Well, here's an example. In theory, a core right-wing concept is "small government" (it's big with libertarians, too). Now, let's say that this really is a core philosophy—it certainly holds a lot of power as a principle, if nothing else.
I don't see belief in small government itself as either necessary or sufficient for being right-wing. I don't consider libertarianism part of the American right-wing (it's a definite hybrid), nor do I think you need to believe in small government to be a right-winger (plenty of conservative Christians, for example, strongly support a large government when it comes to social issues).
Are there people who self-identify as right-wing based solely on their sincere belief in shrinking government? I've never met any. The ones who hold that sincere belief that I've met self-identified as libertarian (or similar), and the ones who self-identified as right-wing didn't actually believe in a small government as a goal, but rather as a means to an end (increasing the power of conservative institutions while shrinking liberal institutions).
RE: Trump Jr, candy, and analogies.
Hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha.
Now, all of that is actually malarkey for a whole list of reasons and I know that. But not everyone does and they vote according to how they see things, not how I do or necessarily anything resembling the reality of the situation.
Perhaps I'm just more cynical in this respect, but I believe that even the voters who are being manipulated in that manner fall into the same basket of deplorables. I've met plenty of people whose political sophistication was low enough to buy into all of that, but they also supported a huge slew of bigoted beliefs as well.
I don't know whether that's just a very, very strong correlation, or if it's that all of those beliefs you mentioned are just well-understood dog whistles, but it's not as simple as, "Oh, these folks are really just good ol' patriots!"
Again, this is all based on my admittedly anecdotal experience, but I have met a lot of voters. And I've literally never met one who identified as a right-winger who didn't agree with a number of policies rooted in bigotry. The two seem inextricably linked.
I know a former Republican who's very pro-social justice and supported Bernie Sanders*. He does have some capitalist leanings I don't love, but I think he sincerely believed his right-wing politics were best for everyone. I also think those politics led to a place of classism and racism, even if he hadn't dedicated the thought to realizing it.
The Baby Boomer myths about how numbers work remain pretty powerful in this culture.
*And to clarify, he wasn't a Bernie Bro or anything. He found Sanders through a survey that asked him questions about his political beliefs. It was entirely independent of personality biases.
I also think that one thing Brexit should have taught us is that in the broader political conversation, calling people racists doesn't always work—even when it's true. So I'm not confident this conversation is going to bear any but the lowest-hanging fruits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know whether that's just a very, very strong correlation, or if it's that all of those beliefs you mentioned are just well-understood dog whistles, but it's not as simple as, "Oh, these folks are really just good ol' patriots!"
I think it's correlation because they're getting the same advertising package and that package appeals to the reality of their situation. if you came of age in the 70s and you were white anyone you knew with a reasonable work ethic COULD get a job making a decent living and the vast majority of them did. People (oddly enough) give their own life experiences far more weight than what other people say , so when you tell them that there are no jobs, hard work doesn't pay off, and that the reality for them is not the same reality as anyone else they're more than a little skeptical and racist/generationist insinuations outright hawking start to seem like they have some merit.
Hanlon's razor is in full effect here. If you tell someone that they're racist and thats why they believe things they're going to say to themselves "I don't hate minorities, this guy is wrong, why should i listen to him about anything when he was wrong about that and that's the basis for most of his argument..."
It's a pernicious accusation, it's hard to prove in any individual, and pretty much circumvents any rational attempts at dialog. I don't know how often it's true but i know it almost never works.
I know a former Republican who's very pro-social justice and supported Bernie Sanders*. He does have some capitalist leanings I don't love, but I think he sincerely believed his right-wing politics were best for everyone. I also think those politics led to a place of classism and racism, even if he hadn't dedicated the thought to realizing it.
The Baby Boomer myths about how numbers work remain pretty powerful in this culture.
*And to clarify, he wasn't a Bernie Bro or anything. He found Sanders through a survey that asked him questions about his political beliefs. It was entirely independent of personality biases.
