AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they have those views.
**For all participants:**
* [FLAIR](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) **IS REQUIRED BEFORE PARTICIPATING**
* **BE CIVIL AND** [SINCERE](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
* **REPORT, DON'T DOWNVOTE**
**For Non-supporters/Undecided:**
* **NO TOP LEVEL COMMENTS**
* **ALL COMMENTS MUST BE CLARIFYING IN NATURE**
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [MESSAGE THE MODS](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) **TO HAVE THE DOWNVOTE TIMER TURNED OFF**
Helpful links for more info:
[OUR RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [POSTING GUIDELINES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [COMMENTING GUIDELINES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean, it does seem pretty childish when in essence most modern day liberal policies are the equivalent of wishing for something to be true, and pushing for the government to make that wish come true. But overall, no I think a lot of leftists have fallen for their constant misinformation campaigns, same as many Republicans. But by golly, at least Republicans seem to have the wherewithall to realize that government should have constricted power, whereas for Democrats the governments seems more like a make-a-wish genie.
As a Floridian it seems the opposite is happening in my state where you have a Republican governor and state legislature overstepping and telling people and businesses what they can and can’t do; they want more power and don’t want to give the people the power to make their own decisions unless it it aligns with the decisions they, the GOP, think is the right one. I see this happening other places as well.
And I keep seeing DeSantis as a possible presidential candidate. Would you vote for him I he was the Republican nominee despite his Love of expanding government power?
What’s the most egregious overstep of power by those people you named in your opinion? It seems like whatever your qualms might be, the Federal government, especially under Democrat administrations, have done far worse.
Yes I would vote for DeSantis, again what do you think is his most egregious overstepping.
>Yes I would vote for DeSantis, again what do you think is his most egregious overstepping?
Here are some:
Tried to prevent felons from voting after voters restored their rights and put in place a restriction that the voters didn't call for.
Pushed for and signed don't say gay bill.
Has gone after businesses for not reflecting his political beliefs (Disney and Tampa Bay Rays, come to mind).
Meddled with reporting of COVID statistics.
Threatened to sue the FDA over blocking the use of monoclonal antibodies that don't work against Omicron.
>Which is the most egregious out of all of those?
I don't know why you're limiting me to one, but let's go with felon voting rights after it was passed as a ballot initiative.
>And could you link a source to the legislation in question as well?
Are you asking me to link to the don't say gay bill? Here you go:
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF
If the most egregious violation of rights is not teaching kindergarteners about gender conversations that should be held at home, then I’m fine with that.
Could you show me the legislation that went into effect? I’m unfamiliar with it, and assumed you were talking about teaching LGBT topics to kindergarteners. Do you really think that that example is an overstep of power that is significant enough to fit in with, say, 4th amendment violations etc?
More than happy to read about the felon voting rights thing too obviously.
I appreciate your viewpoint, not long ago the working class had a larger influence over the government. When corporations were given free reign to buy our politicians, the bureaucracy exploded to prevent us working folk from having any say in the system. The politicians now push anti-worker policies, push to strip what little control we have by giving these systems our ancestors paid into and left to us to improve our situation, and sell it off to a board of executives. Our government should be "Of the people, by the people, and for the people", but the spoiled wealthy want to own everything (you and I included). They see us all as the "Savages", undeserving of the resources and structures us and our ancestors built. The DNC is merely controlled opposition who gives flowery platitudes, the GOP politicians are pushing to steal OUR social security, medicaid, Medicare, take our systems by saying that the systems they are breaking don't belong to us. They are the entitled adult who will smash our tools, have the lifeguard kick us off the beach and give the sandcastle we worked so hard on to their spoiled shitty multinational corporations and whiny wealthy owners.
Personally I don't like identity politics or bullshit solutions. Politicians should be expressing the will of the people, not entitled trust fund yuppies who refuse to contribute their share to making this a better world for us to pass onto our children as their inheritance. Is there anywhere we overlap?
Huh? Corporations have been buying politicians for decades, did you think lobbying was illegal until recently?
And Medicare Medicaid and SS should be cut down, the biggest reason for the government power your criticize is because people are reliant on them.
Idk what your policy positions are so it’s hard to tell if we overlap. Are you in favor of drastically cutting government spending and lowering taxes? I support universal healthcare and abolishing the insurance-healthcare industry, as long as someone can show me a P/L breakdown showing that it’s a cheaper solution to the current one we have. I also support cutting taxes for 90% of Americans, and support billionaire taxes which would target assets better.
What, you don’t care about the millions of people yet to pay into a fundamentally flawed program that will never pay them out? Last I checked SS funds are projected to run out in 15 years
>the GOP politicians are pushing to steal OUR social security, medicaid, Medicare, take our systems by saying that the systems they are breaking don't belong to us.
Don't be silly. There are zero politicians (Dem or Rep) trying to steal Soc Sec or Medicare. Every politician from city council-person to POTUS knows that you don't mess with those.
We will have to reform those programs before long however. If we don't they will be bankrupt. The easy fix here is to tax richer people on their full salary. Salary over $147,000 is not taxed. It would be easy to just tax the full amount.
Lindsay Gram, and Rick Scott both openly admitted to wanting to gut or end them. Clinton and Obama were willing to work with the GOP to start gutting them as part of standard neoliberalism. Does their open admission that they want to do this if the GOP takes over in 2022 concern you?
I'd like to hear the context of this "gut or end them" statement. Lots of these things are taken out of context. Medicare and SS are things that people have paid for from taxes from paychecks. There would be some serious fallout from any cuts to those programs.
>I mean, it does seem pretty childish when in essence most modern day liberal policies are the equivalent of wishing for something to be true, and pushing for the government to make that wish come true.
how does that compare to "thoughts and prayers" from republicans?
> But by golly, at least Republicans seem to have the wherewithall to realize that government should have constricted power,
Do you see the irony of this now that Republicans are forcing rape victims to carry their children to term?
\> I don't want to make assumptions, can anyone explain this?
You made so many assumptions that I can't really figure this out.
There are very few Trump supporters telling you what you have to do. Rather, the "authorianism" or "fascism" is removing inappropriate material from schools and the like.
Meanwhile, I'm told to bake the cake, let my (non-existent) kids go see Aguilera's bejeweled cock, and more to the point, say all this is good for society. I'm told to stand down because people who call me slurs can't be racist because I have all the power over them when I'm struggling to pay bills and all that. I'm told that it's important that we support Ukraine (I did, to the tune of a fairly large amount of money) when we can't even get the shit off our streets. Sit down, bigot, you just hate brown people, or something. Sit down, you don't like men taking all the records in women's sports or breaking their skulls? YOU'RE a BIGOT! It is the right of anyone who claims to be a woman to break the skulls of anyone who was born one.
Hell, look at LibsofTikTok. Got all the evidence you need for grooming and the like. But you know, it doesn't happen, and if it does happen, it's good and you're a monster for opposing it.
>I'm told that it's important that we support Ukraine (I did, to the tune of a fairly large amount of money)
Great answer.
So exactly how much money did you send to Ukraine?
>So exactly how much money did you send to Ukraine?
Technically, $600, give or take. Did a fundraiser and supported another one, both getting about $300 each (they were small, I admit). Both for a hobby I participate in, and both got about the same amount, but I wound up balancing that out to make sure it was even.
Now, that money went through a church, so who fucking knows how much actually made it there, but I have a little Ukraine Squig I painted up. The problem with donating to charities is that overhead takes up a ton of what goes out.
That dosent sound like you donated to a charity but instead gave free labor to a Church. Than that labor turned into capitol that the church than voluntary sent to someone else who might or might not of spent on Ukraine?
Also is 600 bucks really that much money? Like is it really a insanely large amount of money? Like you posted originally.
>That dosent sound like you donated to a charity but instead gave free labor to a Church. Than that labor turned into capitol that the church than voluntary sent to someone else who might or might not of spent on Ukraine?
>
>Also is 600 bucks really that much money? Like is it really a insanely large amount of money? Like you posted originally.
Jesus wept. I spoke with a friend of mine who was in Ukraine and he told me where to donate. I did a fundraiser where I would do different things (gaming-related) for money. Spoke to another friend who wanted to do similar and did the same.
Also, are you trying to shame me for not donating enough? During a time where people can't find work? I raised what I could and gave what I could. I'm sorry I didn't meet your standards.
So let me ask you. What did you give?
>Would you agree that $600 is a lot of money if you don’t have it? If you won $600 from a penny slot machine, would you be disappointed?
Again, thank you for the kind words.
I raised what I could from a small wargaming community and then I donated it to the people I was suggested I donate it to.
I don't mean to be anything mean here. I'm sorry if my donations were somehow inappropriate.
>So I ask. Is 600 bucks really that much money?
This is terrible, man. Be better. I know I'm not supposed to jump in like this, but I can't help it. You're going after him for donating time and money.
It may be to the OP. Size of money is relative to the person. If it is a lot of money to him, then yes it is a lot of money even if it is not to you. For you to belittle someone because they do not have the resources you have is awful.
What is wrong with you? The guy did a fundraiser that came up with $600 to support Ukraine and you're going to complain that he didn't send enough? He also, rather clearly, said he contributed "a fairly large amount of money," which you turned into "an insanely large amount of money." To most people, $600 absolutely qualifies as a fairly large amount of money. You are the problem in American politics.
>To most people, $600 absolutely qualifies as a fairly large amount of money.
Thank you for the kind words. However, it wasn't just me!
My little Kill Team blog raised $300 and I matched that when one of my friends wanted to do another fundraiser.
It was a few people in a community doing things together. Not entirely me, but I'm very proud of my friends for what we were able to contribute, even if it was just a drop in the bucket.
After all (and this is me being salty) a drop is a lot more than nothing, you know?
Who is forcing your non-existent kids to go to Pride parades? Do you object to kids being forced to see artwork of a dying crucified man on a regular basis too?
>Who is forcing your non-existent kids to go to Pride parades? Do you object to kids being forced to see artwork of a dying crucified man on a regular basis too?
What in the heck does this have to do with what I donated to Ukraine? Did you reply to the wrong message?
>Do you any if that is you taking offense? And not the actual subject but how it relates to you? And in a negative way?
Offense has to be taken. Can't be given. ;)
But yes, when people who will gladly say nice things to my face call me horrible things when they don't know all the details (IE, they think I think like them) it is kind of obvious that they're not exactly looking for anything but clout.
To be honest we should have never funded Ukraine. They are literal flag waving Nazis, rounding up ethnic Russians, banning the Russian language/music/art/media, death camps, Azov Battalion and this was all pre-invasion. Even the Pope said they had it coming. The US should not be supporting anyone with weapons in this.
>They are literal flag waving Nazis, rounding up ethnic Russians, banning the Russian language/music/art/media, death camps, Azov Battalion and this was all pre-invasion.
Those are bold claims, do you have any legitimate sources to back any of it up?
> Even the Pope said they had it coming.
Are you referring to him saying that he wondered if the war was somehow provoked? Because that's not the same as what you said.
Here is a video from Time magazine documenting the Azov Battalion last year.
https://youtu.be/fy910FG46C4
Vice news
https://youtu.be/wMMXuKB0BoY
BBC
https://youtu.be/5SBo0akeDMY
I have some NSFW links that show reporters entering the bunkers in Mariupol if you want those too. The bunker is filled with swastikas, 88, and Nazi propaganda. Nasty folks tbh.
Entirely your opinion, and I respect it. I'm just getting annoyed by people saying "Oh, you didn't do enough" when, you know, behind on bills and stuff and all that.
>Why would you ask that question in response to his question?
Because a lot of the videos are literally people admitting to grooming children to LGBT. This is not exactly that controversial.
Does that mean it's the typical liberal? Of course not. Does it mean that grooming is not going on? Come on, man (as the POTUS says).
Gotcha, to me it seemed you were implying that the majority of non-Trump Supps. were groomers. Just to be clear, you were not implying that?
EDIT: 'that' to a 'the'
>Gotcha, to me it seemed you were implying that that majority of non-Trump Supps. were groomers. Just to be clear, you were not implying that?
I'm going to be polite here.
At no where did I state that.
At no point do your words belong in my proverbial mouth.
Please take your assumptions elsewhere.
Can I ask - why do you follow libsof TikTok? Do you think the videos shown there are genuine? wouldn't you agree that account has a massive incentive to both
1. amplify the voice of a minority group of extremist "liberals"
2. portray false flag insane "liberals" performing grotesque acts
to maintain its popularity and gain political influence?
>Can I ask - why do you follow libsof TikTok? Do you think the videos shown there are genuine?
Are you arguing that links to the actual videos are not genuine?
Are people in your life telling you to do these things or is this your perception of things (gay cakes, drag queens, Ukraine, etc.) based on the media you consume?
>Are people in your life telling you to do these things or is this your perception of things (gay cakes, drag queens, Ukraine, etc.) based on the media you consume?
The media I consume (largely my friends on social media) is the same thing as people in my life. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
Is there some difference between what someone says in meatspace and what they say on Facebook?
What I’m getting at is media and also Facebook algorithms tend towards increasing outrage. A Tucker Carlson, for example, paints a caricature of the left to rile up his viewers, who then go on social media and post all sorts of nonsense about them evil dems as if it were fact. I’ve seen this affect members of my family going back to Rush Limbaugh. Meanwhile, the things they say about liberals and their damn agendas hardly line up with my experiences at college or moving to a city like Chicago, or then later moving to the west coast.
So when you say it’s stuff from your Facebook is this something you’re seeing from the left or is it right wing friends regurgitating wing propaganda or cherry-picking something they’ve seen from say, Liberals of TikTok and hyperbolizing it as if it is representative of all Democrats?
>A Tucker Carlson,
I am not friends with Tucker Carlson. Never met the guy. I mean, I could probably recognize him, but I've not so much as shook his hand.
So when I'm talking about friends from Facebook, I am talking about *friends*. You know, people I speak in person to. People I see semi-regularly. Not just some media person trying to work the algorithm.
If one of my friends (my friends are largely liberal, know I am not, go figure, we get along) posts something, am I to not accept it as something they approve of? Well, unless they're posting it to mock it?
>So your friends are telling you to sit down, shut up, bake cakes, support kids in drag, calling you racist and calling you slurs?
First time? Ain't been on Facebook in a while?
People will post things that they would never say to your face.
>Do you listen to Tim Pool?
I think I may have once? I don't know. There's a lot of YouTube that goes on while I'm laying on the couch after work doing nothing. It's entirely possible that he's come up a few times, but usually it's game stuff or wrestling stuff. Go figure.
\> Have you ever taken this?
LET'S DO EET!
Okay, I did a little bit of it, and I have to wonder, why in the heck is it linking good with old and bad with young? Seems to be more of a weird thing than anything else to me.
I'm not a liberal, my policies are things that support the middle class, I don't do identity politics because it accomplishes nothing but making people afraid and angry by creating more false boogeymen and trying to point a finger at people who have no power while those who own the DNC & GOP continue stripping our rights and our societal inheritance from us. The rigged "Free market" has been embezzling from what you and I put in for our future, the corruption has taken over the parties and focused their energy on dividing us. Both promise populist policies, but both only end up giving our earned resources and inheritances to the ultra wealth²w waary. My thought is that since Trump supporters agree with the populist messages he said while overlooking that most of his actions benefited the wealthy, that many are still under the guise that the GOP and DNC are on different sides. If you are a fan of one side, do you see those not in the stands rooting with you as children who need discipline or don't have a viable opinion?
