Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

[SteveSC]

Fair points, but a) reliance on approval numbers don't necessarily translate into election-impacting sentiment anymore and b) there are some signs that Trump's numbers, as well as the Tax Bill approval, etc. are trending positive.

I think the issue is the left isn't giving most voters much to think about. They think Trump is a clown, sure, but lectures about income inequality, discrimination and why illegal immigration isn't so bad just isn't a winning message either.

You realise they are not for illegal immigration though right?

They only want fair treatment for those who have been living here for a long time and who are settled here now and who have not broken any laws (other than being illegal of course).

Also you don't think its right that one party cares about discrimination or income inequality?

These issues are the crux for a sizable portion of this country.

Both of those should be enough to carry votes from just about anyone who feels they are being shafted in this current climate with exception of those already staunch republicans in the south. They would vote red regardless.

 

[Pettifogger]

You realise they are not for illegal immigration though right?

They only want fair treatment for those who have been living here for a long time and who are settled here now and who have not broken any laws (other than being illegal of course).

Also you don't think its right that one party cares about discrimination or income inequality?

These issues are the crux for a sizable portion of this country.

Both of those should be enough to carry votes from just about anyone who feels they are being shafted in this current climate with exception of those already staunch republicans in the south. They would vote red regardless.

Immigration - I think that's contested. A lot of people in the middle/right think the left (particularly far left) favors illegal immigration because immigrants may be more likely to support their aims. I think the truth there is mixed, but I don't think it's wholly inaccurate. But moreover, it doesn't matter what they want, it matters what people see them advocating for. When Trump goes "build the wall!!!" and the left hates Trump so much that they start backing up sanctuary cities not turning over criminals in some misguided knee jerk reaction, portions of the electorate are going to draw conclusions whether that fairly reflects the position of the left or not.

Discrimination/income inequality - People care about these things in a vacuum, but they're told (by the left and non-conservative media) that we're in crisis. Most people probably don't see or feel that crisis right now.

I do think the average voter hears about wealth disparity and goes "yeah bonuses for CEOs are insane, what about the little guy, right?" But that doesn't mean income inequality is something that truly resonates with Americans and impacts elections. Partly because you have Nancy Pelosi out there disparaging the bonuses and wage hikes from Starbucks, Apple, AT&T, Verizon, etc. That stuff matters to people. They care about inherent unfairness to an extent, but I don't think theyd care about some Piketty-ish macro war on income inequality and the wealthy.

Similarly, I think most people see Charlottesville and go "yeah that's messed up, Trump shouldn't be coddling people like that." But then they watch BLM, ANTIFA, the Women's March, etc. for months and months talk about oppression in America, and the felt/seen oppression among your average voter is pretty negligible. And what's more, people (probably mostly white) look around and go, where are these white supremacists, I've never met one? Where are these people using racial slurs? I never hear them. They see cops committing abuses toward people of color, and I truly believe most abhor it, but they live in areas where people of color commit a lot of the violent crime. That taints the concept that the majority is somehow some existential threat to the minority.

Average people look at the Women's March and go, "I'm all for female empowerment, but where is this dystopian Handmaid's Tale universe?" I think we all agree that the #MeToo movement has genuine life and is indicative of genuine, wide-ranging abuse (unfortunately, now people are moving to where bad dates and regrettable sex partners are being lumped in (see the Aziz debacle) and it's probably watering down a legitimate national problem). But people see signs saying "equality of opportunity for women!" and that just doesn't make sense to the average American that knows women are often viewed more favorable by colleges, government and professional employers.

I know that's long winded, but I just think there is a huge disconnect between what the left is messaging, and what actually hits home with average people. And I think solely looking at poll numbers that say "do you care about income inequality" and drawing from that is going to be a mistake for the left from a political messaging perspective.

 

[BlueTX]

You're right to doubt the extent to which such things can sway me.

My issue has far more to do with what advocates truly care about than what Brookings says is plausible, or what another western democracy with different challenges did under different circumstances.