If he were asked whether he self-identified as right-wing, would he answer yes?
He did back then. Nowadays he admits he's more confused, mainly because he's learned more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also think that one thing Brexit should have taught us is that in the broader political conversation, calling people racists doesn't always work—even when it's true. So I'm not confident this conversation is going to bear any but the lowest-hanging fruits.
On the contrary, calling out racism (and other ugly behavior) is one of the most effective ways to work for social change. Questions of social justice go through a process - you raise awareness when awareness is low, you debate in the public eye when awareness is high but acceptance is low, and you shame holdouts when awareness is high and acceptance is high.
Calling people racists isn't a good way to get those people to like you. But being one voice out of many calling someone a racist is a great way to teach a person whose mind will never change to at least keep their ideology to themselves, which curbs its spread.
He did back then. Nowadays he admits he's more confused, mainly because he's learned more.
See, this is the sort of interaction I've experienced, often. People who naively supported racist policies as part of a political identity, who later come to realize the harm that those policies do, and changed their identity appropriately. But that doesn't change the fact that their identity as a member of the right-wing seems inextricably tied to their support for those policies. When the support for those policies fades, so too does their identification with the right wing.
"You may think naively that Timmy is the right choice for class predident, well, I'll have you know Timmy is a bed wetter and we cannot stand a bed wetter in this classroom, and if you vote or support Timmy, you are bed wetter too."
"You may think naively that Timmy is the right choice for class predident, well, I'll have you know Timmy is a bed wetter and we cannot stand a bed wetter in this classroom, and if you vote our support Timmy, you are bed wetter too."
I mean, what Timmy does in his own bed is his own business. But if Timmy starts wetting my bed, well that just cannot stand!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"I think you are racist so I'm not talking to you."
Yea that's great way to go by solving a problem.
OTOH, politely debating their ideas on how to organize society while pretending to ignore the unspoken racism implicit in those ideas isn't very profitable either.
Explaining why a given idea is racist, sexist or [insert applicable bigotry/prejudice or other nastiness here] in conjunction with showing what the debilitating effects are goes a long way to those who don't know, such as KC's buddy up-thread.
Honey rather than vinegar. Vinegar smells nasty, tastes worse and has more uses for cleaning than cooking. Honey is tasty, lasts a ridiculously long time and is seldom used for cleaning. :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, the GOP's platform is a bigoted nightmare. We can agree on that and still believe that Republicans as a whole have a diverse range of beliefs. We can also agree on that and still believe that the ideology itself is rotten at the core, even if its practitioners hold to it in good faith.The Republican Party (especially Trump) are not "The Right" anymore then Democrats (Hillary) are "The Left".It seems fundamentally impossible to me to hold to a coherent set of political beliefs that anyone could term "right wing" without those beliefs including the support for policies that are, at their core, bigoted.
In other words, if you do not count among your political beliefs any support for policies that are rooted in bigotry, I don't consider your beliefs right-wing.
I'm willing to be educated on this, though. If someone can provide me with an actual example of someone who self-identifies as right-wing but in no way supports any of the many right-wing policies rooted in bigotry, I'll happily concede that my stance was overly generalized.
So THIS is why we have so many people moving from Pathfinder to 5e.
These boards call them names and expect 50% of the US gamers to stay...
Instead they move onto other games.
I'm not so certain applying blanket statements in name calling to someone due to race, sex, religion, or being a conservative or liberal, age, or otherwise is the right way to go.
In addition, as a quick look up on google (said this before), right at the top, without clicking any links states...
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
Ironically, it was originally used as someone who did was prejudice against religious groups...later it was expanded to racial groups...now I suppose it has been expanded even more so.
If one is liberal, why not look at ways to WIN the election, rather than call everyone else names and trying to scare them away instead.
Or are we trying to take a certain individuals playbook that most liberals are NOT supporting and use that instead all of a sudden?
I already stated one of the MAJOR reasons people are supporting Trump.