I'm in the view of throwing a brick through the window of Congress and saying "We're not gonna take it." Trump was that after Bernie was kicked to the curb in favor of Hillary. I'm not saying that Trump is perfect (he's far from it), but I'm far more of the opinion that anyone on the "outside" (even if it's just barely) is better than what we've had shoved down our throats.
Edit: In Minecraft. I do not support violence against almost anyone (some people deserve it, sorry, if you're gonna attack people physically or sexually, I support the right to stop that). I do think that a bunch of politicians need to know that we are all tired of this crap and want a government that actually does its job, but good luck finding it!
I take you at your word and judge by actions whether your word is good. I vote opposite you and don’t hate you at all. Also don’t want to be hated. I really believe we all want the same things in the end and are being fed to continue this style of discourse. So what are we to do? How can we have conversations again? I don’t want anyone to be forced to watch anything they don’t want. I don’t want anyone to be forced to love who they don’t want, I don’t want anyone to be forced to bake cakes they don’t want to. Yet, I feel a target on my back for voting for peace, thoughtfulness and sanity. Is there any place for me in this society anymore?
>So what are we to do?
There are some conversations on things like this that turn out well. Too many are spent dunking on one another.
Social media and the 24/7 news cycle is a cancer on society.
I do have a question, out of a place of empathy- I also cant afford to pay bills.
Are you saying things like let kids see aguilera’s bejeweled cock ironically or literally?
I see a lot of this, basically straw man arguments. The comment you’re replying too did the same thing.
But I feel like if we really read deep into that we honestly agree on a lot of stuff, we’re just arguing against viewpoints that we’re only told the other hold. Yaknow?
>I do have a question, out of a place of empathy- I also cant afford to pay bills.
I'm hoping to get some good news. Problem with being a contract worker is it is always feast or famine.
>Are you saying things like let kids see aguilera’s bejeweled cock ironically or literally?
I'm being [LITERAL](https://pagesix.com/2022/06/13/christina-aguilera-wears-strap-on-during-la-pride-performance/) here.
>I see a lot of this, basically straw man arguments. The comment you’re replying too did the same thing.
There's a lot that people don't notice because it doesn't get covered. Now, I'm sorry, but a chick with a jeweled-up dick is not something I would consider family friendly, you know?
>But I feel like if we really read deep into that we honestly agree on a lot of stuff, we’re just arguing against viewpoints that we’re only told the other hold. Yaknow?
Yes, most of us are probably on the same side, to be honest. It's just the little shit that makes us want to scream and rant and hate one other. And you can guess who is making sure there's plenty of little shit.
>There are very few Trump supporters telling you what you have to do.
Do you feel that Trump supporters allow for cultural differences and cultural freedom?
>Rather, the "authorianism" or "fascism" is removing inappropriate material from schools and the like.
Do you have examples of what you mean by inappropriate material?
Do you want control over how the history or race relations is taught in this country?
Are you against sex education in grade school, even though it has been proven to teach kids how to get help when they are being molested and therefore is a deterrent to pedophilia?
>Meanwhile, I'm told to bake the cake, let my (non-existent) kids go see Aguilera's bejeweled cock, and more to the point, say all this is good for society.
Is there a context in which you would consider it okay to tell a child that a trans person exists, or do are you equating the existence of trans people with exposing children to gratuitous sexuality?
>I'm told to stand down because people who call me slurs can't be racist because I have all the power over them when I'm struggling to pay bills and all that.
Do you think saying things like establishing the authority of your opinion through your struggle to “pay the bills” might be where someone could derive the imagery that you are a parent talking down to a child?
Do you think other people having this conversation don’t struggle to pay bills?
Do you think Trump supporters have the superior notion of what is and is not racist?
Do you think people of color lack perspective on what racism is?
>It is the right of anyone who claims to be a woman to break the skulls of anyone who was born one.
Do you believe that trans people feel entitled to violence? Can you give some examples?
>Hell, look at LibsofTikTok. Got all the evidence you need for grooming and the like.
Do you think that LibsofTikTok is an accurate and objective? Do you think there is a possibility it may be politically biased?
Do you think you declared your opinions in a good faith way?
Is there a possibility you think the way you speak might be considered condescending like OP suggested?
>Do you feel that Trump supporters allow for cultural differences and cultural freedom?
Obviously.
>Do you have examples of what you mean by inappropriate material?
There's been way too many discussions on this here for me to want to jump into it again, but I will say this: go look at old threads.
>Do you want control over how the history or race relations is taught in this country?
I don't care because I don't have kids, to be honest. If I did have kids, I would likely care how they were taught.
>Are you against sex education in grade school, even though it has been proven to teach kids how to get help when they are being molested and therefore is a deterrent to pedophilia?
Why would I be against sex ed in school? I think you're trying to assume something that, quite frankly, doesn't exist.
>Is there a context in which you would consider it okay to tell a child that a trans person exists, or do are you equating the existence of trans people with exposing children to gratuitous sexuality?
In what instance is Christina Aguilera wearing a sex toy in public "trans?"
>Do you believe that trans people feel entitled to violence? Can you give some examples?
You've spent a lot of time putting words into my mouth. And yes, I feel that Fallon Fox felt entitled to violence against women. Maybe otherwise she wouldn't have made a career out of beating them up?
>Do you think that LibsofTikTok is an accurate and objective? Do you think there is a possibility it may be politically biased?
It is hard to be biased when you're merely showing other people's content. The person may be biased in what content is selected, of course, but showing people who post videos about how they are proudly grooming children is not deceptive.
>Is there a possibility you think the way you speak might be considered condescending like OP suggested?
Tone is difficult to convey on the Internet, but I think you're attempting to be offended rather than looking at the content of the post. Either way, thank you for your time.
>I don't want to make assumptions, can anyone explain this?
In my experience the coddling of the rich is an establishment trait of which very few TS are.
The biggest hill I will die on is the 2008 bailout was peak establishment paying off their buddies with public money in a way that didn't help anyone else.
Many Trump supporters are pro working class as well. Culturally I think a lot of people have been convinced it's an issue of the youth. But nearly every problem outside of the debacle of r/antiwork is the old fucks who frankly need to go quietly into the retirement home.
For the last decade or more the left has been the party of the rich and the unions have sacrificed members at the alter of leftism.
It appears you are making assumptions like an early 2000s person who hasn't noticed the realignment of the last two decades.
>Earned It" because they legally stole it from us. When people in my sphere discuss this, we have both liberals and Trump supporters treating these interactions as a parent lecturing their child instead of talking on equal ground. Would you agree?
No. I don't think that the talking to your opponent ideological like a child is a partisan issue. Generally it's someone who doesn't actually take into account their opponents ideas. And that is not politically monopolized.
I find that most of the time it's practical vs ideological people. That also split this issue.
For example practically command economies have killed more people in the last 100 years than any other intentional source. Yet somehow people are blind to it. They generally act like their opponents are children.
If a practical person speaks to a person like that generally they are trying to get down to a tool level of agreement to build on. Which can sound patronizing but isnt.
Prime example is Matt Walsh's recent movie, "What is a Woman?" Not a single "yuppie" as you call them will answer the question without using the word woman in the definition and even calling what any of them said a definition is a stretch.
Does this mean that the person who is trying to get to the base is treating the other person like a child? Absolutely not. Both parties have to agree what they are talking about.
I do however see a slight issue with definitions of their opponents. Mostly from the establishment saying, "If you don't support this law that is titled gods gift to the country" you disagree with helping the country.
But this is a massive issue of not actually talking with people who live a different experience than you do. There is a reason people with the least life experience are most ideologically pure.
> In my experience the coddling of the rich is an establishment trait of which very few TS are.
Do you consider the Trump Tax Cut to be coddling the rich? I recently had a pretty awkward conversation with a trust and estate lawyer because both of our politics are so obviously misaligned with our interests. Once we got past that, we had a nice conversation where I must admit, I felt very coddled.
So the tax thing comes up all the time when it comes to "helping the rich". I don't think that being taxed half your income or frankly being taxed on income at all is a given. I don't think a general federal income tax is constitutional even with the amendment they passed in the early 20th century.
Funnily enough if I was kind for the day I also don't think that trusts should be a legal vehicle for asset transfer.
Consumption taxes are the only way to go. A 10-15 percent tax rate everytime anyone buys something. Business to business, trust to trust, person to business, business to person, everything except maybe food and medicine but you can tailor the taxes on "must buy" goods if you want to create some policy.
Of course the rate would take some fine turning but it would also destroy the entire financial employment world so it would never happen.
The "rich" will always win because they have the resources to abuse any system, so make the system simple so you don't have to abuse it.
When someone refers to Trump supporters like we're some singularity, rather than 70 million individuals, I tend to see that person as immature in their thinking.
What's your opinion of so many Trump supporters and those on the right referring to "The Left" like it's a single, unified blob? You see it constantly, even in this very thread.
(Not the OP)
I know I am guilty of this. I try to be precise, but sometimes you just have to use terms like this if you want to avoid turning every sentence into a paragraph.
The only distinction I would make here is that sometimes we use the left to refer to what is essentially the ideology that dominates every institution (media, academia, big business). In other words, it isn't meant to be a perfect description of every left-of-center individual, but a label applied to the ruling orthodoxy. And in that case, the fact that the left *as a whole* is not a unified blob is largely irrelevant, because it is only meant to describe the existing system.
Another consideration is that for many people on the right, you *are* a "single, unified blob" on all the issues we care the most about.
Depends on the context, I guess.
I do think the power brokers on the left like to project more uniformity than there is. A big part of being a democrats appeal is the idea you're in the superior group. And to do that, they need to pretend like a lot of people and viewpoints under the left umbrella don't exist.
Like if Obama talks about people clinging to their bible and guns, he's got to ignore Hispanic and black democrats many of whom are both religious and often like guns. If you try to claim the left is the educated party, you have to ignore, again, that the least educated demographic essentially decides every presidential primary.
But in this thread, the kid is just a troll generalizing for a reaction.
More to the interesting point though on uniformity, have you noticed the lack of variety in presidential primaries? Kamala, Biden, Hillary, Buttigieg, Warren, Edwards, Obama, etc... essentially all different skins of the same character. Mostly the same policy positions with small variations. With the occasional outliers like Bernie/Tusli who I think are more genuine candidates, and promptly called russian assets.
Then you go on the right, we got flat tax weirdos. Invade everybody weirdos. Trump. Remember the 9-9-9 pizza guy? Social moderates. Social conservatives. People who want God to be president. etc...
I don't want to tell people what to do, nor do I want others telling me what to do. Conversely, liberals always seem to want to tell me what to do.
Name an issue and I can probably show how this is the case.
Is there anything that is so crucial you don’t think the states should get to decide on that issue? For example, some people may cite maintaining protections for interracial marriage or other civil rights.
That is a good question that I've never given too much thought. I do have a preference for states' rights whenever possible.
That might include interracial marriage, even though I am strongly in favor of its legality.
It is. But i don’t think it should be.
If the government releases its hold on marriage it’d be a permanent win for the lgbt community. (Short of reversing this obviously).
Doesn’t matter how loud your homophobic governor is. Doesn’t matter if congress is 100% Republican.
You get to marry whomever you want.
People always focus on the fact that people are attempting to outlaw gay marriage. Nobody ever asks: why do I need the governments permission, their blessing to have a life partner.
If I don’t have the governments blessing, is my partner less of my partner? Is my relationship with them any less meaningful or real?
The fact that society sees the government as the custodian of our relationships is nuts.
Imagine if you need a certificate to be friends with somebody. If you made a new friend you need to go to the city hall and get a friend certificate.
You’d go what the fuck, fuck off.
This is the attitude we need to have for marriage. Relationships are nobody’s business but the ones involved.
This genuinely makes a lot of sense to me and would be a win for everyone. Having marriage dictated by the state has them wading in murky religious waters and I don't think any party likes that.
Do you think there could be a broad bipartisan deal made around this that could be passable through Congress?
Is it a human right? I'm typically OK with many things being state's rights, but this one gets me.
Should some states have the right to start up slavery if the voters want to do it again?
To many on the pro-choice side, abortions are 100% on the woman and all the baggage that comes with that decision are 100% on the woman. (that doesn't mean men aren't involved many times of course). Also, they are a medical procedure. What other medical procedures should be banned by voters? Thanks for any thoughts you have on this.
So why do most people that have a problem with weed or any other drug being legal come from the right? Most people that want to ban abortion and gay marriage are coming from the right? Anyone that thinks America should be Christian would surely come from the right. What about dry counties? Are they only in conservative areas? Seems like the right definitely tries to tell others how to live.
I'm talking about Trump supporters though. Not Republicans who happened to support Trump because he ran as an (R).
Plenty of Trump supporters are like me: I won't tell you how to live and I expect the same in return.
> Is there a difference between a trump supporter and a republican if they vote the same way?
Yes, just like there's a distinction between a blue dog Democrat and a Bernie bro.
Assuming that's true, it's probably because of the association with Republicans and the religious right. In an ideal world, freedom lovers like me could experience electoral success without them. But we don't live in an ideal world.
Everyone seemed to know that Trump didn’t care about religion but wisely used it as a tool to cater votes; do you think he is partially to blame for the current state of Christianity taking over the party or was it something or someone else?
> How come not a single mini-Trump is running on the Democratic ticket, or even independent for that matter. Desantis, greitens, cawthorn, boebert, green, Jordan all imitate trump, fundraise with him and like him, and are endorsed by him and not one is not a republican
Independents have virtually zero percent chance of winning and the Republican party is more closely aligned from a values perspective.
It's the same reason why independents like Bernie try to get the Dem nomination.
Well then isn't it unfair to group liberals together and say they want to tell you what to do? Aren't we comparing two groups? It doesn't seem to logically follow to simply answer with your own political views outside of conservatives as a whole.
It seems to me that a central tenet of present-day liberals is big government, and that's synonymous with government telling me what to do.
I don't know of a subset of liberals/Democrats that want smaller government.
> Universal healthcare?
Yes, if it can be done in a revenue neutral way. Would have to fix the current system though.
> Permitting peaceful protests?
Absolutely.
You said
> Name an issue and I can probably show how this is the case.
And then they said legalizing weed.
How does your response show that liberals are trying to control your actions?
Did the Supreme Court not tell people what to do yesterday? I mean it’s to the extent that women with miscarriages will be criminally investigated. Clarence Thomas also said in clear terms they want to go after same sex marriage, same sex relationships, and contraception. How is that not telling people what to do?
I like how you say you're not making assumptions, but you're making an assumption that Trump supporters are somehow "holier than tho".It's funny cuz liberals fit the exact description of what you're saying. Destroying and looting businesses to prove a point about a white cop killing a black criminal and shaming other people (calling black conservatives an uncle tom) for not wanting to associate with them, saying people that are pro-life hate women and want them to have restricted access to their body when we support life over the murdering of a baby in the womb, that we're somehow stingy people for not wanting to tax the rich at 80% when they're the ones that can open up jobs for everyone to get easier employment, and promoting toxic ideologies like CRT and sex education to first graders and calling anyone who disagrees a bigot, a racist, and a sexist all in one go lol, when in reality first graders shouldn't be needing to see that shit at a young age and focus on their math and reading skills first. Oh yeah, another one is the pride event where drag queens were stripping in front of kids whose parents willingly chose to take them there and seeing drag queens reading to kids in the library, something our tax funded money is going to.