In other words, if I suddenly got the impression that the biggest proponents of universal health coverage were genuinely concerned with ensuring that it would be done responsibly and not with the intention to use half the country as a piggy bank for the project, I'd probably be far more receptive. Motivations matter, at least to me.

So your understanding of the motivation of people who advocate for a universal health coverage system in the United States is that they wish people like you to fund it? They want your money moreso than a system of coverage for all? It's about punishing the wealthy? My goodness, mate. That is cynicism of the highest order.

Further, didn't you express concern earlier that you disliked your ideas being viewed as antiquated or stupid? Imagine how the other side feels knowing your view of them is that they are bloodsuckers?

 

[SteveSC]

Immigration - I think that's contested. A lot of people in the middle/right think the left (particularly far left) favors illegal immigration because immigrants may be more likely to support their aims. I think the truth there is mixed, but I don't think it's wholly inaccurate. But moreover, it doesn't matter what they want, it matters what people see them advocating for. When Trump goes "build the wall!!!" and the left hates Trump so much that they start backing up sanctuary cities not turning over criminals in some misguided knee jerk reaction, portions of the electorate are going to draw conclusions whether that fairly reflects the position of the left or not.

Discrimination/income inequality - People care about these things in a vacuum, but they're told (by the left and non-conservative media) that we're in crisis. Most people probably don't see or feel that crisis right now.

I do think the average voter hears about wealth disparity and goes "yeah bonuses for CEOs are insane, what about the little guy, right?" But that doesn't mean income inequality is something that truly resonates with Americans and impacts elections. Partly because you have Nancy Pelosi out there disparaging the bonuses and wage hikes from Starbucks, Apple, AT&T, Verizon, etc. That stuff matters to people. They care about inherent unfairness to an extent, but I don't think theyd care about some Piketty-ish macro war on income inequality and the wealthy.

Similarly, I think most people see Charlottesville and go "yeah that's messed up, Trump shouldn't be coddling people like that." But then they watch BLM, ANTIFA, the Women's March, etc. for months and months talk about oppression in America, and the felt/seen oppression among your average voter is pretty negligible. And what's more, people (probably mostly white) look around and go, where are these white supremacists, I've never met one? Where are these people using racial slurs? I never hear them. They see cops committing abuses toward people of color, and I truly believe most abhor it, but they live in areas where people of color commit a lot of the violent crime. That taints the concept that the majority is somehow some existential threat to the minority.

Average people look at the Women's March and go, "I'm all for female empowerment, but where is this dystopian Handmaid's Tale universe?" I think we all agree that the #MeToo movement has genuine life and is indicative of genuine, wide-ranging abuse (unfortunately, now people are moving to where bad dates and regrettable sex partners are being lumped in (see the Aziz debacle) and it's probably watering down a legitimate national problem). But people see signs saying "equality of opportunity for women!" and that just doesn't make sense to the average American that knows women are often viewed more favorable by colleges, government and professional employers.

I know that's long winded, but I just think there is a huge disconnect between what the left is messaging, and what actually hits home with average people. And I think solely looking at poll numbers that say "do you care about income inequality" and drawing from that is going to be a mistake for the left from a political messaging perspective.

I'm sorry but when you say "average people/voter" and "most people" you seem to be talking about those of a right persuasion or based in red states or areas.

I think the number of voters that still voted for a "crook" and "bad candidate" shows you that the left "movement" is going strong.

The fact that progressive are starting to win local elections since he took office and more of them are running for office seems to suggest you are way off with your assessment of what the everyday American wants.

Immigration is not contested. Honestly you are so biased (from someone who said he wasn't initially) its unbelievable.

The sanctuary city thing and the protection of those "illegals" are those who have been here a long time.

Just last week Republicans supported DACA and helping long standing illegals find a path to citizenship. But when the government closed because Trump wouldn't sign and then Monday rolls around. Its the democrats fault and all they want to do is help illegals. That's simply BS

Here we go again comparing racists to a small bunch of anarchists pretending to be lefties and infiltrating groups that were never violent.

There are so many documentaries and news articles to explain how wrong you and the right are on that but hey you won't read or watch them right because news is fake?