Literally, most of those I know that did NOT like Trump to begin with, didn't vote for him in the primaries or support him then, and dislike him that are conservatives are voting for him now...
Why...
It really boils down to ONE REASON, and ONE REASON ONLY for most of them. (of course, we know that's probably only 50% of them, still, that's a HUGE amount of voters).
They feel the next person in the supreme court is THAT IMPORTANT. They feel the ONLY way to get someone with a certain political slant, whether that is towards guns, size of government, healthcare, budget, money, Social Security, Taxes, or otherwise is to have someone who will put in a conservative judge into the Supreme Court.
You get rid of that reason for them...and I think Trump's numbers will plummet.
I think the key is to address the specific issues of WHY people who hate Trump are voting for him anyways. Give them a reason to vote other than Trump, and they probably will.
In addition, as a quick look up on google (said this before), right at the top, without clicking any links states...
And, as I explained then, when people use the term "bigotry" in modern parlance, they mean a collection of ugly prejudices based on the inherent characteristics of a person - race, sexuality, gender identity, etc. I'm sure you understand that there is a fundamental difference in the value of being tolerant of a person's race, and the value of being tolerant of racism. If you don't understand that, please let us know so that we can expand on it. It's pretty much a required baseline for further discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The upcoming debates seem likely to make-or-break either campaign. It's going to be a long six days before the first one.
Why...
It really boils down to ONE REASON, and ONE REASON ONLY for most of them. (of course, we know that's probably only 50% of them, still, that's a HUGE amount of voters).
They feel the next person in the supreme court is THAT IMPORTANT.
I've spoken with precious few Trump supporters, but not a one has mentioned that the Supreme Court is the reason they're voting Trump. All of them have reasons that revolve around the candidates themselves.
The upcoming debates seem likely to make-or-break either campaign. It's going to be a long six days before the first one.
I remember this feeling prior to the Romney-Obama debates. Knowing that you're in a favorable position but that the events of a scant few hours could completely upend that is pretty unsettling. I'm normally the kind to have friends over for debate watch parties, but this year the thought of it is just making my stomach do flips instead.
The upcoming debates seem likely to make-or-break either campaign. It's going to be a long six days before the first one.I remember this feeling prior to the Romney-Obama debates. Knowing that you're in a favorable position but that the events of a scant few hours could completely upend that is pretty unsettling. I'm normally the kind to have friends over for debate watch parties, but this year the thought of it is just making my stomach do flips instead.
Very similar here. I have presumptions, but they hold no water until the debates go live and the candidates do their thing. What I hope for and what happens are almost certainly not going to match up. At all.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I think you are racist so I'm not talking to you."
Yea that's great way to go by solving a problem.
OTOH, politely debating their ideas on how to organize society while pretending to ignore the unspoken racism implicit in those ideas isn't very profitable either.
Explaining why a given idea is racist, sexist or [insert applicable bigotry/prejudice or other nastiness here] in conjunction with showing what the debilitating effects are goes a long way to those who don't know, such as KC's buddy up-thread.
Honey rather than vinegar. Vinegar smells nasty, tastes worse and has more uses for cleaning than cooking. Honey is tasty, lasts a ridiculously long time and is seldom used for cleaning. :D
Of course once you've covered them in honey if they still refuse to see or be less hateful then you are well within your rights to release the badger.
He did back then. Nowadays he admits he's more confused, mainly because he's learned more.See, this is the sort of interaction I've experienced, often. People who naively supported racist policies as part of a political identity, who later come to realize the harm that those policies do, and changed their identity appropriately. But that doesn't change the fact that their identity as a member of the right-wing seems inextricably tied to their support for those policies. When the support for those policies fades, so too does their identification with the right wing.
Sure, but when he identified with the right-wing, it wasn't due to racism—it was due to, as you yourself acknowledged, not realizing the harm that those policies did.
Explaining why a given idea is racist, sexist or [insert applicable bigotry/prejudice or other nastiness here] in conjunction with showing what the debilitating effects are goes a long way to those who don't know, such as KC's buddy up-thread.