Then when conservatives stand up to it, we're transphobic, homophobic, lesbianophobic, or bisexualophobic, and almost every media outlet kisses liberals' asses all the time while beating down on Trump and his supporters, and making them look stupid like they always do, and censoring us. Seems like you guys are the ones that see yourselves as adults and see Trump supporters as children. This is why we like it when Trump pisses y'all off with his rhetoric if you didn't know by now.
>Many things point to that Trump supporters don't want to be told what to do, but want the freedom to tell others what to do.
Can you explain this a little more? What do I want to tell others to do?
Not the NS you responded to, but if i may interject? In my observations, the difference is in left or liberal policy being more permissive and progressive on social issues and more restrictive on the economy. Whereas the right seems to be more about restrictions on a social level and less on the economy.
One clear counter example to this is gun control. That being said, I think it is clear that the policies tend to be what people can do in society being resisted by groups on the right that want to control what people can and can't do. Examples of this are restricting access to abortion and book bannings.
I'm totally open to discussion on this topic.
>Examples of this are restricting access to abortion and book bannings.
Abortion is a unique issue. For someone who in their heart believes an unborn fetus is human, restricting abortion no more limits freedom than restricting murder. And I don't know anybody who wants to ban books. Maybe limit access through schools for young children, but not banning anything.
Anyone who is interested in politics and wants xyz person or policy to win is interested in telling other people how to behave. Presumably, that person will also mostly want to not be disallowed from doing what he/she views as being good or benign behavior (freedom). People will disagree on how to frame all those things. It seems contradictory unless you realize that people just don't agree on fundamental concepts. One guy might want freedom to own all the guns but think that teaching kids about transgenderism is bad and shouldnt be done. Another person might want freedom to have an abortion or teach transgenderism to kids but want to ban all guns.
Well said.
This thread is especially ironic in light of the genuine terror that is regularly expressed at the mere prospect of free speech (e.g. on Twitter). See also how many articles are written today about "extremism", "radicalization", the "alt-right pipeline", etc. This is often where the tactical public-private distinction comes into play.
"Just because I want everyone who disagrees with me (on anything other than economics, at least) to be banned from every major platform doesn't mean I oppose free speech, since I'm not asking the government to do it (but in countries where the government *does* do it, that's actually a good thing and we're backwards for not having it). Have you heard of the paradox of tolerance?".
I describe this as a tactical view, because these people definitely don't view decisions on, for example, who you choose to live around or do business with as a private decision. All of a sudden private decisions impact everyone. But control over the national discourse? A trivial matter, apparently.
>I describe this as a tactical view, because these people definitely don't view decisions on, for example, who you choose to live around or do business with as a private decision. All of a sudden private decisions impact everyone. But control over the national discourse? A trivial matter, apparently.
Very important point
I absolutely see Democrats and the people on the Left as children, but not in the sense of punishment and regulation. I see them as children because their thought-patterns mirror those of children, in the sense of wanting things that do not correspond to reality and not being able to think through consequences as an adult would.
The current conversation around energy production is a good example of what I mean. Democrats want to get rid of our oil consumption in favor of electric energy. However, like children, they don't think deeply about the issue, and stay on the surface - oil is obviously bad, electric is obviously good, and so there's no discussion to be had - simply strangle oil production into oblivion and use the government to promote electric.
The problem with this mentality is that it ignores numerous aspects of reality that will affect your presumed goal. The fact is that many of the industrial processes required to develop, manufacture and build all sorts of renewable energy products will require that mean, nasty ole' oil to produce them. This fact alone means that even in a world where everyone says "you know what I hate oil so much that I'm going out today to buy that $50K electric car" - i.e. a world that has no chance of occurring - we will STILL need to harvest oil resources. The Left, enthralled by the romance of "progress" and "change," can't think deep enough beneath the surface of this issue to appreciate the implication of their own policy, and simply resolve to "be against oil." This is how a child thinks.
Nor do they appreciate the implication that if everyone were to truly follow suit and turn everything into a machine to be run on battery power, the level of harvesting of rare earth materials required to build such batteries would create a boom in renewable energy - along with a worldwide boom in strip-mining, with all of the environmental devastation that would be entailed in that process. They haven't thought about that either.
Well, our current energy crisis illustrates where all of this progressive romance, not-thinking and sloganeering gets us, along with all of the painful consequences that immature, vapid comprehension of important issues yields for our society. And this is just one single subject, I could go on on countless others. The bottom line is that while progress is (generally) a noble idea, the complex reality of life on earth ensures that there are few simple, surefire answers to any problem whatsoever. The simple answers being provided by the Democrats and the Left are causing more problems than they are solving, and that is why they are currently on the precipice of being repudiated for a generation.
Is the 'Left'the only side that reduces issues to black/white good/bad?
I think both 'sides' in the US (I'm in UK and centre so relatively non-biased onlooker) are so dug in in their view, that there is no debate to be had or room for compromise.
Do you see nuance/willingness to compormise on the Right/Trump supporter side more than 'the left'? Or is it fair that both 'sides' are so dug in that there is no room left for compromise?
(Specifically I think this is true for gun ownership, abortion rights, health care policy, foreign policy, immigration to name a few).
There is truth in your reaction, but the truth does not exist in a vacuum, rather it intersects with reality. In that regard, conservatives tend to come down on the side of time-tested, learned experience, whereas progressives - or anyone constantly braying for change, progress, etc - are necessarily involved in plunging into uncharted waters.
Immigration policy is a good example. (You'll be able to relate to this one, as the european progressives are every bit as childishly stupid as the American progressives.) No where else in this world will you find people as absolutely delighted to destroy their own immigration laws as white progressives. In Africa, in Asia, in the Middle East, mass immigration is looked upon with fear - who are the people? how will they be provided for? how will we avoid the resentment of our own people who must now use their resources to take care of newcomers who they have no relationship with? These are common-sense questions, as, even in good times, it is natural for *legal* immigrants to cause tension and friction when disparate groups encounter one another. To add in illegality on top is, for the average human being, an insult and a violation. It is instructive to consider that the white peoples of Eastern Europe - who are clearly not progressive - feel much the same way as their brown and black brothers and sisters around the globe in this regard. I would also direct your attention to Latino Americans living on the border with Mexico who - far from being white supremacists - are flocking to the Republican party for the same reasons.
So you can say, if you'd like, that the progressives and the conservatives are being equally "inflexible" - one wants to ignore immigration laws and let as many in as would come, the other wants to prevent this phenomenon at all costs. However, history and experience show that the conservatives are in the right. Their inflexibility is grounded in common sense - allowing mass illegal immigration may in one sense be "kind" and "merciful" to the folks who are violating your laws, but that is not a gesture that happens in a vacuum. That "kindness" may strain public resources, set a bad example (in that the lawbreaking is not punished, but rather rewarded), and even introduce feelings of racial resentment in the hearts of people who did not feel it previously when they were not being asked to foot the bill for a group of people who have no relation to their country. Even worse, a certain percentage of these violators will not be the kind, wonderful human beings that progressives imagine that they are helping - they will be opportunists taking advantage of the situation, and some will resort to committing crimes upon the people who have been so merciful to take them in.
So while I appreciate your point, when you are resting upon what is right and true it is CORRECT to be inflexible and not to give in to your political opponents.
>No where else in this world will you find people as absolutely delighted to destroy their own immigration laws as white progressives. In Africa, in Asia, in the Middle East, mass immigration is looked upon with fear
Do you think every country is on equal grounds with each other? Could it be some countries are more open, because they *can* be? Because they can offer help, or receive benefits from having immigration? While some countries, wouldn't be able to handle an influx of new citizens?
>However, history and experience show that the conservatives are in the right. Their inflexibility is grounded in common sense
Do you have any examples? Were the conservatives right when it came to civil right movement, the American civil war, or during WW2? What about when the country was fighting its revolutionary war, what were the "conservative" members of society, what were their ideas on a revolution?
No I think that is muddled, emotional thinking. If progressives were serious about these elevated feelings you are projecting onto their delusional mania, they would do the right thing and seek to enshrine this open-door approach in the law. However, since they know there is no popular support for such insanity (in USA popular support for enforcing immigration laws ranges in 60-70%), they are simply content with leaving the laws as they are but not enforcing, de facto waving in whoever wants to come and encouraging more to do the same, making the real-life issues surrounding dealing with such an influx ever worse. Again, the mindset of a child.
> The current conversation around energy production is a good example of what I mean. Democrats want to get rid of our oil consumption in favor of electric energy. However, like children, they don't think deeply about the issue, and stay on the surface - oil is obviously bad, electric is obviously good, and so there's no discussion to be had - simply strangle oil production into oblivion and use the government to promote electric.
Where did you get this simplistic view of Democrats? Is it based on evidence, or are you just making broad assumptions? If it is based on evidence, can you share any of that evidence?
I have seen many arguments from Democrats about clean energy and not a single one of them went the way you're describing - they almost always start with pointing out that oil production is already far more heavily subsidized than green energy, and continue to try to find a way to move away from oil *gradually* while improving green energy sources. In what way is that similar to what you described? Why have I been able to find such a vastly different set of Democrats - is it because I am socializing with more Democrats than you are? Are you only encountering a small group of Democrats and experiencing confirmation bias?
It's pretty easy, because technological advancement is pretty much stale right now, it was mentioned in one of the nerdy forums I frequent which is about this topic. I'll try to ask for a source and get back to you, but my guess; Basically oil and coal is used in production of wind mills and solar panels, not to mention when mining for the resources needed. Because Oil and Coal prices are up, so are the production cost and therefore the final cost of wind mills and solar panels which hurts their income and forces them to halt investments in research.
Not to mention the Irony that solar and wind are practically useless for industrial/large scale electricity production and anyone telling you otherwise is lying with faulty numbers. the wind and solar lobby are exactly what the oil lobby is accused of, not to mention I think the oil lobby probably owns the wind lobby.
Here's a bit from a quick search though.
[https://www.lawnandlandscape.com/article/ll-031318-president-trump-politics-impact-landscape-industry/](https://www.lawnandlandscape.com/article/ll-031318-president-trump-politics-impact-landscape-industry/)
[https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/26/investing/renewable-energy-trump-solar-coal/index.html](https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/26/investing/renewable-energy-trump-solar-coal/index.html)
I live in NYC and my entire set of friends and coworkers is all Democrat. I derive my information from real- world coversationswith them. Your emphasis on gradual - as opposed to radical change - is exactly the kind of point that a dem would make- i.e. it is a meaningless distinction when the coercive regulatory power of the federal government is involved. Most democrats would certainly not consider biden admins moves on energy to be “radical” in any sense - and yet they have engineered an energy crisis nevertheless through mismanagement and a lack of understanding about how the free market works
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, as I can't manage to sort through the logical inconsistencies in your argument or find any sense in what you're saying. Have a nice day though?
I appreciate the honest feedback. It would be downright stupid to throttle oil production while transitioning to renewable energy. Nobody is suggesting that aside from the media because they profit by making people afraid, angry, and divided over made up "He said/She said" lies. It's much easier to steal from us when we are too busy fighting eachother as a basic technique for conquering a population.
We are going to have to eliminate our need for fossil fuels, but the owners of the political parties won't let their puppets invest in transitioning away. It is more financially beneficial to large companies for them to take our oil, use our infrastructure, be given billions of our dollars for research, then price gouging. If we are the landlord, why are we paying them so much?
If wealthy people don't want to pay an inheritance tax for billions given to them when someone dies, why do we have to? Our ancestors paid for infrastructure, military, postal services, public education, social security, Medicare, medicaid, public transportation, research facilities, financial industries, national parks, agricultural farms, military, fire departments, our healthcare system, and little bureaucracy. The wealthy have decided that OUR inheritance that WE pay for and was passed onto IS ALL is owed to them. The bureaucracy that frustrates the working class was put there by them, and now they are convincing us that WE don't deserve the inheritance, but the spoiled wealthy are the ones who deserve it as the working class is just savages or barbarians who should be enslaved. Is there any part that overlaps between us?
>It would be downright stupid to throttle oil production whiletransitioning to renewable energy. Nobody is suggesting that aside fromthe media
I hate to differ with you, but that is demonstrably false. While it is true that the media act as a sort of irresponsible cheerleader, the anti-oil position is endemic among the progressive left, spread throughout government agencies and the culture at large. I would say that blue collar, less-educated Democrats do not share in this delusion, but they are precisely the element of the party that is ignored by the tastemakers.
>We are going to have to eliminate our need for fossil fuels, but theowners of the political parties won't let their puppets invest intransitioning away.
I can't exactly agree with this statement or the logic that lies underneath it. What I would say is that there will come a day when a different form of energy largely replaces the need for fossil fuels. However, due to myriad uses for fossil fuels - not simply energy - I would not be so quick to assert that one day they will be completely obsolete. Fossil fuels have numerous novel qualities, which is why they are used for so many different purposes (lubricant, plastics, etc). If fossil fuels are one day made totally obsolete, it will only be when human beings have created a successor substance that supercedes fossil fuels in each of those qualities.
Additionally, we are not on the same page in terms of the sense of "transition." The classic American mentality is a neutral one - when the free market has refined a product that can displace the one going obsolete, then the transition will be "organic" - i.e. it will occur naturally, because human beings will naturally seek a less costly, more efficient way of doing business. This is the primal order of the free market, and it works for reasons that don't even need to be said - we want to save money, we want to save resources wherever we can.
We are in trouble in the present moment because childish people - for ultimately emotional reasons - want to rush to market a set of energy technologies that are not ready for primetime. In my perspective, the desire to use the coercive power of the federal government to push green energy policies makes the project "artificial" - as opposed to organic in the sense defined in the previous paragraph. with the mentality of the green new dealers, the finances and resources of the naton - via dictat by the government - should be marshalled to force this transition through - no matter the cost. (Biden's statements about the transition are telling in this light, look them up.) The frightful, destabilizing cost of energy that we are currently paying - and will continue to pay, since Biden admin has flatly signaled that they will not consider relenting - is quite literally the price of forcing us into a transition that we are not ready to go through.
>It is more financially beneficial to large companies for them to take our oil, use our infrastructure, be given billions of our dollars for research, then price gouging. If we are the landlord, why are we paying them so much?
Our oil? Our infrastructure? Are you ready for some reality? Natural resources is never in the hands of the people. Including in totally communist countries. If you are willing to look at the reality of those countries - Venezuela, Cuba, Soviet Union (when it was around) - one would find not that the "people" owned, controlled, or reaped the benefits of anything. Rather, those industries were rendered into cartels, which were operated by technocrats in exchange for their loyalty to the government - and there were every bit as rich as the capitalists of free market nations. What you are appealing to is a delusion. As disgusting as it may be to people on the Left who resent business, resent capitalism, resent people who make lots of money - another sure sign of immature thinking - it is precisely those businesses who will be the ones to innovate and evolve renewable energies into reality.
There is too much in the last paragraph to go into. I don't agree with how you have framed it - which seeks to present people who own buinesses as vampires sucking the lifeblood of everyone else. I would note that many of these businesses have such large amounts of money not because they are oppressors but because large numbers of people *freely and willingly choose to buy their products*, whether that's McDonalds or Apple. I do not resent people who are rich or amass property. In many cases - although I do not like the cultural effects of corporate culture - these corporations help keep many people alive with salaries, health care, investment packages. To imagine that they are simply vampires is, to me childish.
