Will any Trump supporters abandon him?

[TheDrake]

I've been giving a lot of thought to Trump's wild claims. His secret plan to defeat ISIS. Bringing back millions of manufacturing jobs in a world of increasing automation. Building a wall against illegal immigration.

Will anyone abandon him when he can't follow through on any of it? Or will he keep his 50 percent approval?

[TheDeamon]

I've been giving a lot of thought to Trump's wild claims. His secret plan to defeat ISIS. Bringing back millions of manufacturing jobs in a world of increasing automation. Building a wall against illegal immigration.

ISIS isn't really an issue so long as they're not much more than background noise on the domestic front.

"Bringing back millions of manufacturing jobs" is one he isn't likely to be taken literally on, or held accountable to, as previous politicians have demonstrated. That being said, he does need an expanding job market all the same. So if domestic manufacturing grows(it never really stopped, in terms of $ amount), and "millions of jobs" are created, albeit not in manufacturing, he'll declare victory and his backers will let him.

As to building the wall, I doubt most people who supported him expect a literal wall all the way across the southern border. But they would like to see walls in the more heavily trafficked areas of the border, and a better "virtual wall" for monitoring the rest. Use of drones, both aerial and ground based, as well as fixed ground sensors would likely be more than adequate in the books of the vast majority.

So long as it is also paired with either an increase in staffing at ICE/Border Patrol so they can head out and pick up the offending parties once detected, or the creation of standing "Joint Task Forces" in cooperation with local and state law enforcement agencies for them to assist as needed.

[rightleft22]

I don't think his core base will ever abandon Trump.

Trump has proved himself to be a master at political spin to win and more importantly his base is too invested in seeing in Trump what they want/need to see in him.
It’s not about reason or right and wrong... Trump would have to do something extremely horrific to break down that physiological barrier down.

It’s going to be interesting. Not even out of the gates and Trump and the House are at odds
Will the fear of Trump and his base stop the House from voting to curtail the power of an independent ethics office?
 
There is a lot of talk about the likelihood of Trumps ‘inevitable’ impeachment but I’m not so sure. The core base may be a minority but it’s a scary one.

I personally think that Trumps intention is to neuter Congress and I believe he's capable of making it happen.

[Seriati]

I've been giving a lot of thought to Trump's wild claims. His secret plan to defeat ISIS. Bringing back millions of manufacturing jobs in a world of increasing automation. Building a wall against illegal immigration.

Will anyone abandon him when he can't follow through on any of it? Or will he keep his 50 percent approval?

Not sure you have a "Trump Supporter" who posts on this board, so it'll be tough to answer.  I care about the policies a President pursues and what they do to implement them. 

Don't think it takes a "secret" plan to defeat ISIS, just a real commitment to do what it takes.  I fully suspect that his policies will return a bunch of manufacturing, whether that can translate to jobs is another issue, but I suspect that it will produce a bunch of jobs.  On the "wall" I couldn't care less if there is a real wall, or just better enforcement of the law, it's the result that is the more important thing.  I'm sure there are wall literalists out there who may be disappointed, but I doubt they'll stay disappointed if substantial progress is made on illegal immigration.

I don't think his core base will ever abandon Trump.

Trump has proved himself to be a master at political spin to win and more importantly his base is too invested in seeing in Trump what they want/need to see in him.
It’s not about reason or right and wrong... Trump would have to do something extremely horrific to break down that physiological barrier down.

You scare me.  A big part of why people are having trouble seeing each other's side is this insistence on viewing the "other" as incapable of rational thought, as purely creatures of simple and manipulated desire.  You are flat out wrong.  Most people are motivated heavily by right and wrong.  Trump is not a master manipulator, he's not even as good as Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton (which you would have seen (or I guess more likely not seen) if she wasn't exposed by excessive truth in the form of hacked internal communications).

It doesn't take magical missteps for Trump to lose support, it takes a general pattern of less success or bad policies, same as it took for Obama (though I grant his policies stunk so much he blew through the margin rapidly).  If Trump overall puts in place generally good policies with good results, he'll have a lot of cushion for missteps or even deliberately backing off express policies.  If his policies are ineffectual or cost us big, his safety margin will disappear rapidly.

It’s going to be interesting. Not even out of the gates and Trump and the House are at odds
Will the fear of Trump and his base stop the House from voting to curtail the power of an independent ethics office?

Do we have an independent ethics office for them to vote against?  Or do we have another "ethics" office that is easily manipulated for political purposes?  Serious question there, if you have a serious and thoughtful answer I'd be interested.
 

There is a lot of talk about the likelihood of Trumps ‘inevitable’ impeachment but I’m not so sure. The core base may be a minority but it’s a scary one.