Exactly. "You are racist" is an insult to people, whether or not it should be. "What you just said is racist" is less so, though it depends on how you approach it.
I know only one person who's actually advocated voting for Trump because of the Supreme Court, and I know way more Trumpsters than I'd like to. They're an old evangelical voter, and they feel incredibly conflicted about the vote (they'll probably just sit it out). They are not as large a demographic as people would like to think.
Of course once you've covered them in honey if they still refuse to see or be less hateful then you are well within your rights to release the badger."I think you are racist so I'm not talking to you."
Yea that's great way to go by solving a problem.
OTOH, politely debating their ideas on how to organize society while pretending to ignore the unspoken racism implicit in those ideas isn't very profitable either.
Explaining why a given idea is racist, sexist or [insert applicable bigotry/prejudice or other nastiness here] in conjunction with showing what the debilitating effects are goes a long way to those who don't know, such as KC's buddy up-thread.
Honey rather than vinegar. Vinegar smells nasty, tastes worse and has more uses for cleaning than cooking. Honey is tasty, lasts a ridiculously long time and is seldom used for cleaning. :D
I just busted out in my villain laugh on my front porch at dusk, spooking some of my neighbors. Thanks for the image! :)
who insist that states' rights are the way to go,People only insist on states rights when the states agree with them. They'll pull sovereignty and the inability to keep effects from moving from one state to the other the second you dont: see marijuana legalization.
That may be true of a substantial number of people, but it's certainly not a universal truth. I'm wholly in favor of California's right to make poor choices just as much as I am in favor of the more intelligent moves various states make (even the ones I don't like, such as pot legalization).
That may be true of a substantial number of people, but it's certainly not a universal truth. I'm wholly in favor of California's right to make poor choices just as much as I am in favor of the more intelligent moves various states make (even the ones I don't like, such as pot legalization).who insist that states' rights are the way to go,People only insist on states rights when the states agree with them. They'll pull sovereignty and the inability to keep effects from moving from one state to the other the second you dont: see marijuana legalization.
The nice thing about the US is that if you don't like your state, there is always the option to move to another state you do like. It isn't always easy, but the option remains. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In addition, as a quick look up on google (said this before), right at the top, without clicking any links states...And, as I explained then, when people use the term "bigotry" in modern parlance, they mean a collection of ugly prejudices based on the inherent characteristics of a person - race, sexuality, gender identity, etc. I'm sure you understand that there is a fundamental difference in the value of being tolerant of a person's race, and the value of being tolerant of racism. If you don't understand that, please let us know so that we can expand on it. It's pretty much a required baseline for further discussion.
The definition seems to be the top of most dictionary links at the top of google, with the additional expansion which I included below the definition in general.
I'm not saying I'm any more innocent than you, but if you read further, I do NOT think name calling is the correct way to go around handling this.
If we resort to calling others names just based on general things like who one votes for, or what game they play, how does that make us any different then those we are calling names in the first place?
I think it is FAR more important to address the issues and discuss them than it is to make blanket statements that automatically exclude almost 50% of people because we just insulted them.
If it is FEAR...I understand fear. I think I understand how it applies to this election even more than some others. Not that I have the best understanding, but there is a legitimate fear on my part that if one side wins, it could have dire ramifications on my life and how I live.
That doesn't mean I'm going to think the worst of my neighbors and fellow countrymen. I'd rather think they are fellow patriots like me and want the best for their nation, rather than think they are sinking themselves into the depths of depravity. Do I fear the wrong choice is going to be made...ABSOLUTELY. But, I hope that everyone is making their choices because they personally want the best for this nation...even if their reasonings behind it isn't the same as mine.
Which is why I say above, we should address their issues to win them over rather than trying to chase them away.
I hear it over and over how much someone hates Trump and everything he stands for...but that they are going to vote for him anyways. If you can resolve the reasons why they are going to vote for him even if they don't like him or any issues or stances he has, in some instances, you'll get them to vote for someone else instead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If one is liberal, why not look at ways to WIN the election, rather than call everyone else names and trying to scare them...