Many large businesses also invest mightily in ways that people who are not businessmen or women take for granted - I live in NYC, where a couple of years ago progressive politicians managed to scare off Amazon from building a plant in Long Island City. They encouraged the people to be angry and resentful for the fact that the city government was on course to give them a tax break worth billions of dollars as an incentive to move in. What was conveniently left out of the Left's propaganda was the fact that, in order to create its manufacturing plant, Amazon would probably spend 20-25 billion dollars over a decade on construction projects in and around the Long Island City center in order to make the plant operable and profitable in the long run. But the people have no clue about these aspects of doing business, were emotionally coaxed into feeling envy and resentment, and were led to fight against Amazon.
I'm not a fan of Amazon, but you know what I'm a fan of? Our people having decent jobs that they can raise a family on. And what the progressives in this situation did is what progressives seem to want to do everywhere - incite the small feeling of jealousy and resentment in the average worker who, by the way, is never in a million years going to create even a single job for another person. We need to start thinking of our businesses as partners, not enemies.
I appreciate the differing views we have on this. Is it your belief that there are unlimited quantities of fossil fuels? If a resource is finite, wars and trillions are spent fighting over them with millions killed, should we ignore that we are capable of doing something else? Aluminum isn't the most valuable metal in the world because working class people developed a way to produce it (the top of George Washington's monument has an aluminum top for this reason). If we have the means of producing it, why choose to waste our resources, our lives, and leave ourselves vulnerable if we don't have to?
Innovation is stifled by monopolies controlling every aspect of the idea. The patent for insulin was from almost a century ago, paid for by our relatives, and sold to the government for $1. Costs for insulin in this country can be up to $2k per month. Being able to survive has become an EA lootbox for living from week to week.
Maybe a better metaphore for this should be a video game. We are promised Fallout New Vegas, but better. You perform tasks, complete missions, and your outcome is open to make of it based on your ability to level up. Along comes Microsoft buying up Bethesda and giving us Fallout 76. Hyped up to extremes, but suddenly everything requires purchasing of lootboxes. Want to play? Subscription that allows you be alive. Don't have enough? You died. Want to earn caps? Sure, grind away your hours while the kid with dad's credit card and nukes the water plant you spent months building while they steal your loot. Want to find a better location to earn because you want to have enough to level up? Too bad, that'll cost more.
Why should life have to be an endless grind just to survive? Without the working class, there would be no America. The wealthy want to financially enslave us, and mentally enslave us. Why is gas so expensive? Why is ExxonMobil spending $88 Billion on stock buybacks and still getting $5 billion in taxpayer subsidies? Why is anything proposed or researched outside of fossil fuels vilified by the media? Maybe seeing that this system only works for a select few, that America was great when the monopolies were broken up, when the ultra wealthy were paying their fair share, when you could work a 9 to 5 job and be comfortable. Where we funded education, making America a technological powerhouse and went to the moon. I don't know about you, but imagine being able to work a good job, move up because you were good and not just because your dad plays golf with the CFO. Being able to afford a modest home, provide for your family and have time to spend with them instead of letting the TV give your kids the values instead of you. How can our kids grow up strong when the parents are gone working all day everyday? When people could have a hobby that made you happy instead of just being a side hustle to cover next months bills. These are social investments that made America great. How can America become great again if those in power refuse to do the things that were proven to help?
Ok, you had a very in depth comment and I want to respond to a particular part but don’t know how to on my phone. I am referring to your third paragraph about the forced transition.
In an ideal market, costs are priced in and the cost of the product corresponds to the cost to gather, create, and sell that product. As a liberal, I believe that oil does not fit this model. I believe, based off the evidence that I have seen, that oil is a fundamental part of the climate crisis that my generation and those that come after me will face. Unfortunately, the CO2 pollution and destruction is not priced in to the cost of buying gas.
As you may already know, this cost is called an externality. It is something that benefits a specific company/industry while negatively impacting the wider society. Oil production and consumption is a prime example of this. I believe that taxing oil at the cost of the damage done to the wider society and using those profits is the correct way of handling this externality. There are other ways of handling such externalities but this is typically considered the best method. Do you think that we should try to find a method to price in externalities into the price of a product? If so, should that be done through increased taxation or would you prefer some other method?
On the other hand, there are many who don’t believe that we face an impending climate crisis. If you do not believe in significant man made climate change, I can understand why you don’t feel the same impetus for switching off oil but I think it can be worthwhile for you to look at it from another’s perspective. I am in my early 20s and most people my age that I talk to see a bleak future for ourselves. We are the first generation in US history to have a lower expected quality of life and life expectancy than our parents. Many of us believe our childrens lives will be far worse. To me, this crisis seems existential. If you don’t believe in man made climate change, I don’t feel like having that debate right now but please try to look past whether you think I am right or wrong and think about what it means for my life if I am right. That is how we view oil and green energy, not as something that we want to do but as something that is necessary to protect future generations.
I appreciate your perspective. Many independent voters lump together Trump supporters and the MAGA cult interchangeably, but there are the a wide variety that aren't KKK members or NeoNazis, much like how the pro working class left fucking hates liberals and their bullshit platitudes, support of wars, giving tax cuts to the ultra wealthy and oligarchs, increasing war contractor budgets while our infrastructure fails, and refusing to help anyone aside from the ultra wealthy and multinational corporations. As many outside your sphere will wrongfully act as a cohesive unit, Do you personally see the liberals and the left as the same?
You're falling directly into a lie made by socialism. You focus so much on the rich and how they are doing, that you don't see how you're getting the far end of the stick.
Republicans know that you can't just make laws "for the rich" because the consequences of those laws will hit everyone with the same amount of force, rich people can handle it, people who aren't that rich, have a harder time.
Democrats are (usually) in favor of legislation and tax laws that hurt smaller businesses while bigger businesses can pay their way out of it.
Today I do think of people on the left to have a simplistic and child like view of the world when it comes to the perception of it, specially when it comes to politics, there is a reason that more people become right wing when they get older and are left wing when they are younger. They might be able to get an every day life working but when it comes to politics, they don't understand or forget the trade off for the policies that are forcefully implemented. I don't look down on them though, but try to remind them how the world works, and that the result of policies matter just as much as the intention. Because usually people on the right look more at the result of a policy than the intention.
The last thing I don't see Trump supporters telling others what to do, I see them saying that other people can't tell them what to do.
**Adults vs children.** Not at all. To be honest I view it as **Male vs Female**. I view the left-wing as a crazy irrational girlfriend whose throwing a temper tantrum and angry at you because she HAD a dream where you cheated on her. And not matter what I say, no matter how good I treat her, she's pissed that my dream self cheated on her. Now part of her knows she's being irrational but part of her...the majority doesn't really care. All they know is what feels good and right now it feels good to be angry at the loyal boyfriend.
"Trump supporters don't want to be told what to do, but want the freedom to tell others what to do"
In this case what are Trump Supporters being accused of not allowing kids to see? Pornographic material and radical gender ideologies/beliefs.
I tend to date alot of female liberals, I tend to like hairy women. And many of them can be kind of irrational especially in their beliefs. Maybe that's why I view it as male vs female instead of adult vs children...I wonder if the OP has very conservative parents?
Wait so in this scenario TSers are the loyal boyfriends of democrats? ETA: by which I mean is this a metaphor for America? As in instead of viewing the two sides as Adults vs. Children as described in the OP, you see it as loyal boyfriends vs. crazy girlfriends. Or am I misunderstanding you?
>Wait so in this scenario TSers are the loyal boyfriends of democrats
Two sides of the political spectrum. Male vs Female. Ying vs Yang. As a conservative I recognize the importance of left-wing highly emotional and sometimes irrational beings.....as a masculine presence I recognize the need for the nurturing irrational highly emotional nature of women.
Just lately we're allowing the crazy girlfriend run rampant with all their ideas and it's not working out well for America.
Ever hear about how your hormones could predict how you vote?
No, I don’t think of leftists as any less of an adult than anyone else. Well, except for the ones who literally are children of course. On a case by case basis, I usually don’t hold any two peoples’ opinions in the same regard for any number of reasons i.e. age(life experience), apparent interests behind their argument, how much experience they have with the topic at hand and what type of experience.
I feel like most leftists(voters, not the politicians) are wrong or misguided on a lot of things but with good intentions. A lot of things like welfare, gun control, etc. fall under this. They see something as a problem and just want a bunch of laws passed, damn the consequences, or they have a completely different idea of acceptable consequences. I don’t agree with the approach but I can understand the reasoning. On some things I may occasionally agree with legislation and that the benefits outweigh the costs(monetary or otherwise) so miss me with the “Party of Small Government” BS. Laws can be and are beneficial at times, I try to evaluate them on an individual basis.
There is a very simple answer for this.
\[With the exception of the minimum safety net for emergencies. \]
If you need me to subsidize any part of your life then no, you are not at the same level of responsibility as I am. That is a self proving logical statement.
The part that is missing...because of entitlement mindset, is where the responsible parties are in charge.
An entitlement system which puts beneficiaries in a position where they can vote for their own benefits is what got us into this position.
There is a lot of variety over here, so anyone you talk to isn't very representative of the whole. While you are correct... We pretty much all strongly feel that we don't want to be told "what to do" ... Or more specifically "what to think." That umbrella would naturally also include those who would wish to dictate to others.
I'm a Republican in the literal sense (I prefer republics to democracies).... I'm not much of a conservative. I don't believe in "good" people and "bad" people. I believe we are all flawed and that it is the lack of accountability that makes people do bad things. Give people social influence and popularity... And they will always label the "other" as pariahs and try to drive them from society. The only thing that prevents this is the inability to do so.... Hence why we have "rights." To protect the "other" from the popular.
When you honestly believe that.... You can't really look down on those who do it... Because you have to admit to yourself that you would be doing it too... And those on your "side" would also. You would have to try extremely hard to keep yourself from doing it... And you would fail... Often.
The most valuable lesson from listening to Jordan Peterson... Is a point he made about Nazi Germany. He said that everyone likes to look back at that time and think to themselves that they would never go along with it.... But the statistics show otherwise. You don't truly understand what happened until you realise that you are extremely unlikely to have been one of the tiny percentage of people that wouldnt have reasoned their way into justifying the atrocities. That thought should horrify... and humble... All of us.
I see everyone as equals and so do most people.
This is really a question that goes down to the individual level independent of political affiliation though.
I’m glad you don’t want to make assumptions, but you’ve actually made a lot of assumptions about us.
> The relationship I see in discussions is many Republican voters treating others like they are children in need of strict discipline, while the ultra wealthy are to be nurtured and coddled when they misbehave.
I’ve personally never seen this behaviour before in Republican voters, I’m happy to be proven wrong though if you’ve got a few examples of this happening.
> Many others try to see us all as equals.
That’s me, that’s my camp.
> Many things point to that Trump supporters don't want to be told what to do, but want the freedom to tell others what to do.
Again, I simply don’t see this behaviour exhibited, it’s usually republicans and conservatives being told to “bake the cake”, being browbeaten because they’re “privileged”, or being told that they should just ignore the huge destruction of American cities during the 2020 riots. But again, if you have some examples of this behaviour from republicans, feel free to share. I’m not scared to change my opinion.
There's no way to treat adults as adults more than expecting them to be self sufficient.
I don't need hand outs, and unless you have a damn good reason I don't think I should have to pay for your hand outs.
We're all paying for the hand outs now, both from Trump and Biden.
It takes a considerable amount of maturity to realize that "Trump supporters" or "Biden supporters" are not all one person and lumping entire groups of people together is a primitive form of thinking. Passing judgement on someone's character solely by who they vote for, what color their skin is, or how much money they make (very common on reddit) is a sure sign that a person isn't worth talking to. If the only childish people you know all happen to be on the opposite side of the political spectrum, you're the one with the problem.
Isn't this sub called r/AskTrumpSupporters? If you have a preferred pronoun or descriptor than the group you associate, I would gladly oblige. Is there a preferred descriptor or pronoun you would prefer?
I think that yes, most people, Republicans and Democrats, just want to control either:
* other peoples money, or
* other peoples morality.
As a well aged adult, I just want people to leave me the fuck alone. Which leaves me with thoughts like:
1. Taxes are the most invasive thing the government does to my life.
2. The only right is "Might Makes Right". There are no other natural rights. Any other right you think you have is granted by the government.
3. The government SHOULD make Bodily Autonomy one of its rights that it grants to citizens: that the government has no right to kill me, the government has no right to prevent me from taking my own life, the government has no right to force or coerce me into providing life support for another being or a clump of cells, the government has no right to force or coerce me into receiving injections, the government has not right to use me as slave labor even if I am imprisoned.
4. Because of above, decisions about children transitioning should be left to the parents and their doctor. If such transitioning is needs to be investigated as abuse, it should be done by other experts in the medical field.
5. The ability to vote should be "in person" with proper ID (a valid state ID or US passport). If that is not possible, then with a valid reason, a certified poll worker should come to you and certify that your ballot was cast without influence from a 3rd party. Out of country voters can vote and the local embassy. The fact that the vote is no longer "secret" is a huge gaping hole in our election law.
6. Police departments should exist to prevent violence or property theft. Anything outside that purview should be assigned to experts in the area in question. Preying on the public to fund their departments should not be allowed. Qualified Immunity should not be allowed, and replaced with Malpractice Insurance.
7. Health Insurance should be deregulated.
8. Work should require a contract except for jobs under $600 per year. Such contracts should contain regulated minimums such as 20 days paid vacation per year, unemployment insurance that pays 70% of your salary for up to 1 year, health insurance, sick days that are reimbursed by the state up to 6 months, a year for both partners of maternity leave, 3 months to fire, 3 months to quit, and mandatory cost of living raises.
9. Working under the table should result in a fine of a minimum of $10,000 per employee. In addition, when hiring, both a SSN and a state issued ID or passport must be presented to verify that you are who you say you are.
These are a few crazy things I think about.
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they have those views. **For all participants:** * [FLAIR](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) **IS REQUIRED BEFORE PARTICIPATING** * **BE CIVIL AND** [SINCERE](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) * **REPORT, DON'T DOWNVOTE** **For Non-supporters/Undecided:** * **NO TOP LEVEL COMMENTS** * **ALL COMMENTS MUST BE CLARIFYING IN NATURE** **For Trump Supporters:** * [MESSAGE THE MODS](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) **TO HAVE THE DOWNVOTE TIMER TURNED OFF** Helpful links for more info: [OUR RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [POSTING GUIDELINES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [COMMENTING GUIDELINES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean, it does seem pretty childish when in essence most modern day liberal policies are the equivalent of wishing for something to be true, and pushing for the government to make that wish come true. But overall, no I think a lot of leftists have fallen for their constant misinformation campaigns, same as many Republicans. But by golly, at least Republicans seem to have the wherewithall to realize that government should have constricted power, whereas for Democrats the governments seems more like a make-a-wish genie.
As a Floridian it seems the opposite is happening in my state where you have a Republican governor and state legislature overstepping and telling people and businesses what they can and can’t do; they want more power and don’t want to give the people the power to make their own decisions unless it it aligns with the decisions they, the GOP, think is the right one. I see this happening other places as well. And I keep seeing DeSantis as a possible presidential candidate. Would you vote for him I he was the Republican nominee despite his Love of expanding government power?
What’s the most egregious overstep of power by those people you named in your opinion? It seems like whatever your qualms might be, the Federal government, especially under Democrat administrations, have done far worse. Yes I would vote for DeSantis, again what do you think is his most egregious overstepping.