I think anyone talking about impeachment before he's in office, or of it being inevitable, belongs to a "core base" that is every bit as "scary" as the one you think supports Trump.

I personally think that Trumps intention is to neuter Congress and I believe he's capable of making it happen.

I find this one the most baffling.  Obama's express strategy has been to neuter Congress and rule through executive action, Trump has at least said he will reverse it, but you're more scared of the guy who said he's going to reverse it than the guy who actually acted to neuter it?  Can you walk me through how you resolved that massive cognitive dissonance?

[TheDeamon]

I don't think his core base will ever abandon Trump.

Agreed.

It’s going to be interesting. Not even out of the gates and Trump and the House are at odds
Will the fear of Trump and his base stop the House from voting to curtail the power of an independent ethics office?

Doubtful. It will be interesting to see what gets shaken out of the proverbial political trees in Washington now that Trump is heading down there to stay on the 20th. Most of the "establishment" guys want to go back to business as usual, and the ethics office being curtailed is one such step in that direction. So seeing that Trump is at least paying lip service to the idea he won't settle for that is good.

More likely this is a step towards some political horse-trading between him and the Establishment types in regards to what they vs what the Democrats are going to try to do to Trump in regards to existing laws and "conflict of interest" provisions as they may relate to him as PotUS.
 

There is a lot of talk about the likelihood of Trumps ‘inevitable’ impeachment but I’m not so sure. The core base may be a minority but it’s a scary one.

I don't view it as inevitable. I just view it as something he may be trying to instigate, but in that case, he'll likely resign first, much like Nixon did.

But if he isn't trying to be impeached, odds are good that no such proceeding will ever happen, or if it does, it'll be a disaster for those that push for it.

I personally think that Trumps intention is to neuter Congress and I believe he's capable of making it happen.

Congress pretty much neutered itself over the past 8 years. All Trump would be doing is cementing the process. So he'll either disempower Congress further, or he'll end up ceding a lot of power back to Congress and/or the states respectively. It might very well turn out to mix of all three before all is said and done.

[Kasandra]

Not sure you have a "Trump Supporter" who posts on this board, so it'll be tough to answer.

Do you filter out Cherry's posts?

I personally think that Trumps intention is to neuter Congress and I believe he's capable of making it happen.

I doubt that will happen.  They will learn to gratify each other's deepest desires that aren't in conflict, but do share a lot of positions.  I think they'll get along fine for a while.  I'm just as afraid of the House agenda, fwiw.

I don't view it as inevitable. I just view it as something he may be trying to instigate, but in that case, he'll likely resign first, much like Nixon did.

But if he isn't trying to be impeached, odds are good that no such proceeding will ever happen, or if it does, it'll be a disaster for those that push for it.

It's incredibly hard to succeed in an impeachment trial in the Senate.  But to get that far the House GOP majority has to actually impeach a sitting President of their own Party.  There will be plenty of grounds to do it, which will make the House squirm, but I'm not convinced they have the balls to follow through.

[rightleft22]

You scare me.  A big part of why people are having trouble seeing each other's side is this insistence on viewing the "other" as incapable of rational thought

Thanks
However I didn't say the "other" was incapable of rational thought, but that that matter (as I see it) is not about 'reason'.  Perhaps I should have said not primary about 'reason'.
I would also say that the opposition to Trump is also not primary about reason.  There is IMO something more physiological going on.


Its obvious that I don't like Trump. As a symbol he represents everything I hoped we had hope to move beyond... but we haven't, and I suspect never will. So, for me, he represents a loss of hope. (And yes  much of that is more about feeling then it is about reason)

I expect Trump to be Trump, a man I judge to be of poor character (philosophical ) who will do whatever it takes for the "win" and who thrives by creating uncertainty.
As for Trumps policies... who knows. Some I see are reasonable and some I don't, same as with anyone else that held the office.

I think anyone talking about impeachment before he's in office, or of it being inevitable, belongs to a "core base" that is every bit as "scary"

I agree. It totally underestimates Trump and the 'forces' that got him elected.

I also don't believe that Trump wants to be Precedent but suspect he will never admit it to himself, so we can expect a lot of 'reindeer games'.

 

[scifibum]

Don't think it takes a "secret" plan to defeat ISIS, just a real commitment to do what it takes.

But his plan, if it exists, IS a secret.  Is that why it is a secret?  Because "what it takes" is a horrific civilian death toll, or furthering instability and radicalization in the middle east, or a cost far higher than anyone would want to pay?  Most likely a combination of these things? 