I am not going to comment on the mad paragraph on the women's movement other than to say you are showing your cards now. You came in here to fight a fight for your cause claiming that you could see all points of view. How quickly you have become another puppet from the right. *Que the comment calling me partisan and a leftie etc...

The disconnect is from the right not seeing how Trump and his base are destroying their party and muddying their base. The disconnect is that they feel they represent the entire people in this country considering with a supposed crook and bad person Clinton was she still garnered more votes than Trump.

The Democrats have issues but none as apparent as the Republican party will have if they continue to live in a bubble and simply accuse the media of being fake and the left as being evil.

Refusing to work with the left and then when the left wishes to work with them not play ball and then blame them despite controlling everything... yes everything...

Also who the feck said anything about simply looking at polls? No one did... Its called watching whats going on around us. Be it the news, the amount off articles on the internet and well the amount of people marching etc.... Its ever so apparent there is a slight shift happening which can grow.

But of course all news is fake and has a leftist agenda right?

 

[Pettifogger]

So your understanding of the motivation of people who advocate for a universal health coverage system in the United States is that they wish people like you to fund it? They want your money moreso than a system of coverage for all? It's about punishing the wealthy? My goodness, mate. That is cynicism of the highest order.

Further, didn't you express concern earlier that you disliked your ideas being viewed as antiquated or stupid? Imagine how the other side feels knowing your view of them is that they are bloodsuckers?

Not exactly. I think there is an element of the left that sees universal healthcare as a vehicle for more government control, damage to private enterprise and wealth distribution.

Your average Democrat? Nah, I just think they think they're more emotionally moved by the concept that it'll be a net good (albeit probably focused more on certain segments than others).

And I suspect you're misinterpreting my sentiments (perhaps my fault). Sure, I don't want to be thought antiquated or stupid. But it's not some driving passion of mine to avoid being thought of that way. Moreover, I don't need to dig very far to find people on the left who are openly hostile to most of what I believe in and some of the immutable characteristics I carry. In other words, I don't want to paint too broadly, as noted by my distinction above. But the belief that some influential portions of the "other side" want to diminish people like me doesn't require speculation, it's clearly articulated on TV, in major publications, etc.

 

[Pettifogger]

Steve, I gave you a fair breakdown of my views, that often tries to envision the opposition and respond to it (or to otherwise consider the opposing viewpoint), and I get back more of the same "oh everything is fake news right!" dumb snark that derailed our discussion earlier. I'm on the right, and I'm biased to that view. You're probably on the left and biased to that view. If you claim you aren't, fine, I don't care. Whatever you are, you're clearly unhappy that I don't see everything the same way you do. I'm not sure why you devote so much energy into painting me as something I'm clearly not (some mindless, dishonest Hannity regurgitator). It'd be great if you could stop doing that.

Immigration - It's obviously contested. You and I are contesting it. That you ignore that sanctuary cities have ignored detainer requests for criminals (with the crime being something other than an immigration violation) is irrelevant. You can say you don't think the left supports illegal immigration from your experience, and that's fine. My argument is that the public perception is probably different from portions of the center and the right.

Government Shutdown - You're presenting this as though Democrats, who took largely the same deal after the shutdown as was offered before the shutdown, played no role. How is that constructive? Most Republicans support DACA in some form, at least in my personal interactions.

Race/White Supremacy - Just look at what you wrote. It's a ridiculous contortion of what I wrote. My entire premise is that there is a discord between liberal messaging and public perception. I'm not even really making affirmative statements about what is or is not true, I'm talking about what people see and feel in response to certain political messages. And here you go, pretending I'm somehow lumping ANTIFA and BLM in with white supremacists? Come on.

What's more, you hilariously call out my bias while saying things like "small bunch of anarchists pretending to be lefties and infiltrating groups that were never violent." That level of subjective opinion spun as objective fact would make Breitbart proud.

The rest of your post is largely emotional ranting about my motivations and whatnot. That my political bias is somehow a slur in your mind while you go on a tangent expressing your own political views is somewhat amusing but also depressing. I'm willing to play both sides here, tell you what I believe while also identifying and/or accepting your thoughts on the flaws on my side. You do not seem willing to do that. Maybe you think your side is objectively the correct side and that there simply isn't any other way?