So leave the republicans to their own tactics?
Honestly what more do you want on positive persuasion?
Cleaning and maintaining the environment. Even if somehow global warming is a scam this would reduce reliance on foreign parties, and increase independence as well as promoting healthier living and cleaner air and water for everyone.
Allowing people of different religions to marry within the standards of their religion and telling them to butt out of other people's marriage.
Raising wage requirements so businesses are not being subsidized by government programs and ensuring those that work gain the dignity that's supposed to go with working, while simultaneously reducing dependency on government programs.
Ensuring Worker's rights to organize is maintained and the workers' rights to a safe working environment is maintained. That those that violate these rights are punished appropriately.
A stated desire and awareness of systemic racism and the need to reverse it, demonstrating the ability to recognize past errors and attempt to correct them.
Pushing to both sustain and improve our educational system.
I mean you could simply read the platform for yourself.
I see a lot to vote for.
|
No, the GOP's platform is a bigoted nightmare. We can agree on that and still believe that Republicans as a whole have a diverse range of beliefs. We can also agree on that and still believe that the ideology itself is rotten at the core, even if its practitioners hold to it in good faith.The Republican Party (especially Trump) are not "The Right" anymore then Democrats (Hillary) are "The Left".It seems fundamentally impossible to me to hold to a coherent set of political beliefs that anyone could term "right wing" without those beliefs including the support for policies that are, at their core, bigoted.
In other words, if you do not count among your political beliefs any support for policies that are rooted in bigotry, I don't consider your beliefs right-wing.
I'm willing to be educated on this, though. If someone can provide me with an actual example of someone who self-identifies as right-wing but in no way supports any of the many right-wing policies rooted in bigotry, I'll happily concede that my stance was overly generalized.
So THIS is why we have so many people moving from Pathfinder to 5e.
These boards call them names and expect 50% of the US gamers to stay...
Instead they move onto other games.
I'm not so certain applying blanket statements in name calling to someone due to race, sex, religion, or being a conservative or liberal, age, or otherwise is the right way to go.
In addition, as a quick look up on google (said this before), right at the top, without clicking any links states...
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
Ironically, it was originally used as someone who did was prejudice against religious groups...later it was expanded to racial groups...now I suppose it has been expanded even more so.
If one is liberal, why not look at ways to WIN the election, rather than call everyone else names and trying to scare them...
Sort of. Though I'm not that in to 5E.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In theory, a core right-wing concept is "small government" (it's big with libertarians, too). Now, let's say that this really is a core philosophy—it certainly holds a lot of power as a principle, if nothing else.
I understand and agree with the points you were making... but there is also the very real issue that Republicans / Libertarians / Right-wingers do not support small government as the words might be commonly understood. Reagan oversaw vast increases in the size and cost of government... eclipsed only by the even greater increases under Bush junior. The greater the control of government they have, the more they GROW the government.
Rather, 'small government' is another of those terms which Republicans use to mean something completely different... like 'states rights' (really means 'freedom of bigotry') or 'right to work' (really means 'right of employers to pay lousy wages'). To Republicans, 'small government' means 'no money for minorities'. That's how they could talk about their small government programs while building the modern surveillance state and running up massive deficits. The words have a different meaning for them.
I know only one person who's actually advocated voting for Trump because of the Supreme Court, and I know way more Trumpsters than I'd like to. They're an old evangelical voter, and they feel incredibly conflicted about the vote (they'll probably just sit it out). They are not as large a demographic as people would like to think.
I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum. I know very few Trumpsters in the actual area I live in right now, but many who wanted Cruz (who I don't like either, mostly due to his policies which he tried to enact in Congress). A great majority find Trump absolutely despicable.
I hear Trump does better in the East, while I'm in the West right now. It is with some surprise that some see Clinton doing better than expected.
