unemployed, then it may be attractive.
I dunno, I feel like with this, and the Christian thing, and similar issues, that US liberals have a hard time empathising. But when it comes to the struggles of eg the black community, or Muslims, they are much more willing to understand and make allowances.
Umm, no. Actually
Which comment? I was expecting a quote here.
What should I conclude about Trump supporters if I use this as a representation of what conservatives are saying?
It’s not that we don’t want their votes, it is that to get them to vote for us, we would have to betray all that we consider important.
They don’t care about the economy, they don’t care about the deficit, they don’t care about government spending, they don’t care about the competence of the government in responding to crises or pandemics. If they did, then we’d already have their vote.
What do you think should be done to reach them, if actually running a prosperous and safe nation isn’t what appeals to them?
We do have a problem that people believe it, I’ll agree. Just as they believe a whole bunch of other counterfactual things that get them to vote against having a safe and prosperous nation.
These people are going to be unemployed on pretty much the same timeline whether it is a Democrat or a Republican in office. Fossil fuels by their very nature are unsustainable.
The question is, is when not if they lose their jobs extracting fossil fuels from the ground, what options do they have?
I really don’t think that it is a lack of empathy on the part of the liberals here. The “Christian thing” as you put it is not an oppression or persecution of Christians, all it is is them losing some of their abilities to oppress and persecute others. And you are right, there’s not all that much empathy there for those who refuse to show it to others. There’s not all that much worry about those whose main worry is that they will no longer be able to discriminate. If a bully is beating someone else up, it is not the bully’s feelings that need to be coddled, it is not a lack of empathy that inspires us to intervene.
My bold. Can we dig into this a bit? What is “the Christian thing”?
Thanks!
And to @Velocity… that was very… Evenly presented.
And I can’t really argue with any of it, except I personally don’t subscribe to the punch up/punch down bit, but I can see how it would appear to be the case from the other side.
FTR, hardcore fundamentalist atheist here 
Yeah, that. Basically, I think liberals tend to rip into possibly-bigoted Christians, but put the kid gloves on when it’s time to talk about possibly-bigoted Muslims. The former are acceptable targets and the latter aren’t. This may be starting to change, though.
This one:
I truly do not believe that to be the case.
Now, it may be the case that Christians are far more open about their bigotry, and therefore there is more to criticize, but whether it be the WestBoro Baptist Church or the local mosque that is protesting against homosexuality at soldier’s funerals will receive the same condemnation.
If a baker refuses to bake a cake for a SSM wedding, it doesn’t matter if his reasonings come from the Bible or the Koran, either way, he is in the wrong, and will be, as you say, “ripped into”.
FWIW, I’m an equal opportunity ripper when it comes to religious fundamentalists of every stripe.
I’m not sure if you are using that as an example of things that liberals are saying or agreeing with it.
In any case, I really don’t watch sitcoms, hated Seinfeld and absolutely detest Two and a half men.
But, pretty much every fictional media depiction I have ever seen involving rural vs urban has where the uptight urban people through some contrived circumstance end up being forced to spend time in a rural environment, and end up falling in love with it and learning some valuable lessons.
I also see where the country people, through some contrived circumstance ends up visiting the city. Where the city people end up being impressed by his independence and masculinity, and they learn valuable lessons about how great the country life really is.
I am not aware of any counterexamples to this trope.
And it isn’t like there isn’t plenty of contempt shown for city “elites”. The entire “Housewives” and “Jersey Shore” reality franchises are all about shallow rich city people behaving badly.
City people get their ideas of the country from City Slickers, and the country folk get their ideas of city life from Sex and the City?
It goes all the way back to The Town Mouse and the Country Mouse
I’ve now posted something of a manifesto about partisan disputes in a concurrent thread, of which the following is relevant here:
I don’t have anything against urbanredneck2 with regard to criteria (i) and (iii) there, but his discussion of the #WalkAway “movement” in this thread is definitely failing to meet criterion (ii). urbanredneck2, you have been shown and linked to specific detailed evidence that the #WalkAway political schtick is overwhelmingly an astroturf phenomenon dominated by conservatives and bots rather than by actual disaffected Democrats/liberals. By continuing to try to dismiss such evidence with the repeated unsupported assertion that “the walk away movement is real”, you’re falling for willful ignorance and wishful thinking in preference to actual facts.
(Note that I’m not denying that there do exist some disaffected Democrats/liberals, or even that some of them may have chosen to identify with the #WalkAway phenomenon. But the images you’re being fed of tens or hundreds of thousands of ex-liberals spontaneously repudiating modern American liberalism under that hashtag are manufactured conservative propaganda.)
Well we shall see what happens.
No. You made a claim that something has already happened. Where’s your evidence?