I don't think he has a plan, I think he was blustering (just like with the rest of his platform).  But if he does have a plan, the hints we have to go on suggest it's along the lines of bigger and more bombs. 

Trump is not a master manipulator...

His primary talent is persuasion.  He doesn't have better business ideas than other people, he just convinces investors to give him money and keep the risk.  He didn't win on policy, he won on promises that frequently didn't make any sense and to some extent on exploiting fears and hatred. 

"Primary talent is persuasion" is true of most politicians, of course.  But most of them are constrained by reality and have more or less coherent proposals.  Not Trump.

Trump is nothing if he is not a master manipulator. 

But on this I agree with you: If he doesn't make his base feel like things are going better, then he will lose support.  But the ways he can make his base feel like things are going better do not equate to good policies with objectively better results. 

[DJQuag]

The Trump and ISIS situation is to me kind of like how it's better to spay and neuter stray cats and then release them.

We do that because the public outcry and resources needed to actually just kill all of the cats isn't worth it.

I have a feeling that Trump thinks that it will be worth it.

[Seriati]

You scare me.  A big part of why people are having trouble seeing each other's side is this insistence on viewing the "other" as incapable of rational thought

Thanks
However I didn't say the "other" was incapable of rational thought, but that that matter (as I see it) is not about 'reason'.  Perhaps I should have said not primary about 'reason'.
I would also say that the opposition to Trump is also not primary about reason.  There is IMO something more physiological going on.

To me, all you're doing is projecting.  You aren't rational about the situation therefore you project that no one could be.

Its obvious that I don't like Trump. As a symbol he represents everything I hoped we had hope to move beyond... but we haven't, and I suspect never will. So, for me, he represents a loss of hope. (And yes  much of that is more about feeling then it is about reason)

Hope for what?  Honestly, what about a life long Democrat with a history of making deals (that other people find to be mutually beneficial) strikes you as a situation that you should find hopeless?  You just had eight years of an ideological purist, who couldn't make a deal that involves a compromise to save his life and what do you have to show for it?  If Cruz had been the elected candidate I could see the loss of hope?  But Trump?  Seriously, you've talked yourself into believing the non-reality you were projecting to try and explain why it would be the end of the world if Clinton lost, it's no more real though, than the 40's propaganda films that portrayed Japanese people as demons.  Get your hope back, its very likely you'll like a lot of what New York native would do in the role.

I think anyone talking about impeachment before he's in office, or of it being inevitable, belongs to a "core base" that is every bit as "scary"

I agree. It totally underestimates Trump and the 'forces' that got him elected.

No idea what that means, did you mean to disagree?  The left has been utterly irrational about Trump and the potential consequences of his election.  And they have not even taken an honest look at whether their policies really were so bad that they turned off large portions of the American public.

I mean honestly, what percentage of the country doesn't want an end to illegal immigration?  What percentage like to be called a racist because they believe that we have a right to enforce our borders?

What percentage of the country wants to be forced to pay for Health Insurance with deductibles so high they can't go to the doctor (and for that matter what percentage of people that DON'T receive a subsidy are happy with Obamacare plans)?

What percentage of the country thinks that Chicago is a better law enforcement model than stop and frisk?

What percentage are comfortable with the idea of bringing in large amounts of refugees from areas of the world where women have no rights and radicalization is normal?

What percentage of the country thinks their taxes are too low and that we need to raise them to pay for services to other people?

There's lots of good things the Democrats believe, but there is a lot of baggage they ignore in their platforms and just call people names about when they disagree.

[DJQuag]

If it were just policy positions, I would bitch and moan the same as with any national Republican, but I wouldn't be this concerned.

He's a loose cannon. Jeb Bush, hell, Ted Cruz, I wouldn't be concerned with them having control over the nukes. With Trump, I'm very concerned.

Do you honestly believe, Seriati, that healthcare will be better under Trump? The middle class? The environment? 

He's not going to do anything that will help the people who voted him in; just rich people.

[Seriati]

Don't think it takes a "secret" plan to defeat ISIS, just a real commitment to do what it takes.

But his plan, if it exists, IS a secret.  Is that why it is a secret?  Because "what it takes" is a horrific civilian death toll, or furthering instability and radicalization in the middle east, or a cost far higher than anyone would want to pay?  Most likely a combination of these things?

I've repeatedly stated that I think Trump talks out of his rear.  I'm not literalist, I just tend to believe that I'll agree more with his ultimate policies than I would with Clinton's.  It's not like I had a choice to vote for a completely honest person in the general, between the two I personally think Clinton is the bigger liar.