It's because people here literally hate Trump with so much vile you'd think they hated him more then any liberal does. However, the issue of the Supreme court is what they give for electing Trump. They agree with me on all the morality and other issues that I bring up against Trump, however, they feel the Supreme Court is that important. Extrapolating from this, and I know it's not all inclusive of everyone...but I'd say if Clinton could address that issue she might actually be able to win most of the normally conservative areas out West, which would give her a massive lift in counties and even states.
Clinton probably will win California, now imagine if she won not just the cities, but the more conservative areas...I think it would send a VERY clear message to the Republican party on their next Candidate (or at least hopefully it would).
You know what? She's done that. Without making promises to appoint conservatives or govern conservatively or whatever else you think she needs to do. Republicans are endorsing her.
I wasn't actually talking about Clinton in that, I was discussing how some conversation was going on in this forum specifically.
Clinton only made one goof up in that regards (which I think is partly why she took a hit in the polls) and quickly tried to repair that.
Otherwise, she's addressed the issues far more than others.
I think that's the way to play the game right now, rather than taking the lead from the playbook of another party candidate who is not quite so focused on the issues at times.
I already stated one of the MAJOR reasons people are supporting Trump.
Literally, most of those I know that did NOT like Trump to begin with, didn't vote for him in the primaries or support him then, and dislike him that are conservatives are voting for him now...
Why...
It really boils down to ONE REASON, and ONE REASON ONLY for most of them. (of course, we know that's probably only 50% of them, still, that's a HUGE amount of voters).
They feel the next person in the supreme court is THAT IMPORTANT. They feel the ONLY way to get someone with a certain political slant, whether that is towards guns, size of government, healthcare, budget, money, Social Security, Taxes, or otherwise is to have someone who will put in a conservative judge into the Supreme Court.
You get rid of that reason for them...and I think Trump's numbers will plummet.
I think the key is to address the specific issues of WHY people who hate Trump are voting for him anyways. Give them a reason to vote other than Trump, and they probably will.
And you seem to forget how violently that people hated Hillary Clinton when she was not a Presidential contender. They won't believe such a promise if she were to write it down and sign it with her own blood.
Politics is simply to polarised for an appeasement strategy to work. And I really really don't want another Scalia on the Court. And nothing less would even have a possibility of working. IF that were true, then the real strategy should be to have Obama nominate that person NOW, and take it off Clinton's shoulders.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I'm really a terrible person, a bigot, naive and what not.
I don't know you. So far, I have no reason to think that you are. Hopefully I haven't offended you in that manner at all.
If I have, it was unintended and I apologize.
I think we all have our reasons for thinking and acting as we do, and unless we express them we may not know why someone else is thinking like they do.
For example, I agree with one thing that many people who support Trump also agree with...that the jobs in the US were being sent overseas due to things like the Free Trade Agreement and other harmful aspects. That we need to focus on bringing jobs back to the US...or more specifically...good paying jobs.
I don't trust Trump to actually DO THAT due to how he's done his business in the past and hence what his past actions imply he'll do, but I agree with the idea.
On the otherhand, I think we need to support those who are poor among us, the disabled, the needy. I think that the churches didn't do it in the past, despite what some may think, and that is why we as a moral society need to do something. I think we already have too many homeless and hungry in the US still.
I try to understand what others are thinking, thought that may not necessarily sway me to think the same as they do.
I already stated one of the MAJOR reasons people are supporting Trump.
Literally, most of those I know that did NOT like Trump to begin with, didn't vote for him in the primaries or support him then, and dislike him that are conservatives are voting for him now...
Why...
It really boils down to ONE REASON, and ONE REASON ONLY for most of them. (of course, we know that's probably only 50% of them, still, that's a HUGE amount of voters).
They feel the next person in the supreme court is THAT IMPORTANT. They feel the ONLY way to get someone with a certain political slant, whether that is towards guns, size of government, healthcare, budget, money, Social Security, Taxes, or otherwise is to have someone who will put in a conservative judge into the Supreme Court.