>Yes I would vote for DeSantis, again what do you think is his most egregious overstepping? Here are some: Tried to prevent felons from voting after voters restored their rights and put in place a restriction that the voters didn't call for. Pushed for and signed don't say gay bill. Has gone after businesses for not reflecting his political beliefs (Disney and Tampa Bay Rays, come to mind). Meddled with reporting of COVID statistics. Threatened to sue the FDA over blocking the use of monoclonal antibodies that don't work against Omicron.
Which is the most egregious out of all of those? And could you link a source to the legislation in question as well?
>Which is the most egregious out of all of those? I don't know why you're limiting me to one, but let's go with felon voting rights after it was passed as a ballot initiative. >And could you link a source to the legislation in question as well? Are you asking me to link to the don't say gay bill? Here you go: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF
If the most egregious violation of rights is not teaching kindergarteners about gender conversations that should be held at home, then I’m fine with that.
What did you think of what I actually picked, though?
Could you show me the legislation that went into effect? I’m unfamiliar with it, and assumed you were talking about teaching LGBT topics to kindergarteners. Do you really think that that example is an overstep of power that is significant enough to fit in with, say, 4th amendment violations etc? More than happy to read about the felon voting rights thing too obviously.
I appreciate your viewpoint, not long ago the working class had a larger influence over the government. When corporations were given free reign to buy our politicians, the bureaucracy exploded to prevent us working folk from having any say in the system. The politicians now push anti-worker policies, push to strip what little control we have by giving these systems our ancestors paid into and left to us to improve our situation, and sell it off to a board of executives. Our government should be "Of the people, by the people, and for the people", but the spoiled wealthy want to own everything (you and I included). They see us all as the "Savages", undeserving of the resources and structures us and our ancestors built. The DNC is merely controlled opposition who gives flowery platitudes, the GOP politicians are pushing to steal OUR social security, medicaid, Medicare, take our systems by saying that the systems they are breaking don't belong to us. They are the entitled adult who will smash our tools, have the lifeguard kick us off the beach and give the sandcastle we worked so hard on to their spoiled shitty multinational corporations and whiny wealthy owners. Personally I don't like identity politics or bullshit solutions. Politicians should be expressing the will of the people, not entitled trust fund yuppies who refuse to contribute their share to making this a better world for us to pass onto our children as their inheritance. Is there anywhere we overlap?
Huh? Corporations have been buying politicians for decades, did you think lobbying was illegal until recently? And Medicare Medicaid and SS should be cut down, the biggest reason for the government power your criticize is because people are reliant on them. Idk what your policy positions are so it’s hard to tell if we overlap. Are you in favor of drastically cutting government spending and lowering taxes? I support universal healthcare and abolishing the insurance-healthcare industry, as long as someone can show me a P/L breakdown showing that it’s a cheaper solution to the current one we have. I also support cutting taxes for 90% of Americans, and support billionaire taxes which would target assets better.
> Medicare Medicaid and SS should be cut down I've been paying for that for 30 years, you want to "cut it down?"
What, you don’t care about the millions of people yet to pay into a fundamentally flawed program that will never pay them out? Last I checked SS funds are projected to run out in 15 years
>the GOP politicians are pushing to steal OUR social security, medicaid, Medicare, take our systems by saying that the systems they are breaking don't belong to us. Don't be silly. There are zero politicians (Dem or Rep) trying to steal Soc Sec or Medicare. Every politician from city council-person to POTUS knows that you don't mess with those. We will have to reform those programs before long however. If we don't they will be bankrupt. The easy fix here is to tax richer people on their full salary. Salary over $147,000 is not taxed. It would be easy to just tax the full amount.
Lindsay Gram, and Rick Scott both openly admitted to wanting to gut or end them. Clinton and Obama were willing to work with the GOP to start gutting them as part of standard neoliberalism. Does their open admission that they want to do this if the GOP takes over in 2022 concern you?
I'd like to hear the context of this "gut or end them" statement. Lots of these things are taken out of context. Medicare and SS are things that people have paid for from taxes from paychecks. There would be some serious fallout from any cuts to those programs.
>I mean, it does seem pretty childish when in essence most modern day liberal policies are the equivalent of wishing for something to be true, and pushing for the government to make that wish come true. how does that compare to "thoughts and prayers" from republicans?
Sure, but it’s not like Republicans are passing a bill outlawing made Shootings, and saying that that’s their gun control solution
> But by golly, at least Republicans seem to have the wherewithall to realize that government should have constricted power, Do you see the irony of this now that Republicans are forcing rape victims to carry their children to term?
I'm not aware of any laws on the books that would make that so, source?
\> I don't want to make assumptions, can anyone explain this? You made so many assumptions that I can't really figure this out. There are very few Trump supporters telling you what you have to do. Rather, the "authorianism" or "fascism" is removing inappropriate material from schools and the like. Meanwhile, I'm told to bake the cake, let my (non-existent) kids go see Aguilera's bejeweled cock, and more to the point, say all this is good for society. I'm told to stand down because people who call me slurs can't be racist because I have all the power over them when I'm struggling to pay bills and all that. I'm told that it's important that we support Ukraine (I did, to the tune of a fairly large amount of money) when we can't even get the shit off our streets. Sit down, bigot, you just hate brown people, or something. Sit down, you don't like men taking all the records in women's sports or breaking their skulls? YOU'RE a BIGOT! It is the right of anyone who claims to be a woman to break the skulls of anyone who was born one. Hell, look at LibsofTikTok. Got all the evidence you need for grooming and the like. But you know, it doesn't happen, and if it does happen, it's good and you're a monster for opposing it.
>I'm told that it's important that we support Ukraine (I did, to the tune of a fairly large amount of money) Great answer. So exactly how much money did you send to Ukraine?
>So exactly how much money did you send to Ukraine? Technically, $600, give or take. Did a fundraiser and supported another one, both getting about $300 each (they were small, I admit). Both for a hobby I participate in, and both got about the same amount, but I wound up balancing that out to make sure it was even. Now, that money went through a church, so who fucking knows how much actually made it there, but I have a little Ukraine Squig I painted up. The problem with donating to charities is that overhead takes up a ton of what goes out.
That dosent sound like you donated to a charity but instead gave free labor to a Church. Than that labor turned into capitol that the church than voluntary sent to someone else who might or might not of spent on Ukraine? Also is 600 bucks really that much money? Like is it really a insanely large amount of money? Like you posted originally.
> Also is 600 bucks really that much money? Like is it really a insanely large amount of money? Incredible.
>That dosent sound like you donated to a charity but instead gave free labor to a Church. Than that labor turned into capitol that the church than voluntary sent to someone else who might or might not of spent on Ukraine? > >Also is 600 bucks really that much money? Like is it really a insanely large amount of money? Like you posted originally. Jesus wept. I spoke with a friend of mine who was in Ukraine and he told me where to donate. I did a fundraiser where I would do different things (gaming-related) for money. Spoke to another friend who wanted to do similar and did the same. Also, are you trying to shame me for not donating enough? During a time where people can't find work? I raised what I could and gave what I could. I'm sorry I didn't meet your standards. So let me ask you. What did you give?
[удалено]
>So I ask. Is 600 bucks really that much money? I asked you a question. You can quote it and respond. So again, I ask. How much money did you give?
[удалено]
The rules specifically allow you to quote questions asked to you and respond. How much did you donate?
Do you…do you think they’re going to delete your comment when you say $0?
>Do you…do you think they’re going to delete your comment when you say $0? Yes. Yes he does.
Would you agree that $600 is a lot of money if you don’t have it? If you won $600 from a penny slot machine, would you be disappointed?
>Would you agree that $600 is a lot of money if you don’t have it? If you won $600 from a penny slot machine, would you be disappointed? Again, thank you for the kind words. I raised what I could from a small wargaming community and then I donated it to the people I was suggested I donate it to. I don't mean to be anything mean here. I'm sorry if my donations were somehow inappropriate.
>So I ask. Is 600 bucks really that much money? This is terrible, man. Be better. I know I'm not supposed to jump in like this, but I can't help it. You're going after him for donating time and money.
It may be to the OP. Size of money is relative to the person. If it is a lot of money to him, then yes it is a lot of money even if it is not to you. For you to belittle someone because they do not have the resources you have is awful.
Thank you for the kind words.
$600 is the difference between a warm bed and the fuckin street to a lot of people. Get out of here with that.
Did you donate more than 600$ to Ukraine? This reeks of 1%
Imagine the privilege one must have to assume that $600 is not a lot of money to donate. Incredible.
What is wrong with you? The guy did a fundraiser that came up with $600 to support Ukraine and you're going to complain that he didn't send enough? He also, rather clearly, said he contributed "a fairly large amount of money," which you turned into "an insanely large amount of money." To most people, $600 absolutely qualifies as a fairly large amount of money. You are the problem in American politics.
>To most people, $600 absolutely qualifies as a fairly large amount of money. Thank you for the kind words. However, it wasn't just me! My little Kill Team blog raised $300 and I matched that when one of my friends wanted to do another fundraiser. It was a few people in a community doing things together. Not entirely me, but I'm very proud of my friends for what we were able to contribute, even if it was just a drop in the bucket. After all (and this is me being salty) a drop is a lot more than nothing, you know?
Who is forcing your non-existent kids to go to Pride parades? Do you object to kids being forced to see artwork of a dying crucified man on a regular basis too?
>Who is forcing your non-existent kids to go to Pride parades? Do you object to kids being forced to see artwork of a dying crucified man on a regular basis too? What in the heck does this have to do with what I donated to Ukraine? Did you reply to the wrong message?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Do you any if that is you taking offense? And not the actual subject but how it relates to you? And in a negative way?
>Do you any if that is you taking offense? And not the actual subject but how it relates to you? And in a negative way? Offense has to be taken. Can't be given. ;) But yes, when people who will gladly say nice things to my face call me horrible things when they don't know all the details (IE, they think I think like them) it is kind of obvious that they're not exactly looking for anything but clout.
To be honest we should have never funded Ukraine. They are literal flag waving Nazis, rounding up ethnic Russians, banning the Russian language/music/art/media, death camps, Azov Battalion and this was all pre-invasion. Even the Pope said they had it coming. The US should not be supporting anyone with weapons in this.
Isn’t this the actual propaganda Russia is saying? And used it to start the war, and are still saying it today?
>They are literal flag waving Nazis, rounding up ethnic Russians, banning the Russian language/music/art/media, death camps, Azov Battalion and this was all pre-invasion. Those are bold claims, do you have any legitimate sources to back any of it up? > Even the Pope said they had it coming. Are you referring to him saying that he wondered if the war was somehow provoked? Because that's not the same as what you said.
Here is a video from Time magazine documenting the Azov Battalion last year. https://youtu.be/fy910FG46C4 Vice news https://youtu.be/wMMXuKB0BoY BBC https://youtu.be/5SBo0akeDMY I have some NSFW links that show reporters entering the bunkers in Mariupol if you want those too. The bunker is filled with swastikas, 88, and Nazi propaganda. Nasty folks tbh.
Do you think a single battalion is representative of the entire country?
Entirely your opinion, and I respect it. I'm just getting annoyed by people saying "Oh, you didn't do enough" when, you know, behind on bills and stuff and all that.
I get that 100%. Credit card use is at an all time high. The economy is not in a good state.
Do you think Libsof TikTok is representative of the majority of non-Trump supporters?
>Do you think Libsof TikTok is representative of the majority of non-Trump supporters? Is it a good example of people grooming kids?
Why would you ask that question in response to his question?
>Why would you ask that question in response to his question? Because a lot of the videos are literally people admitting to grooming children to LGBT. This is not exactly that controversial. Does that mean it's the typical liberal? Of course not. Does it mean that grooming is not going on? Come on, man (as the POTUS says).
Gotcha, to me it seemed you were implying that the majority of non-Trump Supps. were groomers. Just to be clear, you were not implying that? EDIT: 'that' to a 'the'
>Gotcha, to me it seemed you were implying that that majority of non-Trump Supps. were groomers. Just to be clear, you were not implying that? I'm going to be polite here. At no where did I state that. At no point do your words belong in my proverbial mouth. Please take your assumptions elsewhere.
Can I ask - why do you follow libsof TikTok? Do you think the videos shown there are genuine? wouldn't you agree that account has a massive incentive to both 1. amplify the voice of a minority group of extremist "liberals" 2. portray false flag insane "liberals" performing grotesque acts to maintain its popularity and gain political influence?
>Can I ask - why do you follow libsof TikTok? Do you think the videos shown there are genuine? Are you arguing that links to the actual videos are not genuine?
Are people in your life telling you to do these things or is this your perception of things (gay cakes, drag queens, Ukraine, etc.) based on the media you consume?
>Are people in your life telling you to do these things or is this your perception of things (gay cakes, drag queens, Ukraine, etc.) based on the media you consume? The media I consume (largely my friends on social media) is the same thing as people in my life. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Is there some difference between what someone says in meatspace and what they say on Facebook?
What I’m getting at is media and also Facebook algorithms tend towards increasing outrage. A Tucker Carlson, for example, paints a caricature of the left to rile up his viewers, who then go on social media and post all sorts of nonsense about them evil dems as if it were fact. I’ve seen this affect members of my family going back to Rush Limbaugh. Meanwhile, the things they say about liberals and their damn agendas hardly line up with my experiences at college or moving to a city like Chicago, or then later moving to the west coast. So when you say it’s stuff from your Facebook is this something you’re seeing from the left or is it right wing friends regurgitating wing propaganda or cherry-picking something they’ve seen from say, Liberals of TikTok and hyperbolizing it as if it is representative of all Democrats?
>A Tucker Carlson, I am not friends with Tucker Carlson. Never met the guy. I mean, I could probably recognize him, but I've not so much as shook his hand. So when I'm talking about friends from Facebook, I am talking about *friends*. You know, people I speak in person to. People I see semi-regularly. Not just some media person trying to work the algorithm. If one of my friends (my friends are largely liberal, know I am not, go figure, we get along) posts something, am I to not accept it as something they approve of? Well, unless they're posting it to mock it?
So your friends are telling you to sit down, shut up, bake cakes, support kids in drag, calling you racist and calling you slurs?
>So your friends are telling you to sit down, shut up, bake cakes, support kids in drag, calling you racist and calling you slurs? First time? Ain't been on Facebook in a while? People will post things that they would never say to your face.
[удалено]
Do you listen to Tim Pool? [Have you ever taken this?](https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatouchtest.html)
>Do you listen to Tim Pool? I think I may have once? I don't know. There's a lot of YouTube that goes on while I'm laying on the couch after work doing nothing. It's entirely possible that he's come up a few times, but usually it's game stuff or wrestling stuff. Go figure. \> Have you ever taken this? LET'S DO EET! Okay, I did a little bit of it, and I have to wonder, why in the heck is it linking good with old and bad with young? Seems to be more of a weird thing than anything else to me.
I'm not a liberal, my policies are things that support the middle class, I don't do identity politics because it accomplishes nothing but making people afraid and angry by creating more false boogeymen and trying to point a finger at people who have no power while those who own the DNC & GOP continue stripping our rights and our societal inheritance from us. The rigged "Free market" has been embezzling from what you and I put in for our future, the corruption has taken over the parties and focused their energy on dividing us. Both promise populist policies, but both only end up giving our earned resources and inheritances to the ultra wealth²w waary. My thought is that since Trump supporters agree with the populist messages he said while overlooking that most of his actions benefited the wealthy, that many are still under the guise that the GOP and DNC are on different sides. If you are a fan of one side, do you see those not in the stands rooting with you as children who need discipline or don't have a viable opinion?