As to what his plan will turn out to be?  I suspect it'll be to tell the general's to get it done and to defer to them about how, that's what's worked far better than the Democratic model of telling them to get it done and then prohibiting them from acting in ways they say it will work.  If I had to guess, there's no permanent victory without boots on the ground, but I could be wrong.

I don't think he has a plan, I think he was blustering (just like with the rest of his platform).  But if he does have a plan, the hints we have to go on suggest it's along the lines of bigger and more bombs.

Then you should love it right, isn't that always the Democratic model?  More air attacks, bombs and cruise missiles.  What am I missing, did Obama ever actually do anything but ignore a situation or bomb it?  And doesn't that mean that's the Democratically approved model?

Trump is not a master manipulator...

His primary talent is persuasion.  He doesn't have better business ideas than other people, he just convinces investors to give him money and keep the risk.

I see this sentiment a lot, not just about him, but about anyone who runs a major company or is highly successful in finance or business.  Like somehow the conventional wisdom is that "anyone" could do it, and its just a lucky break that puts a specific person in place to make it so.  I call BS.  I worked in finance for forever, people at the top are not there by accident, they may get chances by inheritance but the waysides are strewn with trust fund kids who couldn't hack it and the top is filled with self made people who could.  I have no idea if Trump is as good as he thinks he is, it's hard to imagine anyone could be, but I am certain that he is better at it than "other people."   

He didn't win on policy, he won on promises that frequently didn't make any sense and to some extent on exploiting fears and hatred.

Again BS.  The Dems tried to exploit hatred and fear as hard as they could.  The fact is that people who hate get to vote too, and they're likely very motivated.  Both parts had huge constituencies of haters, and you're in denial if you don't see that about the Democratic coalition.  Every person who labeled someone else a racist or sexist on flimsy grounds, or preached about how Republicans want to kill old people or leave the poor to die was playing on hate. 

He won because the Dems put up one of the most repugnant candidates in modern history, with no moral compass, and the Republican's candidate, in this case, who is almost certainly just as or close to as repugnant at least represented a change from the same old crappy status quo. 

"Primary talent is persuasion" is true of most politicians, of course.  But most of them are constrained by reality and have more or less coherent proposals.  Not Trump.

None of them put forward terribly reasonable proposals.  They all overspend and pay off their constituencies to ensure votes for the future.  The difference with Trump is a lot of his proposals were outside the "accepted political norm".  That's really all it was.

But on this I agree with you: If he doesn't make his base feel like things are going better, then he will lose support.  But the ways he can make his base feel like things are going better do not equate to good policies with objectively better results.

Well I disagree on that, I think the only way he makes his "base" think things are going better is with "objectively" better results.  Of course what's objectively better is actually subjective, literally, which I grant is odd.  But everything in this country has multiple consequences, reducing taxes - an objective good - also reduces spending, which is to some an objective good and to others and objective bad depending on where the spending is cut. 

Honestly though, if he does nothing other than encourage business growth and the return of offshore capital, most people will end up objectively better off than where they are today.

[Seriati]

He's a loose cannon. Jeb Bush, hell, Ted Cruz, I wouldn't be concerned with them having control over the nukes. With Trump, I'm very concerned.

Scare!  Scare!  Scare!  Isn't that what everyone said he was doing?  I don't have any reason to believe that he's going to nuke anyone, honestly, if we were being objective then you should have been more worried about an ideological purist like Obama. 

Do you honestly believe, Seriati, that healthcare will be better under Trump? The middle class? The environment?

Better than what?  My choice was those three topics under Clinton or under Trump, and the answer to the first two is better under Trump, and the third not good under either.

Healthcare is an absolute disaster, and no one's going to make it better because the system is too dysfunctional.  The Democrats want to add more dysfunction and the Republicans want to change the dysfunction.

The middle class is not the friend of, or the beneficiary of, the Democratic party and its policies.  It would be worse for them, more job stagnation, more taxes, more closing the gap with the lower class in the worst way (ie by bringing the middle class down rather than the lower class up).  I'm not alone in that assessment or the Blue Wall would still be standing.

He's not going to do anything that will help the people who voted him in; just rich people.

If that's the case I will be disappointed.  At this point, I'm still hopeful that your fears are overblown.

[TheDeamon]

Don't think it takes a "secret" plan to defeat ISIS, just a real commitment to do what it takes.

But his plan, if it exists, IS a secret.  Is that why it is a secret?  Because "what it takes" is a horrific civilian death toll, or furthering instability and radicalization in the middle east, or a cost far higher than anyone would want to pay?  Most likely a combination of these things? 

I don't think he has a plan, I think he was blustering (just like with the rest of his platform).  But if he does have a plan, the hints we have to go on suggest it's along the lines of bigger and more bombs.