You get rid of that reason for them...and I think Trump's numbers will plummet.
I think the key is to address the specific issues of WHY people who hate Trump are voting for him anyways. Give them a reason to vote other than Trump, and they probably will.
And you seem to forget how violently that people hated Hillary Clinton when she was not a Presidential contender. They won't believe such a promise if she were to write it down and sign it with her own blood.
Politics is simply to polarised for an appeasement strategy to work. And I really really don't want another Scalia on the Court. And nothing less would even have a possibility of working. IF that were true, then the real strategy should be to have Obama nominate that person NOW, and take it off Clinton's shoulders.
I actually like Obama MORE than Clinton, but I think Clinton is FAR more willing to negotiate and compromise than Obama.
If Obama did it, it would simply be out of character. No way in heck could we expect him to do something like that...though YOU ARE RIGHT. If he actually did something to take it off her shoulders, and got it resolved...it would take care of a LOT almost overnight I think.
Even better, if he then attributed her to trying to help build a compromise between Democrats and Republicans to come to a solution...thus help her campaign...it would be great...
But I don't expect Obama to ever even dream of something like that due to how he's done things in the past.
On the otherhand, I could actually see Clinton doing something like that.
If one is liberal, why not look at ways to WIN the election, rather than call everyone else names and trying to scare them...So leave the republicans to their own tactics?
Honestly what more do you want on positive persuasion?
Cleaning and maintaining the environment. Even if somehow global warming is a scam this would reduce reliance on foreign parties, and increase independence as well as promoting healthier living and cleaner air and water for everyone.
Allowing people of different religions to marry within the standards of their religion and telling them to butt out of other people's marriage.
Raising wage requirements so businesses are not being subsidized by government programs and ensuring those that work gain the dignity that's supposed to go with working, while simultaneously reducing dependency on government programs.
Ensuring Worker's rights to organize is maintained and the workers' rights to a safe working environment is maintained. That those that violate these rights are punished appropriately.
A stated desire and awareness of systemic racism and the need to reverse it, demonstrating the ability to recognize past errors and attempt to correct them.
Pushing to both sustain and improve our educational system.
I mean you could simply read the platform for yourself.
I see a lot to vote for.
I love the ideas but how is everything supposed to be paid for? Taxes are onerous enough as it is as a small business owner.
The likelihood of getting the "rich to pay their fair share" seems quite remote between (a) the definitions of "rich" vary considerably within the same county, let alone within the same Congressional district; and (b) a House that seems likely to be at least as intractable in their opposition to a Clinton administration as they have been against Obama's administration ... Eesh!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love the ideas but how is everything supposed to be paid for? Taxes are onerous enough as it is as a small business owner. ...
Well we could start killing some of the subsidies for corporations. By many estimates that would account for 100 billion dollars a year allowing for one year's worth paying for the entirety of the 80 billion dollar plan President Obama put forth for free college. We would then have enough the next year to pay for a complete renovation of our national parks.
Or perhaps we could reduce some military hardware spending.
We could of course simply raise taxes too. It's insane to me that we somehow have sold that taxes are so "hard" when in actuality the final tax rate for many businesses is lower than it has been in for around half a century.
I think there is room for some adjustments and reductions in the difficulty in the tax code... but that would mean that we would have to admit some ugly truths about our government, tax system, mores, and society as a whole that I honestly don't think our nation is ready to view.
By the way that's direct subsidies, not special tax loops which account for around another 100 billion a year. We could hit those instead and leave the subsidies in place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've spoken with precious few Trump supporters, but not a one has mentioned that the Supreme Court is the reason they're voting Trump. All of them have reasons that revolve around the candidates themselves.
I am a Tennessee resident. Therefore, likely "red" in the electoral tally upcoming (I should check to see when, if ever, the state's EC votes went "blue" -- more on that later). The county in which I reside typically votes more Democratic than Republican in the presidential elections (1 of the 4 in the whole state that went with Kerry in '04, for example). A significant portion of my face-to-face social circle identifies as Christian. A few of that "Christian" number have exhibited what seem to me to be racist tendencies; most of them have not (we are fortunate to have a multi-ethnic local fellowship).
