I agree, at least as far as giving people a stake in their country and community. I dont know about the tax rate that would have to be used though to accomplish those goals.
Then I thought, “hey a good war would unite everyone…” which it seems to do…but…ugg…bad idea. I suppose a good portion of our economy still runs on the military/industrial base…
Then I thought perhaps when the chinese have higher wages and a middle class, the US might be able to compete and make things again. (its already happening very very slowly)
As far as the attitudes, and the polarization, (like this thread has shown a bit of) I dont have any answers. Education, education, education!!! With a healthy dose of comparative history, religion…heck everything…
There’s a famous saying about two wrongs not making a right. Even if the Democrats turn to violence (an act I’ve condemned in the Pit) - it doesn’t mean that Donald Trump’s openly encouraging violence at his rallies is acceptable or helpful.
It’s also worth mentioning that the Democractic response has been swift and condemnatory, as opposed to applause and excuses from the Republicans at Trump rallies who witness violence there.
This firebombing - if it was the act of a Democrat - is the act of one person and has been condemned by everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike.
OTOH, violence at Trump rallies is encouraged by the candidate himself and applauded by all the bystanders.
Trying to say that both sides are the same is the false equivalence being used to deflect the outrage in this thread at Trump rally violence.
The response from the Dems has been more than swift and condemnatory; it’s been to raise money to help reopen the firebombed office. Trump, by contrast, doesn’t respond to violence by offering to pay money to the victims; he sets stuff in motion by offering to pay the bills of folks who knock the crap out of others at his request.
No, actually, we just treat the people willing to enthusiastically back Trump as complete retards. Because those people are either intellectually or morally bankrupt, and we prefer to assume people are stupid rather than evil.
And let’s be clear here, the stupidity is not bipartisan. When one side of the political spectrum rejects global warming unanimously and the other side does not, one of those sides is wrong. And it so happens to be the one you’re on. One side has clear, reasonable, supportable policy proposals. The other does not. You’re on the latter side. So you’ll have to excuse me if many of the proposals on what to do about people who are either stupid or evil or both sound just a little bit condescending. It’s because they are. This isn’t a case where discourse is needed. This is a case where education is needed. A Trump supporter complaining about condescension is like a Young Earth Creationist complaining about condescension. The only question is, why would you self-identify into that group?
There’s been no time for an investigation to conclude who is responsible for what has happened at the Republican headquarters yet. Before anyone jumps to the same conclusions Trump has about who did it, perhaps we should wait before assuming it was the ‘opposition.’
You don’t think we can make some educated guesses that the person who firebombed a Republican campaign headquarters and spray-painted “Nazi Republicans” there might be opposed to Republicans?
Not really. There’s been educated guesses of it being ordered by Hillary, rogue alt-leftists, just general crazy folks, anarchists, a false flag operation amongst loyal Trumpists who want to pin the blame on democrats (like Ashley Todd), pissed off conservatives who don’t like that the Republicans aren’t supporting Donald enough and bored kids who’d actually take the time to graffiti something first before firebombing it. So, that’s my thought.
Oh, I know, one time a couple of months ago he made some veiled allusion to “Second Amendment people” that his campaign clarified was basically asking the NRA to block Clinton’s anti-gun SCOTUS nominee(s), and then there was the handful of times he told people to handle disruptive protesters at his events. Did I miss something else? There appears to be a lot of smokey rhetoric about “Donald Trump encouraging violence” and very little actual fire, as opposed to the firebombing which had a fair bit of actual fire.
Yes. Trump at a rally in Iowa, February 1st: “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Just knock the hell - I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise.”
Was he not being serious? Are you not being serious?
I’m pretty sure that would fall under the heading “the handful of times he told people to handle disruptive protesters at his events”. Do you see it as something different?
I see it as encouraging violence, as I said. I don’t recall Hillary Clinton saying anything remotely comparable to it. My statement was correct, pending someone finding a relevant Clinton quote.
Trump has been more coy about it in recent months, which I guess gives him and some of his supporters a shred of cover. I’m not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, especially since he’s made a big deal about what a straight-talker he is, etc. I’ll accept the possibility that he honestly doesn’t remember what he’s said in the past, or much care to.
Many people here say education is the key. What sort of education do you imagine could prevent people from supporting Trump or Trump-like candidates? How is current education insufficient for this task?
There’s a popular article right now in the Washington Post (I refuse to refer to it as “trending”) about a young man, the anointed heir to a white supremacist community leader (his actual dad) who became disaffected by the single act of going to college. The people he met changed his entire world view. True, he was already bright and curious, but still. It’s worth a read:
Gerrymander the GOP just as they’ve done. Get these people out of power. Ensure they have little to no representation. Ignore them. Wait for them to die out.
Education isn’t going to work. They’re too stupid and resistant to new ideas. Unless we can steal their children away or something crazy like that and educate them and ensure their parents’ ideas die out with them, education is fruitless.
Catering to them won’t change their minds. They’ll just assume their intransigence is working. How many times has Obama tried to work with the GOP only to be met with obstruction? Now McCain’s talking about blocking Clinton’s SCOTUS nominees no matter what? While McCain is probably not among these people, he caters to them and knows what they want.
How do you work with bigots, racists, and misogynists? If there is a convincing argument, why hasn’t anyone tried it? Getting someone like Trump to insult their friends, neighbors, and women only gets rid of some of them. Many still support him. Their beliefs stem from some deep, personal defect that we can’t fix.