Or just give it to Putin as his new chew toy to work over, it should keep him busy for a long while.  And while he's busy trying to increase his influence in the Middle East and expending lots of capital and resources to do so, we can go about working making the Middle East irrelevant to anything the United States is concerned about.

Getting off of oil would be a start. But failing that, building up domestic production so that supply disruptions are economic opportunities for us, rather than risks. Sadly, I think the Trump admin focus will be on the latter over the former, although it would be nice see him sink several Billion dollars into fusion. Such as fully funding the new Fusion reactor MIT wants to build using "best available superconductor tech" for example.

And that's one thing I can legitimately be pissed about with Obama. He happily wasted hundreds of billions of tax payer money on "green energy projects" (read: wind/solar) but couldn't be bothered to boost spending on Fusion or other Nuclear research, if anything, even he was trying to cut it, and as far as budgets go, that line of research has a very tiny budget.

[cherrypoptart]

Unabashed, unapologetic Trump supporter here.

To answer the question bluntly, if Trump reneges on his promises yes I will abandon him.

The big one is on illegal immigration. I could probably let every other promise go if he keeps only that one. He needs to secure the border and act to take away the incentives that bring people here illegally. I already hear some noise about going after sanctuary cities and universities by cutting off government funding to them. Negotiating better to force countries to take back their own citizens is also important. If he could really get something done about the absurd interpretation of the 14th Amendment making it legal for birth tourists from China to come in to America, have a baby, fly immediately back to China with the umbilical cord still attached, and have that baby be an American citizen, that would be nice too. If we don't see real progress on curtailing illegal immigration and securing the border, that's a deal breaker for continued Trump support.

The "secret strategy" for ISIS might be as simple as taking the gloves off. Fight them the way Russia does, or perhaps better yet team up with Russia directly to fight them, letting Russia do the heavy lifting as far as bombing areas full of civilians within which ISIS fighters hide so Russia remains the bad guys you don't want to mess with and we keep our hands relatively clean while still getting the job done. Do I want to bomb civilians? No, but that's realistically the only way to win this kind of war. That's why we invented the Hague and Geneva Conventions on war that ISIS is violating, and it's also why they aren't entitled to any of their protections when captured.  I expect progress on ISIS but this isn't a deal breaker as far as Trump support goes. Sometimes the enemy is tougher and more adaptable then one might expect. If that's the case it's no reason to turn on our people making an honest effort to defeat them.

[TheDeamon]

I'd just as soon GTFO of Syria, our involvement should be restricted to the Iraq side of the border, and protecting the territorial integrity of our NATO Allies, which includes Turkey for now. (Although I'd probably cut Russia some slack in regards to missions going in/out of Syria, that's more of a call by Turkey all things considered)

Beyond that, cut the cord in Syria, and let the Russians and Syrians deal with it. Let them deal with the political fall out, from the Islamic nutjobs and the EU hand-wringers alike. We shouldn't have been sticking our noses into it in the first place, rather than helping fan the flames at the onset. Which is entirely on the Obama Admin.

Yeah, yeah, they can blame the existence of ISIS/ISIL on the Bush invasion of Iraq, but the Bush Admin wasn't the one who tried to use them (as the "JV Team") to leverage a regime change in Syria.

[TheDrake]

Interesting takes. My personal belief is that most people will never abandon Trump, he and they will find someone else to blame for why he didn't do something. He will desperately grab at any news about a company not moving jobs that they never planned to and claim some credit. He will do something very visible with sanctuary cities, while ignoring thousands who enter on tourist and other forms of visa. He'll probably do something nasty and visible on ISIS without really changing any tactics. This might mean teaming up with some pretty brutal foreigners with a fig leaf of non-involvement like Russia did with Ukraine, or we did in Afghanistan with the freedom fighting Taliban.

This isn't much different from politics as usual. What will be different is the degree of fury that will come from Trump whenever anyone questions him, and the degree to which people will support him no matter what. I don't think you would ever see his approval rating drop as low as W's 25% low mark, for instance.

At the same time, he's starting from 43% according to a recent (no doubt rigged) poll. Hard to see him winning anyone over. It could be the most static approval base in recent history. I even think he could propose to expand Obamacare to cover illegal immigrants, and not lose that much support. He'd just backtrack on the tweet when he started hearing the criticism.

[Kasandra]

Unabashed, unapologetic Trump supporter here.

To answer the question bluntly, if Trump reneges on his promises yes I will abandon him.

I'll check back with you on this promise.  The first big one will likely be the repeal of ACA.  Trump promised nobody will lose their health insurance.