I have said all that to say this: a larger portion of my broader social circle ("Christian" and beyond) have expressly stated their votes will be going to Trump over HRC. The first item on the list (universally so in the case of the "Christians") for their declaration of support is this: the likelihood of nominating a conservative SCotUS justice.
From what I have been able to glean from various conversations, there is a great deal of upset in the wake of the homosexual marriage ruling. In some cases, this "backlash" is tied directly to held moral convictions of what marriage should be (religiously informed) in their minds. In some cases it comes down to semantics: the "appropriation" of the term "marriage", as they see it, to include something that has traditionally fallen outside the bounds of the term (a subtle distinction, but one that exists). Overall, there is a narrow majority in my "sample group" that is not opposed to homosexual (or other sexuality/gender identities) couples being able to enjoy the same legal (esp. financial) benefits before the law as heterosexual married couples. Whether motivated solely by moral convictions or by a desire to hold to tradition, most people in this group have felt victimized/betrayed by the SC's ruling.
While this exposition is anecdotal, I hope you find it a bit informative.
Futhermore, given what else i know about this group (the larger one -- to include agnostics, atheists, pagans, Wiccans, and others), i do feel secure in floating the suggestion that, in terms of 2nd Amendment rights, government spending, healthcare, and other such SCotUS-relevant topics, this sample group would, in the overwhelming majority, wind up backing the higher probability of a conservative appointee than any other option.
just a few words from a relatively quiet corner of the world
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How much money would businesses save if you separated healthcare from employment?
Huge amounts. It would be a big boon to our private sector especially when compared to international corporations.
This would also benefit the healthcare consumer too, as there wouldn't be money wasted on competing systems, and additional overhead for advertising, if we used a single payer system. In addition if a single payer system was used (and allow to negotiate) then bulk savings would help even more.
Even a hybrid system such as what Britain has would help significantly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From what I have been able to glean from various conversations, there is a great deal of upset in the wake of the homosexual marriage ruling. In some cases, this "backlash" is tied directly to held moral convictions of what marriage should be (religiously informed) in their minds. In some cases it comes down to semantics: the "appropriation" of the term "marriage", as they see it, to include something that has traditionally fallen outside the bounds of the term (a subtle distinction, but one that exists). Overall, there is a narrow majority in my "sample group" that is not opposed to homosexual (or other sexuality/gender identities) couples being able to enjoy the same legal (esp. financial) benefits before the law as heterosexual married couples. Whether motivated solely by moral convictions or by a...
See I've flipped this on many conservatives. I've pointed out that my religion requires that we allow those in love be married and asked should my or their religion take precedence over the other.
Then I point out that if we were to eliminate marriage as a government institution as a whole and instead had everyone get legalized partnership contracts only then that would mean marriage would be whole defined by the churches.
What my church states a marriage is would have no bearing on what their church states a marriage is. Everyone could literally use their own definition and be correct. What they would not get to define are the terms and conditions of the partnership contract.
The only arguments I've received back from that is what I call "Christianist's Supremacy" arguments and those are easily fought back by pointing out that if that is the war they want to declare then I am well within my rights pushing for my religion's supremacy.
Which then gets us into a discussion of the origins and constitutional role of religion in government.
Please note this is not to argue the legitimacy of your statements; I believe you are correct on all points and my own antidotal experiences match yours.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All I know is Neko needs a cookie.
I mean that's my general solution to everything.
Short of just going nuclear.
In other news: I think that It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine, is the theme for the day.
Abraham --
Indeed. The point was not to initiate that particular discussion, but to point to a different experience in interacting with Trump supporters than Scott's. I simply wanted to offer as complete a context as i could, even with its inherent limitations.
*has a question* Your last name is Terrigan, are you in anyway related to an Inhuman?