 

[SteveSC]

Steve, I gave you a fair breakdown of my views, that often tries to envision the opposition and respond to it (or to otherwise consider the opposing viewpoint), and I get back more of the same "oh everything is fake news right!" dumb snark that derailed our discussion earlier. I'm on the right, and I'm biased to that view. You're probably on the left and biased to that view. If you claim you aren't, fine, I don't care. Whatever you are, you're clearly unhappy that I don't see everything the same way you do. I'm not sure why you devote so much energy into painting me as something I'm clearly not (some mindless, dishonest Hannity regurgitator). It'd be great if you could stop doing that.

I'm not going to waste anymore time with you to be frank. Here we go again with your attempt to dismiss or belittle someones response to your posts.

The whole i'm on both sides argument is really a rouse you are clearly not. You say that to try keep a discussion open but you seriously do not believe that

I guess we all just emotional or ranting when we disagree with you.

I count 3 people you have told that to now all the while trying to get them to listen to your point so its ironic you claim we want you to agree with us and cannot take your point of view.

 

[Pettifogger]

I'm not going to waste anymore time with you to be frank. Here we go again with your attempt to dismiss or belittle someones response to your posts.

The whole i'm on both sides argument is really a rouse you are clearly not. You say that to try keep a discussion open but you seriously do not believe that

I guess we all just emotional or ranting when we disagree with you.

I count 3 people you have told that to now all the while trying to get them to listen to your point so its ironic you claim we want you to agree with us and cannot take your point of view.

Haha what do you expect? You inaccurately portray me and my comments, and I'm supposed to not belittle or dismiss? You don't even take the time to actually read what I post.

I'm not on "both sides" of the argument. I'm on one side, but for the sake of discussion I'm trying to recognize the other side because it's more interesting when people anticipate the rebuttal/other side instead of just leveling talking points about how I'm good and you're bad.

I'm inviting you to disagree with me. That would be "I think you're dead wrong on what the public cares about because of ______. I think you're missing how people view the Women's March and letting your bias interfere with what Democrats are truly saying, which is ______."

It's not "honestly you're so biased it's unbelievable" "it's all fake news right" or "how quickly you've become a puppet"

 

[SteveSC]

Haha what do you expect? You inaccurately portray me and my comments, and I'm supposed to not belittle or dismiss? You don't even take the time to actually read what I post.

I'm not on "both sides" of the argument. I'm on one side, but for the sake of discussion I'm trying to recognize the other side because it's more interesting when people anticipate the rebuttal/other side instead of just leveling talking points about how I'm good and you're bad.

I'm inviting you to disagree with me. That would be "I think you're dead wrong on what the public cares about because of ______. I think you're missing how people view the Women's March and letting your bias interfere with what Democrats are truly saying, which is ______."

It's not "honestly you're so biased it's unbelievable" "it's all fake news right" or "how quickly you've become a puppet"

We will have to agree to disagree or simply disagree.... Like i said I'm not going to waste anymore time with you.

I never was disparaging or disrespectful or you were bad. You can continue to claim that all you want i don't care. You took it to personal insults.

I get it you disagree with anyone else's view that doesn't suit you or you position but at the same time you are open to what they have to say.

Anyway have a good one

 

[BlueTX]

Not exactly. I think there is an element of the left that sees universal healthcare as a vehicle for more government control, damage to private enterprise and wealth distribution.

Your average Democrat? Nah, I just think they think they're more emotionally moved by the concept that it'll be a net good (albeit probably focused more on certain segments than others).

And I suspect you're misinterpreting my sentiments (perhaps my fault). Sure, I don't want to be thought antiquated or stupid. But it's not some driving passion of mine to avoid being thought of that way. Moreover, I don't need to dig very far to find people on the left who are openly hostile to most of what I believe in and some of the immutable characteristics I carry. In other words, I don't want to paint too broadly, as noted by my distinction above. But the belief that some influential portions of the "other side" want to diminish people like me doesn't require speculation, it's clearly articulated on TV, in major publications, etc.