But, "abandoning him" would hardly be adequate if he reneges on his promises or destroys the economy or introduces foreign conflicts by accident.  As President (like Obama), he needs to be held to the highest standard.  Remember when you attacked Obama for not living up to his vague "Hope" platform?  Well, Trump has been far more explicit and yet very vague on what he will actually try to do.

[rightleft22]

Trump has been far more explicit and yet very vague on what he will actually try to do.

That’s Trump’s trump card and is proving to be very effective however I don't think it would work for any other politician...

One thing you will not see in this administration is even the pretense of transparency.

Trump has always said exactly what he’s going to do (without the how, don’t you worry your pretty little heads about it, he knows, he’s very smart) creating space for second guessing analysis that has most of the country thinking that he didn’t really mean what he said, or that he won’t/cant passable get what he said done.
Trump then strategically tweets about the second guessing or tweets a new story which further distracts the media, pundits and people keeping everyone off balance which is exactly where he likes to keep people.  It’s a very effective magician trick.

Whatever Trump actually does or doesn’t do, he will defend it offensively and assure everyone he has kept his promises. His core-core will follow him to the end no matter what he’s does or does not do... unless maybe he starts killing their babies... and even then I would not bet on it.

[Kasandra]

Yes, Trump is the reincarnation of Yogi Berra who said he never said some of the things he said.

[Pete at Home]

As to the OP question, some in my family were Trump Supporters for a time, but changed position *before* voting in the election.

I seem to remember a certain Ornerian of leftist persuasion who argued quite vocally that the Republicans were obliged to take Trump.

[D.W.]

I can't envision what it would take to convince my brother he made the wrong choice with Trump... 

[Kasandra]

My daughter joined her boyfriend's family for 4 days over Thanksgiving.  His father voted for Trump, whereas his wife and all of their children were adamantly against Trump and voted for Clinton.  The boyfriend and siblings spent the entire time arguing with him, trying to get him to explain why he voted as he did.  My daughter (wisely) stayed out of the argument.  When they later told me about the fiasco they said his father never did come up with a practical reason, but said he would do it again.  I can't explain it, and can't think how to overcome it.

[Pete at Home]

I did not vote for Trump, but if you still don't understand why those who did, did, then consider the possibility that you really, really don't want to inderstandl, because you are part of the reason.

Poor whites voted for Trump for the same reasons that African Americans voted for Bill Clinton. Because he does a good job of 'feeling their pain' while screwing them over.

[TheDeamon]

I did not vote for Trump, but if you still don't understand why those who did, did, then consider the possibility that you really, really don't want to understand, because you are part of the reason.

Pretty much this. Of course, I'm also not a "Trump voter" as I went third party this year.

But that's also part of the case and point, Trump was so bad of a candidate, it should have been easy for the Democrats to pull many voters who generally go Republican away. But they fielded Hillary instead, and that settled things for them easily enough.

[Kasandra]

Poor whites voted for Trump for the same reasons that African Americans voted for Bill Clinton. Because he does a good job of 'feeling their pain' while screwing them over.

I can't quite buy that.  Democrats have been the party defending rights and programs benefiting poor and minority people in country over the past 50 or more years.  They have been fought and sometimes beaten by Republicans, one of whom famously said that 47% of the population (aka poor and/or black) love the handouts Democrats have given them.

As for voting for Trump I can think of a few reasons that resonated, one of which you said:

* Conservatives hate liberals more than they love the country
* Rural voters hate to see all the attention paid to cities, which tend to have large concentrations of poor and/or black populations
* They're unhappy with their economic status and blame the government more than business for them not having jobs
* They have been conditioned by relentless partisan attacks on FOX and other prominent conservative media outlets to think that Democrats have caused all the problems that are wrong with the country

Some of them, I'm sure, are good people, but it's hard to understand why they would vote so solidly against their own self-interest.  At least Democrats can't be said to do that.

[TheDrake]

I'm tired of the "how could they!" cries about Trump voters. Real *censored* easy is the correct answer. One very easy explanation stems from basic concepts.

1. You should always vote.
2. Hillary Clinton represents all that you hate about policy and politicians.
3. You think a 3rd party vote is wasted.

If you believe those three things, then you vote Trump. Of course there are lots of other reasons why people did, and that's valid also. But seriously, stop it with the brainwashed, ignorant, and other characterizations. Also, sometimes people don't just vote on their own naked self-interest. Just saying.

[Pete at Home]

I said. " consider the possibility that you really, really don't want to inderstandl, because you are part of the reason."

Poor whites voted for Trump for the same reasons that African Americans voted for Bill Clinton. Because he does a good job of 'feeling their pain' while screwing them over.