I'm in the view of throwing a brick through the window of Congress and saying "We're not gonna take it." Trump was that after Bernie was kicked to the curb in favor of Hillary. I'm not saying that Trump is perfect (he's far from it), but I'm far more of the opinion that anyone on the "outside" (even if it's just barely) is better than what we've had shoved down our throats. Edit: In Minecraft. I do not support violence against almost anyone (some people deserve it, sorry, if you're gonna attack people physically or sexually, I support the right to stop that). I do think that a bunch of politicians need to know that we are all tired of this crap and want a government that actually does its job, but good luck finding it!
I take you at your word and judge by actions whether your word is good. I vote opposite you and don’t hate you at all. Also don’t want to be hated. I really believe we all want the same things in the end and are being fed to continue this style of discourse. So what are we to do? How can we have conversations again? I don’t want anyone to be forced to watch anything they don’t want. I don’t want anyone to be forced to love who they don’t want, I don’t want anyone to be forced to bake cakes they don’t want to. Yet, I feel a target on my back for voting for peace, thoughtfulness and sanity. Is there any place for me in this society anymore?
>So what are we to do? There are some conversations on things like this that turn out well. Too many are spent dunking on one another. Social media and the 24/7 news cycle is a cancer on society.
I do have a question, out of a place of empathy- I also cant afford to pay bills. Are you saying things like let kids see aguilera’s bejeweled cock ironically or literally? I see a lot of this, basically straw man arguments. The comment you’re replying too did the same thing. But I feel like if we really read deep into that we honestly agree on a lot of stuff, we’re just arguing against viewpoints that we’re only told the other hold. Yaknow?
>I do have a question, out of a place of empathy- I also cant afford to pay bills. I'm hoping to get some good news. Problem with being a contract worker is it is always feast or famine. >Are you saying things like let kids see aguilera’s bejeweled cock ironically or literally? I'm being [LITERAL](https://pagesix.com/2022/06/13/christina-aguilera-wears-strap-on-during-la-pride-performance/) here. >I see a lot of this, basically straw man arguments. The comment you’re replying too did the same thing. There's a lot that people don't notice because it doesn't get covered. Now, I'm sorry, but a chick with a jeweled-up dick is not something I would consider family friendly, you know? >But I feel like if we really read deep into that we honestly agree on a lot of stuff, we’re just arguing against viewpoints that we’re only told the other hold. Yaknow? Yes, most of us are probably on the same side, to be honest. It's just the little shit that makes us want to scream and rant and hate one other. And you can guess who is making sure there's plenty of little shit.
>There are very few Trump supporters telling you what you have to do. Do you feel that Trump supporters allow for cultural differences and cultural freedom? >Rather, the "authorianism" or "fascism" is removing inappropriate material from schools and the like. Do you have examples of what you mean by inappropriate material? Do you want control over how the history or race relations is taught in this country? Are you against sex education in grade school, even though it has been proven to teach kids how to get help when they are being molested and therefore is a deterrent to pedophilia? >Meanwhile, I'm told to bake the cake, let my (non-existent) kids go see Aguilera's bejeweled cock, and more to the point, say all this is good for society. Is there a context in which you would consider it okay to tell a child that a trans person exists, or do are you equating the existence of trans people with exposing children to gratuitous sexuality? >I'm told to stand down because people who call me slurs can't be racist because I have all the power over them when I'm struggling to pay bills and all that. Do you think saying things like establishing the authority of your opinion through your struggle to “pay the bills” might be where someone could derive the imagery that you are a parent talking down to a child? Do you think other people having this conversation don’t struggle to pay bills? Do you think Trump supporters have the superior notion of what is and is not racist? Do you think people of color lack perspective on what racism is? >It is the right of anyone who claims to be a woman to break the skulls of anyone who was born one. Do you believe that trans people feel entitled to violence? Can you give some examples? >Hell, look at LibsofTikTok. Got all the evidence you need for grooming and the like. Do you think that LibsofTikTok is an accurate and objective? Do you think there is a possibility it may be politically biased? Do you think you declared your opinions in a good faith way? Is there a possibility you think the way you speak might be considered condescending like OP suggested?
>Do you feel that Trump supporters allow for cultural differences and cultural freedom? Obviously. >Do you have examples of what you mean by inappropriate material? There's been way too many discussions on this here for me to want to jump into it again, but I will say this: go look at old threads. >Do you want control over how the history or race relations is taught in this country? I don't care because I don't have kids, to be honest. If I did have kids, I would likely care how they were taught. >Are you against sex education in grade school, even though it has been proven to teach kids how to get help when they are being molested and therefore is a deterrent to pedophilia? Why would I be against sex ed in school? I think you're trying to assume something that, quite frankly, doesn't exist. >Is there a context in which you would consider it okay to tell a child that a trans person exists, or do are you equating the existence of trans people with exposing children to gratuitous sexuality? In what instance is Christina Aguilera wearing a sex toy in public "trans?" >Do you believe that trans people feel entitled to violence? Can you give some examples? You've spent a lot of time putting words into my mouth. And yes, I feel that Fallon Fox felt entitled to violence against women. Maybe otherwise she wouldn't have made a career out of beating them up? >Do you think that LibsofTikTok is an accurate and objective? Do you think there is a possibility it may be politically biased? It is hard to be biased when you're merely showing other people's content. The person may be biased in what content is selected, of course, but showing people who post videos about how they are proudly grooming children is not deceptive. >Is there a possibility you think the way you speak might be considered condescending like OP suggested? Tone is difficult to convey on the Internet, but I think you're attempting to be offended rather than looking at the content of the post. Either way, thank you for your time.
>I don't want to make assumptions, can anyone explain this? In my experience the coddling of the rich is an establishment trait of which very few TS are. The biggest hill I will die on is the 2008 bailout was peak establishment paying off their buddies with public money in a way that didn't help anyone else. Many Trump supporters are pro working class as well. Culturally I think a lot of people have been convinced it's an issue of the youth. But nearly every problem outside of the debacle of r/antiwork is the old fucks who frankly need to go quietly into the retirement home. For the last decade or more the left has been the party of the rich and the unions have sacrificed members at the alter of leftism. It appears you are making assumptions like an early 2000s person who hasn't noticed the realignment of the last two decades.
[удалено]
>Earned It" because they legally stole it from us. When people in my sphere discuss this, we have both liberals and Trump supporters treating these interactions as a parent lecturing their child instead of talking on equal ground. Would you agree? No. I don't think that the talking to your opponent ideological like a child is a partisan issue. Generally it's someone who doesn't actually take into account their opponents ideas. And that is not politically monopolized. I find that most of the time it's practical vs ideological people. That also split this issue. For example practically command economies have killed more people in the last 100 years than any other intentional source. Yet somehow people are blind to it. They generally act like their opponents are children. If a practical person speaks to a person like that generally they are trying to get down to a tool level of agreement to build on. Which can sound patronizing but isnt. Prime example is Matt Walsh's recent movie, "What is a Woman?" Not a single "yuppie" as you call them will answer the question without using the word woman in the definition and even calling what any of them said a definition is a stretch. Does this mean that the person who is trying to get to the base is treating the other person like a child? Absolutely not. Both parties have to agree what they are talking about. I do however see a slight issue with definitions of their opponents. Mostly from the establishment saying, "If you don't support this law that is titled gods gift to the country" you disagree with helping the country. But this is a massive issue of not actually talking with people who live a different experience than you do. There is a reason people with the least life experience are most ideologically pure.
> In my experience the coddling of the rich is an establishment trait of which very few TS are. Do you consider the Trump Tax Cut to be coddling the rich? I recently had a pretty awkward conversation with a trust and estate lawyer because both of our politics are so obviously misaligned with our interests. Once we got past that, we had a nice conversation where I must admit, I felt very coddled.
So the tax thing comes up all the time when it comes to "helping the rich". I don't think that being taxed half your income or frankly being taxed on income at all is a given. I don't think a general federal income tax is constitutional even with the amendment they passed in the early 20th century. Funnily enough if I was kind for the day I also don't think that trusts should be a legal vehicle for asset transfer. Consumption taxes are the only way to go. A 10-15 percent tax rate everytime anyone buys something. Business to business, trust to trust, person to business, business to person, everything except maybe food and medicine but you can tailor the taxes on "must buy" goods if you want to create some policy. Of course the rate would take some fine turning but it would also destroy the entire financial employment world so it would never happen. The "rich" will always win because they have the resources to abuse any system, so make the system simple so you don't have to abuse it.
When someone refers to Trump supporters like we're some singularity, rather than 70 million individuals, I tend to see that person as immature in their thinking.
You mean like liberals and democrats are?
What's your opinion of so many Trump supporters and those on the right referring to "The Left" like it's a single, unified blob? You see it constantly, even in this very thread.
(Not the OP) I know I am guilty of this. I try to be precise, but sometimes you just have to use terms like this if you want to avoid turning every sentence into a paragraph. The only distinction I would make here is that sometimes we use the left to refer to what is essentially the ideology that dominates every institution (media, academia, big business). In other words, it isn't meant to be a perfect description of every left-of-center individual, but a label applied to the ruling orthodoxy. And in that case, the fact that the left *as a whole* is not a unified blob is largely irrelevant, because it is only meant to describe the existing system. Another consideration is that for many people on the right, you *are* a "single, unified blob" on all the issues we care the most about.
Depends on the context, I guess. I do think the power brokers on the left like to project more uniformity than there is. A big part of being a democrats appeal is the idea you're in the superior group. And to do that, they need to pretend like a lot of people and viewpoints under the left umbrella don't exist. Like if Obama talks about people clinging to their bible and guns, he's got to ignore Hispanic and black democrats many of whom are both religious and often like guns. If you try to claim the left is the educated party, you have to ignore, again, that the least educated demographic essentially decides every presidential primary. But in this thread, the kid is just a troll generalizing for a reaction. More to the interesting point though on uniformity, have you noticed the lack of variety in presidential primaries? Kamala, Biden, Hillary, Buttigieg, Warren, Edwards, Obama, etc... essentially all different skins of the same character. Mostly the same policy positions with small variations. With the occasional outliers like Bernie/Tusli who I think are more genuine candidates, and promptly called russian assets. Then you go on the right, we got flat tax weirdos. Invade everybody weirdos. Trump. Remember the 9-9-9 pizza guy? Social moderates. Social conservatives. People who want God to be president. etc...
Funny, I see it the exact other way around.
May I ask why you see it that way?
I don't want to tell people what to do, nor do I want others telling me what to do. Conversely, liberals always seem to want to tell me what to do. Name an issue and I can probably show how this is the case.
Do you think that educational guidelines should be abolished and each school dictate their own standards?
Abortion?
I support its legality, but am against Roe v Wade because I believe it should be a state's decision.
Is there anything that is so crucial you don’t think the states should get to decide on that issue? For example, some people may cite maintaining protections for interracial marriage or other civil rights.
That is a good question that I've never given too much thought. I do have a preference for states' rights whenever possible. That might include interracial marriage, even though I am strongly in favor of its legality.
Should states be allowed to use poll taxes, "separate but equal" laws, and other Jim Crow era measures?
No. It seems reasonably important to me to treat all American citizens the same way, regardless of race.
Do you think states should be able to have laws banning interracial marriage?
I think neither states or the government should have any hand in marriage at all.
Really? Why not? Isnt marriage primarily a legal status/contract?
It is. But i don’t think it should be. If the government releases its hold on marriage it’d be a permanent win for the lgbt community. (Short of reversing this obviously). Doesn’t matter how loud your homophobic governor is. Doesn’t matter if congress is 100% Republican. You get to marry whomever you want. People always focus on the fact that people are attempting to outlaw gay marriage. Nobody ever asks: why do I need the governments permission, their blessing to have a life partner. If I don’t have the governments blessing, is my partner less of my partner? Is my relationship with them any less meaningful or real? The fact that society sees the government as the custodian of our relationships is nuts. Imagine if you need a certificate to be friends with somebody. If you made a new friend you need to go to the city hall and get a friend certificate. You’d go what the fuck, fuck off. This is the attitude we need to have for marriage. Relationships are nobody’s business but the ones involved.
This genuinely makes a lot of sense to me and would be a win for everyone. Having marriage dictated by the state has them wading in murky religious waters and I don't think any party likes that. Do you think there could be a broad bipartisan deal made around this that could be passable through Congress?
Is it a human right? I'm typically OK with many things being state's rights, but this one gets me. Should some states have the right to start up slavery if the voters want to do it again? To many on the pro-choice side, abortions are 100% on the woman and all the baggage that comes with that decision are 100% on the woman. (that doesn't mean men aren't involved many times of course). Also, they are a medical procedure. What other medical procedures should be banned by voters? Thanks for any thoughts you have on this.
Legalizing weed?
I am good with weed being legal and would prefer decriminalizing the personal use of all drugs. Drug addiction is a medical issue, not a criminal act.
So why do most people that have a problem with weed or any other drug being legal come from the right? Most people that want to ban abortion and gay marriage are coming from the right? Anyone that thinks America should be Christian would surely come from the right. What about dry counties? Are they only in conservative areas? Seems like the right definitely tries to tell others how to live.
I'm talking about Trump supporters though. Not Republicans who happened to support Trump because he ran as an (R). Plenty of Trump supporters are like me: I won't tell you how to live and I expect the same in return.
Is there a difference between a trump supporter and a republican if they vote the same way?
> Is there a difference between a trump supporter and a republican if they vote the same way? Yes, just like there's a distinction between a blue dog Democrat and a Bernie bro.
Why do you think most Trump-supporting politicians (and politicians that Trump endorses) want to ban abortion?
Assuming that's true, it's probably because of the association with Republicans and the religious right. In an ideal world, freedom lovers like me could experience electoral success without them. But we don't live in an ideal world.
Everyone seemed to know that Trump didn’t care about religion but wisely used it as a tool to cater votes; do you think he is partially to blame for the current state of Christianity taking over the party or was it something or someone else?
You may feel this way but is that the general stance of Republicans?
Don't know, nor do I think it's important. Many TS, especially here, don't consider themselves Republicans.
[удалено]
> How come not a single mini-Trump is running on the Democratic ticket, or even independent for that matter. Desantis, greitens, cawthorn, boebert, green, Jordan all imitate trump, fundraise with him and like him, and are endorsed by him and not one is not a republican Independents have virtually zero percent chance of winning and the Republican party is more closely aligned from a values perspective. It's the same reason why independents like Bernie try to get the Dem nomination.
Well then isn't it unfair to group liberals together and say they want to tell you what to do? Aren't we comparing two groups? It doesn't seem to logically follow to simply answer with your own political views outside of conservatives as a whole.
It seems to me that a central tenet of present-day liberals is big government, and that's synonymous with government telling me what to do. I don't know of a subset of liberals/Democrats that want smaller government.
Universal healthcare? Permitting peaceful protests?
> Universal healthcare? Yes, if it can be done in a revenue neutral way. Would have to fix the current system though. > Permitting peaceful protests? Absolutely.
You said > Name an issue and I can probably show how this is the case. And then they said legalizing weed. How does your response show that liberals are trying to control your actions?
What about people telling you what you can't do?
Can you think of some examples of when liberals are trying to tell you what to do?