Right. That TV, major publications and politicians sell their message to their viewer, reader or voting base in return for votes/money is pretty commonly accepted. That's not what I was discussing.

You say you don't have to dig very far to find people of the left who deride you in ways you don't appreciate or accept and you cite motivation of those people for a reason you are not really open to the discussion of a national system of health care. I find such mindset truly unfortunate. That said, it seems to me you have exhibited quite the same behavior toward those of the left and that was all I was pointing out.

You previously stated you are in favor of some form of safety net. So am I. So is the majority of this country. Yet discussion about what is best for this country related to health care (and no one truly believes the status quo is what is best for the country) is essentially reduced to the level of schoolyard taunting between the kids who live one side of the tracks v the kids from the other side and the ridiculously petty fears and nitpicking of differences that such dynamics fall prey to. I had tried to avoid such.

I wish you well.

 

[Pettifogger]

We will have to agree to disagree or simply disagree.... Like i said I'm not going to waste anymore time with you.

I never was disparaging or disrespectful or you were bad. You can continue to claim that all you want i don't care. You took it to personal insults.

I get it you disagree with anyone else's view that doesn't suit you or you position but at the same time you are open to what they have to say.

Anyway have a good one

Obviously I think this is a mischaracterization of everything that has transpired, but cheers nonetheless

 

[toffy]

Obviously I think this is a mischaracterization of everything that has transpired, but cheers nonetheless

He'll be back

 

[Pettifogger]

Right. That TV, major publications and politicians sell their message to their viewer, reader or voting base in return for votes/money is pretty commonly accepted. That's not what I was discussing.

You say you don't have to dig very far to find people of the left who deride you in ways you don't appreciate or accept and you cite motivation of those people for a reason you are not really open to the discussion of a national system of health care. I find such mindset truly unfortunate. That said, it seems to me you have exhibited quite the same behavior toward those of the left and that was all I was pointing out.

You previously stated you are in favor of some form of safety net. So am I. So is the majority of this country. Yet discussion about what is best for this country related to health care (and no one truly believes the status quo is what is best for the country) is essentially reduced to the level of schoolyard taunting between the kids who live one side of the tracks v the kids from the other side and the ridiculously petty fears and nitpicking of differences that such dynamics fall prey to. I had tried to avoid such.

I wish you well.

You and I have been discussing a national system of healthcare for pages, so I think your conclusion is a bit off. As to nitpicking and whatnot, we agree that political conversations often devolve into taunting. But, to the extent you view my concerns about the motivations of proponents, the costs, who will bear the costs, etc. as being in that category of nitpicking/petty fears/whatnot - Obviously I can't agree.

As to derision and the like, do you not agree that some people probably view the issue of healthcare as an issue with broader implications? I'd be surprised if you didn't, even though we may disagree as to how important/large that contingent is. I don't necessarily think the left is evil or bigoted or whatever many on that side think of me. But I do think they have wealth redistribution goals, because many of them state that openly. I'm not sure how those things are comparable.

 

[ilikecheese]

$18 billion for a wall we've never needed.

Personally I think that money could be far better used on things like health care and infrastructure to name a couple.

 

[BlueTX]

You and I have been discussing a national system of healthcare for pages, so I think your conclusion is a bit off. As to nitpicking and whatnot, we agree that political conversations often devolve into taunting. But, to the extent you view my concerns about the motivations of proponents, the costs, who will bear the costs, etc. as being in that category of nitpicking/petty fears/whatnot - Obviously I can't agree.

As to derision and the like, do you not agree that some people probably view the issue of healthcare as an issue with broader implications? I'd be surprised if you didn't, even though we may disagree as to how important/large that contingent is. I don't necessarily think the left is evil or bigoted or whatever many on that side think of me. But I do think they have wealth redistribution goals, because many of them state that openly. I'm not sure how those things are comparable.

If one believes heath care is a right for all humans and delivery of such is in the best interest of all, "broader implications" such as the ones you have described are, in fact, small/petty/nitpicking by comparison.

You do not seem to believe health care is a right or in the best interest of all so focus on the "broader implications".

We are at impasse.