I can't quite buy that.  Democrats have been the party defending rights and programs benefiting poor and minority people in country over the past 50 or more years. 

Yes, i,did,say that many conservatives have come to hate the left more that they hate the country, but that begs the question of why.  It's not out of nowhere or unprovoked.  It's in response to a left that treats whites,and,Christians as a greater threat than Islamist terrorism.  They got,sick of,being,demonized, and like African Americans in the 1990s, reached out to the dude that seemed to,talk their pain. And partly in reaction to the people that opposed him. The more you demonized him, lied about him, the more,they saw him as their tainted messiah.

[D.W.]

FWIW, my brother voted for Trump, at least in part, for illegal immigration control / boarder enforcement.  (not to be confused with terrorist infiltration type border security, which he didn't stress)  Also he was against the large jump to minimum wage.  He does believe that Trump will be better for our economy.  He also disliked and mistrusted Hillary (but so do I... so that's kinda a wash IMO). 

Now he has lived quite some time in TX rather than just MI, so at least he was in a border state which I suppose gives him a different background for forming opinions on immigration being a bigger issue.  But it's not like we came from money and he personally wouldn't have benefited until recently from a higher minimum wage.  But now that he is in management, he honestly believes his people are not worth $15 an hour and it would kill businesses and our cost of living would immediately jump up to offset that gain.

In short, everything I saw as empty promises or pipe dream talking points, he was cheering and believes Trump can deliver.  I don't know if he blames the government or the left or what.  I was a bit shocked at his economic stances to dig any deeper.  Also, not always worth "debating" politics with family. 

[Pete at Home]

I have an arch conservative, nay, reactionary uncle (as in, thinks women shouldn't vote) that rejects Trump on immigration... he thinks the constitution prohibits the feds from regulating immigration at all.

[Seriati]

Poor whites voted for Trump for the same reasons that African Americans voted for Bill Clinton. Because he does a good job of 'feeling their pain' while screwing them over.

I can't quite buy that.  Democrats have been the party defending rights and programs benefiting poor and minority people in country over the past 50 or more years.

If you said that Democrats have been the party trying to establish a permanent underclass dependent on handouts that they (Democrats) control over the past 50 or more years I'd agree with you.  However, it's just propaganda to believe that because of how they try to "help" the poor the Democrats are actually providing help.  The Democrats are more the give a man a fish type, than teach him how to fish type.

They have been fought and sometimes beaten by Republicans, one of whom famously said that 47% of the population (aka poor and/or black) love the handouts Democrats have given them.

Democrats love to campaign on exactly that issue.  If you don't elect us, then the Republicans will take away your goodies.  You can see it live in action right now, with the "new" strategy to save Obamacare by trying to insist that the goal is to take away your coverage.

As for voting for Trump I can think of a few reasons that resonated, one of which you said:

No you can't.  Nothing you've ever said, leads to any ability to believe you understand why other rational thinking people would reach different logical conclusions than yourself.

* Conservatives hate liberals more than they love the country

Lol.  Lucky in this case they could serve both goals by voting for Trump then.

* Rural voters hate to see all the attention paid to cities, which tend to have large concentrations of poor and/or black populations

Are you claiming that the two ideas are connected?  Ie rural voters can't rationally vote in their own self interest (which seems to be okay by you when other groups do it).  Or do you believe they only do so because rural voters are just racists.

* They're unhappy with their economic status and blame the government more than business for them not having jobs

So they're rational?  Not hard to see how government programs have terminated disapproved middle class jobs.  Very easy to see how Democrats when they have control always place special interest priorities over job creation, even when it's completely irrational (ie would rather kill an entire industry such as coal, rather than come up with an economically balanced environmental plan).

* They have been conditioned by relentless partisan attacks on FOX and other prominent conservative media outlets to think that Democrats have caused all the problems that are wrong with the country

Lol, or they haven't been conditioned by whatever the heck you read to believe that there are no problems, or that taking actions to make them worse will magically result in them being better.

Some of them, I'm sure, are good people, but it's hard to understand why they would vote so solidly against their own self-interest.  At least Democrats can't be said to do that.

What a joke.  Democrats vote against their self interest all the time, they just fail to rationally weight short term benefit they can see against longer term benefits that would leave them better off.

[Kasandra]

If you said that Democrats have been the party trying to establish a permanent underclass dependent on handouts that they (Democrats) control over the past 50 or more years I'd agree with you.

Well, that certainly is one way to look at it if you don't like what the programs are trying to accomplish.  I suppose if you look at it that way, they should have given it one shot and then given it up as hopeless.

emocrats love to campaign on exactly that issue.  If you don't elect us, then the Republicans will take away your goodies.