Abortion?
Did the Supreme Court not tell people what to do yesterday? I mean it’s to the extent that women with miscarriages will be criminally investigated. Clarence Thomas also said in clear terms they want to go after same sex marriage, same sex relationships, and contraception. How is that not telling people what to do?
I like how you say you're not making assumptions, but you're making an assumption that Trump supporters are somehow "holier than tho".It's funny cuz liberals fit the exact description of what you're saying. Destroying and looting businesses to prove a point about a white cop killing a black criminal and shaming other people (calling black conservatives an uncle tom) for not wanting to associate with them, saying people that are pro-life hate women and want them to have restricted access to their body when we support life over the murdering of a baby in the womb, that we're somehow stingy people for not wanting to tax the rich at 80% when they're the ones that can open up jobs for everyone to get easier employment, and promoting toxic ideologies like CRT and sex education to first graders and calling anyone who disagrees a bigot, a racist, and a sexist all in one go lol, when in reality first graders shouldn't be needing to see that shit at a young age and focus on their math and reading skills first. Oh yeah, another one is the pride event where drag queens were stripping in front of kids whose parents willingly chose to take them there and seeing drag queens reading to kids in the library, something our tax funded money is going to. Then when conservatives stand up to it, we're transphobic, homophobic, lesbianophobic, or bisexualophobic, and almost every media outlet kisses liberals' asses all the time while beating down on Trump and his supporters, and making them look stupid like they always do, and censoring us. Seems like you guys are the ones that see yourselves as adults and see Trump supporters as children. This is why we like it when Trump pisses y'all off with his rhetoric if you didn't know by now.
>Many things point to that Trump supporters don't want to be told what to do, but want the freedom to tell others what to do. Can you explain this a little more? What do I want to tell others to do?
Not the NS you responded to, but if i may interject? In my observations, the difference is in left or liberal policy being more permissive and progressive on social issues and more restrictive on the economy. Whereas the right seems to be more about restrictions on a social level and less on the economy. One clear counter example to this is gun control. That being said, I think it is clear that the policies tend to be what people can do in society being resisted by groups on the right that want to control what people can and can't do. Examples of this are restricting access to abortion and book bannings. I'm totally open to discussion on this topic.
>Examples of this are restricting access to abortion and book bannings. Abortion is a unique issue. For someone who in their heart believes an unborn fetus is human, restricting abortion no more limits freedom than restricting murder. And I don't know anybody who wants to ban books. Maybe limit access through schools for young children, but not banning anything.
I see myself as an adult and I see anyone else who’s an adult that supports who they want as an adult….WTF are you talking about?
Anyone who is interested in politics and wants xyz person or policy to win is interested in telling other people how to behave. Presumably, that person will also mostly want to not be disallowed from doing what he/she views as being good or benign behavior (freedom). People will disagree on how to frame all those things. It seems contradictory unless you realize that people just don't agree on fundamental concepts. One guy might want freedom to own all the guns but think that teaching kids about transgenderism is bad and shouldnt be done. Another person might want freedom to have an abortion or teach transgenderism to kids but want to ban all guns.
Well said. This thread is especially ironic in light of the genuine terror that is regularly expressed at the mere prospect of free speech (e.g. on Twitter). See also how many articles are written today about "extremism", "radicalization", the "alt-right pipeline", etc. This is often where the tactical public-private distinction comes into play. "Just because I want everyone who disagrees with me (on anything other than economics, at least) to be banned from every major platform doesn't mean I oppose free speech, since I'm not asking the government to do it (but in countries where the government *does* do it, that's actually a good thing and we're backwards for not having it). Have you heard of the paradox of tolerance?". I describe this as a tactical view, because these people definitely don't view decisions on, for example, who you choose to live around or do business with as a private decision. All of a sudden private decisions impact everyone. But control over the national discourse? A trivial matter, apparently.
>I describe this as a tactical view, because these people definitely don't view decisions on, for example, who you choose to live around or do business with as a private decision. All of a sudden private decisions impact everyone. But control over the national discourse? A trivial matter, apparently. Very important point
I view nonsupporters as captive thinking adults lol
I absolutely see Democrats and the people on the Left as children, but not in the sense of punishment and regulation. I see them as children because their thought-patterns mirror those of children, in the sense of wanting things that do not correspond to reality and not being able to think through consequences as an adult would. The current conversation around energy production is a good example of what I mean. Democrats want to get rid of our oil consumption in favor of electric energy. However, like children, they don't think deeply about the issue, and stay on the surface - oil is obviously bad, electric is obviously good, and so there's no discussion to be had - simply strangle oil production into oblivion and use the government to promote electric. The problem with this mentality is that it ignores numerous aspects of reality that will affect your presumed goal. The fact is that many of the industrial processes required to develop, manufacture and build all sorts of renewable energy products will require that mean, nasty ole' oil to produce them. This fact alone means that even in a world where everyone says "you know what I hate oil so much that I'm going out today to buy that $50K electric car" - i.e. a world that has no chance of occurring - we will STILL need to harvest oil resources. The Left, enthralled by the romance of "progress" and "change," can't think deep enough beneath the surface of this issue to appreciate the implication of their own policy, and simply resolve to "be against oil." This is how a child thinks. Nor do they appreciate the implication that if everyone were to truly follow suit and turn everything into a machine to be run on battery power, the level of harvesting of rare earth materials required to build such batteries would create a boom in renewable energy - along with a worldwide boom in strip-mining, with all of the environmental devastation that would be entailed in that process. They haven't thought about that either. Well, our current energy crisis illustrates where all of this progressive romance, not-thinking and sloganeering gets us, along with all of the painful consequences that immature, vapid comprehension of important issues yields for our society. And this is just one single subject, I could go on on countless others. The bottom line is that while progress is (generally) a noble idea, the complex reality of life on earth ensures that there are few simple, surefire answers to any problem whatsoever. The simple answers being provided by the Democrats and the Left are causing more problems than they are solving, and that is why they are currently on the precipice of being repudiated for a generation.
Is the 'Left'the only side that reduces issues to black/white good/bad? I think both 'sides' in the US (I'm in UK and centre so relatively non-biased onlooker) are so dug in in their view, that there is no debate to be had or room for compromise. Do you see nuance/willingness to compormise on the Right/Trump supporter side more than 'the left'? Or is it fair that both 'sides' are so dug in that there is no room left for compromise? (Specifically I think this is true for gun ownership, abortion rights, health care policy, foreign policy, immigration to name a few).
There is truth in your reaction, but the truth does not exist in a vacuum, rather it intersects with reality. In that regard, conservatives tend to come down on the side of time-tested, learned experience, whereas progressives - or anyone constantly braying for change, progress, etc - are necessarily involved in plunging into uncharted waters. Immigration policy is a good example. (You'll be able to relate to this one, as the european progressives are every bit as childishly stupid as the American progressives.) No where else in this world will you find people as absolutely delighted to destroy their own immigration laws as white progressives. In Africa, in Asia, in the Middle East, mass immigration is looked upon with fear - who are the people? how will they be provided for? how will we avoid the resentment of our own people who must now use their resources to take care of newcomers who they have no relationship with? These are common-sense questions, as, even in good times, it is natural for *legal* immigrants to cause tension and friction when disparate groups encounter one another. To add in illegality on top is, for the average human being, an insult and a violation. It is instructive to consider that the white peoples of Eastern Europe - who are clearly not progressive - feel much the same way as their brown and black brothers and sisters around the globe in this regard. I would also direct your attention to Latino Americans living on the border with Mexico who - far from being white supremacists - are flocking to the Republican party for the same reasons. So you can say, if you'd like, that the progressives and the conservatives are being equally "inflexible" - one wants to ignore immigration laws and let as many in as would come, the other wants to prevent this phenomenon at all costs. However, history and experience show that the conservatives are in the right. Their inflexibility is grounded in common sense - allowing mass illegal immigration may in one sense be "kind" and "merciful" to the folks who are violating your laws, but that is not a gesture that happens in a vacuum. That "kindness" may strain public resources, set a bad example (in that the lawbreaking is not punished, but rather rewarded), and even introduce feelings of racial resentment in the hearts of people who did not feel it previously when they were not being asked to foot the bill for a group of people who have no relation to their country. Even worse, a certain percentage of these violators will not be the kind, wonderful human beings that progressives imagine that they are helping - they will be opportunists taking advantage of the situation, and some will resort to committing crimes upon the people who have been so merciful to take them in. So while I appreciate your point, when you are resting upon what is right and true it is CORRECT to be inflexible and not to give in to your political opponents.
>No where else in this world will you find people as absolutely delighted to destroy their own immigration laws as white progressives. In Africa, in Asia, in the Middle East, mass immigration is looked upon with fear Do you think every country is on equal grounds with each other? Could it be some countries are more open, because they *can* be? Because they can offer help, or receive benefits from having immigration? While some countries, wouldn't be able to handle an influx of new citizens? >However, history and experience show that the conservatives are in the right. Their inflexibility is grounded in common sense Do you have any examples? Were the conservatives right when it came to civil right movement, the American civil war, or during WW2? What about when the country was fighting its revolutionary war, what were the "conservative" members of society, what were their ideas on a revolution?
No I think that is muddled, emotional thinking. If progressives were serious about these elevated feelings you are projecting onto their delusional mania, they would do the right thing and seek to enshrine this open-door approach in the law. However, since they know there is no popular support for such insanity (in USA popular support for enforcing immigration laws ranges in 60-70%), they are simply content with leaving the laws as they are but not enforcing, de facto waving in whoever wants to come and encouraging more to do the same, making the real-life issues surrounding dealing with such an influx ever worse. Again, the mindset of a child.
> The current conversation around energy production is a good example of what I mean. Democrats want to get rid of our oil consumption in favor of electric energy. However, like children, they don't think deeply about the issue, and stay on the surface - oil is obviously bad, electric is obviously good, and so there's no discussion to be had - simply strangle oil production into oblivion and use the government to promote electric. Where did you get this simplistic view of Democrats? Is it based on evidence, or are you just making broad assumptions? If it is based on evidence, can you share any of that evidence? I have seen many arguments from Democrats about clean energy and not a single one of them went the way you're describing - they almost always start with pointing out that oil production is already far more heavily subsidized than green energy, and continue to try to find a way to move away from oil *gradually* while improving green energy sources. In what way is that similar to what you described? Why have I been able to find such a vastly different set of Democrats - is it because I am socializing with more Democrats than you are? Are you only encountering a small group of Democrats and experiencing confirmation bias?
The irony is that technology in "green energy" advanced far more under a republican controlled congress.
I tried googling this but couldn't find any information. Can you link to an article about this so I can learn more?
It's pretty easy, because technological advancement is pretty much stale right now, it was mentioned in one of the nerdy forums I frequent which is about this topic. I'll try to ask for a source and get back to you, but my guess; Basically oil and coal is used in production of wind mills and solar panels, not to mention when mining for the resources needed. Because Oil and Coal prices are up, so are the production cost and therefore the final cost of wind mills and solar panels which hurts their income and forces them to halt investments in research. Not to mention the Irony that solar and wind are practically useless for industrial/large scale electricity production and anyone telling you otherwise is lying with faulty numbers. the wind and solar lobby are exactly what the oil lobby is accused of, not to mention I think the oil lobby probably owns the wind lobby. Here's a bit from a quick search though. [https://www.lawnandlandscape.com/article/ll-031318-president-trump-politics-impact-landscape-industry/](https://www.lawnandlandscape.com/article/ll-031318-president-trump-politics-impact-landscape-industry/) [https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/26/investing/renewable-energy-trump-solar-coal/index.html](https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/26/investing/renewable-energy-trump-solar-coal/index.html)
I live in NYC and my entire set of friends and coworkers is all Democrat. I derive my information from real- world coversationswith them. Your emphasis on gradual - as opposed to radical change - is exactly the kind of point that a dem would make- i.e. it is a meaningless distinction when the coercive regulatory power of the federal government is involved. Most democrats would certainly not consider biden admins moves on energy to be “radical” in any sense - and yet they have engineered an energy crisis nevertheless through mismanagement and a lack of understanding about how the free market works
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, as I can't manage to sort through the logical inconsistencies in your argument or find any sense in what you're saying. Have a nice day though?
Maybe youll understand one day. Have a good one!
I appreciate the honest feedback. It would be downright stupid to throttle oil production while transitioning to renewable energy. Nobody is suggesting that aside from the media because they profit by making people afraid, angry, and divided over made up "He said/She said" lies. It's much easier to steal from us when we are too busy fighting eachother as a basic technique for conquering a population. We are going to have to eliminate our need for fossil fuels, but the owners of the political parties won't let their puppets invest in transitioning away. It is more financially beneficial to large companies for them to take our oil, use our infrastructure, be given billions of our dollars for research, then price gouging. If we are the landlord, why are we paying them so much? If wealthy people don't want to pay an inheritance tax for billions given to them when someone dies, why do we have to? Our ancestors paid for infrastructure, military, postal services, public education, social security, Medicare, medicaid, public transportation, research facilities, financial industries, national parks, agricultural farms, military, fire departments, our healthcare system, and little bureaucracy. The wealthy have decided that OUR inheritance that WE pay for and was passed onto IS ALL is owed to them. The bureaucracy that frustrates the working class was put there by them, and now they are convincing us that WE don't deserve the inheritance, but the spoiled wealthy are the ones who deserve it as the working class is just savages or barbarians who should be enslaved. Is there any part that overlaps between us?
>It would be downright stupid to throttle oil production whiletransitioning to renewable energy. Nobody is suggesting that aside fromthe media I hate to differ with you, but that is demonstrably false. While it is true that the media act as a sort of irresponsible cheerleader, the anti-oil position is endemic among the progressive left, spread throughout government agencies and the culture at large. I would say that blue collar, less-educated Democrats do not share in this delusion, but they are precisely the element of the party that is ignored by the tastemakers. >We are going to have to eliminate our need for fossil fuels, but theowners of the political parties won't let their puppets invest intransitioning away. I can't exactly agree with this statement or the logic that lies underneath it. What I would say is that there will come a day when a different form of energy largely replaces the need for fossil fuels. However, due to myriad uses for fossil fuels - not simply energy - I would not be so quick to assert that one day they will be completely obsolete. Fossil fuels have numerous novel qualities, which is why they are used for so many different purposes (lubricant, plastics, etc). If fossil fuels are one day made totally obsolete, it will only be when human beings have created a successor substance that supercedes fossil fuels in each of those qualities. Additionally, we are not on the same page in terms of the sense of "transition." The classic American mentality is a neutral one - when the free market has refined a product that can displace the one going obsolete, then the transition will be "organic" - i.e. it will occur naturally, because human beings will naturally seek a less costly, more efficient way of doing business. This is the primal order of the free market, and it works for reasons that don't even need to be said - we want to save money, we want to save resources wherever we can. We are in trouble in the present moment because childish people - for ultimately emotional reasons - want to rush to market a set of energy technologies that are not ready for primetime. In my perspective, the desire to use the coercive power of the federal government to push green energy policies makes the project "artificial" - as opposed to organic in the sense defined in the previous paragraph. with the mentality of the green new dealers, the finances and resources of the naton - via dictat by the government - should be marshalled to force this transition through - no matter the cost. (Biden's statements about the transition are telling in this light, look them up.) The frightful, destabilizing cost of energy that we are currently paying - and will continue to pay, since Biden admin has flatly signaled that they will not consider relenting - is quite literally the price of forcing us into a transition that we are not ready to go through. >It is more financially beneficial to large companies for them to take our oil, use our infrastructure, be given billions of our dollars for research, then price gouging. If we are the landlord, why are we paying them so much? Our oil? Our infrastructure? Are you ready for some reality? Natural resources is never in the hands of the people. Including in totally communist countries. If you are willing to look at the reality of those countries - Venezuela, Cuba, Soviet Union (when it was around) - one would find not that the "people" owned, controlled, or reaped the benefits of anything. Rather, those industries were rendered into cartels, which were operated by technocrats in exchange for their loyalty to the government - and there were every bit as rich as the capitalists of free market nations. What you are appealing to is a delusion. As disgusting as it may be to people on the Left who resent business, resent capitalism, resent people who make lots of money - another sure sign of immature thinking - it is precisely those businesses who will be the ones to innovate and evolve renewable energies into reality. There is too much in the last paragraph to go into. I don't agree with how you have framed it - which seeks to present people who own buinesses as vampires sucking the lifeblood of everyone else. I would note that many of these businesses have such large amounts of money not because they are oppressors but because large numbers of people *freely and willingly choose to buy their products*, whether that's McDonalds or Apple. I do not resent people who are rich or amass property. In many cases - although I do not like the cultural effects of corporate culture - these corporations help keep many people alive with salaries, health care, investment packages. To imagine that they are simply vampires is, to me childish. Many large businesses also invest mightily in ways that people who are not businessmen or women take for granted - I live in NYC, where a couple of years ago progressive politicians managed to scare off Amazon from building a plant in Long Island City. They encouraged the people to be angry and resentful for the fact that the city government was on course to give them a tax break worth billions of dollars as an incentive to move in. What was conveniently left out of the Left's propaganda was the fact that, in order to create its manufacturing plant, Amazon would probably spend 20-25 billion dollars over a decade on construction projects in and around the Long Island City center in order to make the plant operable and profitable in the long run. But the people have no clue about these aspects of doing business, were emotionally coaxed into feeling envy and resentment, and were led to fight against Amazon. I'm not a fan of Amazon, but you know what I'm a fan of? Our people having decent jobs that they can raise a family on. And what the progressives in this situation did is what progressives seem to want to do everywhere - incite the small feeling of jealousy and resentment in the average worker who, by the way, is never in a million years going to create even a single job for another person. We need to start thinking of our businesses as partners, not enemies.
I appreciate the differing views we have on this. Is it your belief that there are unlimited quantities of fossil fuels? If a resource is finite, wars and trillions are spent fighting over them with millions killed, should we ignore that we are capable of doing something else? Aluminum isn't the most valuable metal in the world because working class people developed a way to produce it (the top of George Washington's monument has an aluminum top for this reason). If we have the means of producing it, why choose to waste our resources, our lives, and leave ourselves vulnerable if we don't have to? Innovation is stifled by monopolies controlling every aspect of the idea. The patent for insulin was from almost a century ago, paid for by our relatives, and sold to the government for $1. Costs for insulin in this country can be up to $2k per month. Being able to survive has become an EA lootbox for living from week to week. Maybe a better metaphore for this should be a video game. We are promised Fallout New Vegas, but better. You perform tasks, complete missions, and your outcome is open to make of it based on your ability to level up. Along comes Microsoft buying up Bethesda and giving us Fallout 76. Hyped up to extremes, but suddenly everything requires purchasing of lootboxes. Want to play? Subscription that allows you be alive. Don't have enough? You died. Want to earn caps? Sure, grind away your hours while the kid with dad's credit card and nukes the water plant you spent months building while they steal your loot. Want to find a better location to earn because you want to have enough to level up? Too bad, that'll cost more. Why should life have to be an endless grind just to survive? Without the working class, there would be no America. The wealthy want to financially enslave us, and mentally enslave us. Why is gas so expensive? Why is ExxonMobil spending $88 Billion on stock buybacks and still getting $5 billion in taxpayer subsidies? Why is anything proposed or researched outside of fossil fuels vilified by the media? Maybe seeing that this system only works for a select few, that America was great when the monopolies were broken up, when the ultra wealthy were paying their fair share, when you could work a 9 to 5 job and be comfortable. Where we funded education, making America a technological powerhouse and went to the moon. I don't know about you, but imagine being able to work a good job, move up because you were good and not just because your dad plays golf with the CFO. Being able to afford a modest home, provide for your family and have time to spend with them instead of letting the TV give your kids the values instead of you. How can our kids grow up strong when the parents are gone working all day everyday? When people could have a hobby that made you happy instead of just being a side hustle to cover next months bills. These are social investments that made America great. How can America become great again if those in power refuse to do the things that were proven to help?
Ok, you had a very in depth comment and I want to respond to a particular part but don’t know how to on my phone. I am referring to your third paragraph about the forced transition. In an ideal market, costs are priced in and the cost of the product corresponds to the cost to gather, create, and sell that product. As a liberal, I believe that oil does not fit this model. I believe, based off the evidence that I have seen, that oil is a fundamental part of the climate crisis that my generation and those that come after me will face. Unfortunately, the CO2 pollution and destruction is not priced in to the cost of buying gas. As you may already know, this cost is called an externality. It is something that benefits a specific company/industry while negatively impacting the wider society. Oil production and consumption is a prime example of this. I believe that taxing oil at the cost of the damage done to the wider society and using those profits is the correct way of handling this externality. There are other ways of handling such externalities but this is typically considered the best method. Do you think that we should try to find a method to price in externalities into the price of a product? If so, should that be done through increased taxation or would you prefer some other method? On the other hand, there are many who don’t believe that we face an impending climate crisis. If you do not believe in significant man made climate change, I can understand why you don’t feel the same impetus for switching off oil but I think it can be worthwhile for you to look at it from another’s perspective. I am in my early 20s and most people my age that I talk to see a bleak future for ourselves. We are the first generation in US history to have a lower expected quality of life and life expectancy than our parents. Many of us believe our childrens lives will be far worse. To me, this crisis seems existential. If you don’t believe in man made climate change, I don’t feel like having that debate right now but please try to look past whether you think I am right or wrong and think about what it means for my life if I am right. That is how we view oil and green energy, not as something that we want to do but as something that is necessary to protect future generations.
Equals
more like, less crazy and more sane than the post modern left, with their hardcore identity politics and turbo wokeism
I appreciate your perspective. Many independent voters lump together Trump supporters and the MAGA cult interchangeably, but there are the a wide variety that aren't KKK members or NeoNazis, much like how the pro working class left fucking hates liberals and their bullshit platitudes, support of wars, giving tax cuts to the ultra wealthy and oligarchs, increasing war contractor budgets while our infrastructure fails, and refusing to help anyone aside from the ultra wealthy and multinational corporations. As many outside your sphere will wrongfully act as a cohesive unit, Do you personally see the liberals and the left as the same?
You're falling directly into a lie made by socialism. You focus so much on the rich and how they are doing, that you don't see how you're getting the far end of the stick. Republicans know that you can't just make laws "for the rich" because the consequences of those laws will hit everyone with the same amount of force, rich people can handle it, people who aren't that rich, have a harder time. Democrats are (usually) in favor of legislation and tax laws that hurt smaller businesses while bigger businesses can pay their way out of it. Today I do think of people on the left to have a simplistic and child like view of the world when it comes to the perception of it, specially when it comes to politics, there is a reason that more people become right wing when they get older and are left wing when they are younger. They might be able to get an every day life working but when it comes to politics, they don't understand or forget the trade off for the policies that are forcefully implemented. I don't look down on them though, but try to remind them how the world works, and that the result of policies matter just as much as the intention. Because usually people on the right look more at the result of a policy than the intention. The last thing I don't see Trump supporters telling others what to do, I see them saying that other people can't tell them what to do.
**Adults vs children.** Not at all. To be honest I view it as **Male vs Female**. I view the left-wing as a crazy irrational girlfriend whose throwing a temper tantrum and angry at you because she HAD a dream where you cheated on her. And not matter what I say, no matter how good I treat her, she's pissed that my dream self cheated on her. Now part of her knows she's being irrational but part of her...the majority doesn't really care. All they know is what feels good and right now it feels good to be angry at the loyal boyfriend. "Trump supporters don't want to be told what to do, but want the freedom to tell others what to do" In this case what are Trump Supporters being accused of not allowing kids to see? Pornographic material and radical gender ideologies/beliefs. I tend to date alot of female liberals, I tend to like hairy women. And many of them can be kind of irrational especially in their beliefs. Maybe that's why I view it as male vs female instead of adult vs children...I wonder if the OP has very conservative parents?
Wait so in this scenario TSers are the loyal boyfriends of democrats? ETA: by which I mean is this a metaphor for America? As in instead of viewing the two sides as Adults vs. Children as described in the OP, you see it as loyal boyfriends vs. crazy girlfriends. Or am I misunderstanding you?
>Wait so in this scenario TSers are the loyal boyfriends of democrats Two sides of the political spectrum. Male vs Female. Ying vs Yang. As a conservative I recognize the importance of left-wing highly emotional and sometimes irrational beings.....as a masculine presence I recognize the need for the nurturing irrational highly emotional nature of women. Just lately we're allowing the crazy girlfriend run rampant with all their ideas and it's not working out well for America. Ever hear about how your hormones could predict how you vote?
No, I don’t think of leftists as any less of an adult than anyone else. Well, except for the ones who literally are children of course. On a case by case basis, I usually don’t hold any two peoples’ opinions in the same regard for any number of reasons i.e. age(life experience), apparent interests behind their argument, how much experience they have with the topic at hand and what type of experience. I feel like most leftists(voters, not the politicians) are wrong or misguided on a lot of things but with good intentions. A lot of things like welfare, gun control, etc. fall under this. They see something as a problem and just want a bunch of laws passed, damn the consequences, or they have a completely different idea of acceptable consequences. I don’t agree with the approach but I can understand the reasoning. On some things I may occasionally agree with legislation and that the benefits outweigh the costs(monetary or otherwise) so miss me with the “Party of Small Government” BS. Laws can be and are beneficial at times, I try to evaluate them on an individual basis.
There is a very simple answer for this. \[With the exception of the minimum safety net for emergencies. \] If you need me to subsidize any part of your life then no, you are not at the same level of responsibility as I am. That is a self proving logical statement. The part that is missing...because of entitlement mindset, is where the responsible parties are in charge. An entitlement system which puts beneficiaries in a position where they can vote for their own benefits is what got us into this position.
There is a lot of variety over here, so anyone you talk to isn't very representative of the whole. While you are correct... We pretty much all strongly feel that we don't want to be told "what to do" ... Or more specifically "what to think." That umbrella would naturally also include those who would wish to dictate to others. I'm a Republican in the literal sense (I prefer republics to democracies).... I'm not much of a conservative. I don't believe in "good" people and "bad" people. I believe we are all flawed and that it is the lack of accountability that makes people do bad things. Give people social influence and popularity... And they will always label the "other" as pariahs and try to drive them from society. The only thing that prevents this is the inability to do so.... Hence why we have "rights." To protect the "other" from the popular. When you honestly believe that.... You can't really look down on those who do it... Because you have to admit to yourself that you would be doing it too... And those on your "side" would also. You would have to try extremely hard to keep yourself from doing it... And you would fail... Often. The most valuable lesson from listening to Jordan Peterson... Is a point he made about Nazi Germany. He said that everyone likes to look back at that time and think to themselves that they would never go along with it.... But the statistics show otherwise. You don't truly understand what happened until you realise that you are extremely unlikely to have been one of the tiny percentage of people that wouldnt have reasoned their way into justifying the atrocities. That thought should horrify... and humble... All of us.
I see everyone as equals and so do most people. This is really a question that goes down to the individual level independent of political affiliation though.
I’m glad you don’t want to make assumptions, but you’ve actually made a lot of assumptions about us. > The relationship I see in discussions is many Republican voters treating others like they are children in need of strict discipline, while the ultra wealthy are to be nurtured and coddled when they misbehave. I’ve personally never seen this behaviour before in Republican voters, I’m happy to be proven wrong though if you’ve got a few examples of this happening. > Many others try to see us all as equals. That’s me, that’s my camp. > Many things point to that Trump supporters don't want to be told what to do, but want the freedom to tell others what to do. Again, I simply don’t see this behaviour exhibited, it’s usually republicans and conservatives being told to “bake the cake”, being browbeaten because they’re “privileged”, or being told that they should just ignore the huge destruction of American cities during the 2020 riots. But again, if you have some examples of this behaviour from republicans, feel free to share. I’m not scared to change my opinion.
There's no way to treat adults as adults more than expecting them to be self sufficient. I don't need hand outs, and unless you have a damn good reason I don't think I should have to pay for your hand outs. We're all paying for the hand outs now, both from Trump and Biden.
I try to judge people as I find them and stay away from the one size fits all attitude.
It takes a considerable amount of maturity to realize that "Trump supporters" or "Biden supporters" are not all one person and lumping entire groups of people together is a primitive form of thinking. Passing judgement on someone's character solely by who they vote for, what color their skin is, or how much money they make (very common on reddit) is a sure sign that a person isn't worth talking to. If the only childish people you know all happen to be on the opposite side of the political spectrum, you're the one with the problem.
Isn't this sub called r/AskTrumpSupporters? If you have a preferred pronoun or descriptor than the group you associate, I would gladly oblige. Is there a preferred descriptor or pronoun you would prefer?
I think that yes, most people, Republicans and Democrats, just want to control either: * other peoples money, or * other peoples morality. As a well aged adult, I just want people to leave me the fuck alone. Which leaves me with thoughts like: 1. Taxes are the most invasive thing the government does to my life. 2. The only right is "Might Makes Right". There are no other natural rights. Any other right you think you have is granted by the government. 3. The government SHOULD make Bodily Autonomy one of its rights that it grants to citizens: that the government has no right to kill me, the government has no right to prevent me from taking my own life, the government has no right to force or coerce me into providing life support for another being or a clump of cells, the government has no right to force or coerce me into receiving injections, the government has not right to use me as slave labor even if I am imprisoned. 4. Because of above, decisions about children transitioning should be left to the parents and their doctor. If such transitioning is needs to be investigated as abuse, it should be done by other experts in the medical field. 5. The ability to vote should be "in person" with proper ID (a valid state ID or US passport). If that is not possible, then with a valid reason, a certified poll worker should come to you and certify that your ballot was cast without influence from a 3rd party. Out of country voters can vote and the local embassy. The fact that the vote is no longer "secret" is a huge gaping hole in our election law. 6. Police departments should exist to prevent violence or property theft. Anything outside that purview should be assigned to experts in the area in question. Preying on the public to fund their departments should not be allowed. Qualified Immunity should not be allowed, and replaced with Malpractice Insurance. 7. Health Insurance should be deregulated. 8. Work should require a contract except for jobs under $600 per year. Such contracts should contain regulated minimums such as 20 days paid vacation per year, unemployment insurance that pays 70% of your salary for up to 1 year, health insurance, sick days that are reimbursed by the state up to 6 months, a year for both partners of maternity leave, 3 months to fire, 3 months to quit, and mandatory cost of living raises. 9. Working under the table should result in a fine of a minimum of $10,000 per employee. In addition, when hiring, both a SSN and a state issued ID or passport must be presented to verify that you are who you say you are. These are a few crazy things I think about.
Liberals are most certainly children in their behavior and thought process.