Well, that certainly is one way to look at it if you don't think the people who receive help need it or legitimately benefit from it.  I suppose if you look at it that way, the money would be better spent on people who have a lot of stuff and still want more.

   

As for voting for Trump I can think of a few reasons that resonated, one of which you said:

No you can't.  Nothing you've ever said, leads to any ability to believe you understand why other rational thinking people would reach different logical conclusions than yourself.

I thought I could think for myself, but I guess you know better.  I suppose I should just take what you say as fact instead of risking thinking differently.

Enough, you know better than me.

[Pete at Home]

Not hard to see how government programs have terminated disapproved middle class jobs

What are you referring to, Seriati?

[cherrypoptart]

Going back to the original question, one answer might be that we could expect Trump supporters to abandon Trump to about the same degree that Obama supporters abandoned Obama. And if that's the measure then the answer will be not many will abandon him no matter how unmitigated the disaster he turns out to be.

I don't think that's going to turn out to be the case though as Trump supporters care about results, not just intentions.

[Pete at Home]

Conservatives hate liberals more than they love the country
* Rural voters hate to see all the attention paid to cities, which tend to have large concentrations of poor and/or black populations
* They're unhappy with their economic status and blame the government more than business for them not having jobs
* They have been conditioned by relentless partisan attacks on FOX and other prominent conservative media outlets to think that Democrats have caused all the problems that are wrong with the country

Fairly accurate. Could you identify any of the things that were said and done that led to their hatred and distrust for the left?

[TheDeamon]

Conservatives hate liberals more than they love the country
* Rural voters hate to see all the attention paid to cities, which tend to have large concentrations of poor and/or black populations
* They're unhappy with their economic status and blame the government more than business for them not having jobs
* They have been conditioned by relentless partisan attacks on FOX and other prominent conservative media outlets to think that Democrats have caused all the problems that are wrong with the country

Tightened environmental regulations which increased the costs of doing business, but no corresponding "protectionist" tariffs raised to discourage those same businesses from simply closing up shop and shipping those "polluting industries" (and their jobs) overseas.

Tightened OSHA, other Labor department policies, up to and including "hidden employment taxes" which also helped significantly increase their "costs of business" which isn't to get into their spear-heading the efforts to constantly raise the minimum wage. Again leading to more manufacturing jobs fleeing from the United States because again, nobody bothered to try to offset or discourage the businesses from off-shoring and taking those jobs with them. That also doesn't get into the matter of the rising minimum wage helping "take the bottom out of the middle class" which all the recent talk of the $15/minimum wage is almost a casus belli for members of the rural middle class in particular. You know, the people working skilled labor jobs and not doing too terribly(not great either, mind you), at $15.00 or less themselves.

You talked about "voting against their interests" and I'm sure the $15 minimum wage was one such thing, as allusions were made about how they would have seen a payhike as well. What you're missing in that Grand Ivory Tower image in all of that is it also likewise is comparable to someone taking a machete to their own personal sense of pride and dignity when it comes to their professional trade.

How would YOU feel if someone started pushing a proposal to hike the minimum wage up to the point where the guy flipping burgers at McDonald's will be getting paid the same wage as you? And you're the one who went to (trade) school for several years to do your job, a job you've been performing for years or even decades. While the cook at McDonald's probably hasn't even graduated from High School, and just started his first job last week.

Of course, then we also have the Democrat fall back of "more corporate taxes" and "more regulations" for solving every problem under the sun. Who do you think pays for those taxes, or those regulations in the end? Here's a hint, it isn't actually the corporation, it will be their customers who pay.

Also, who do you think is in the best position to take advantage of more taxes, and more regulations? Oh right, those same big corporations. Meanwhile, those taxes help stifle new enterprises and create all kinds of pitfalls to prevent people from trying to even start their own business because of all the red tape they have to fight through. 

[Seriati]

Not hard to see how government programs have terminated disapproved middle class jobs

What are you referring to, Seriati?

The coal example I provided is the most recent.  Government environmental regulations in the coal industry are routinely set at "aspirational" or beyond aspirational levels, occasionally requiring technology be invented to comply, and without any real regard for the costs they impose.  It's really easy to set a standard if you claim "infinite harm" on one side of the scale.   A reasonable and balanced approach could have focused research efforts on how to use coal more effectively, and how to limit pollution while we do use it.

Most of our "manufacturing" jobs have run afoul of our environmental regime, where we've given activists on the environmental side the ability to impose costly regulations without really balancing the costs.  When you couple that with DOL's insistence on trying to stick it to employers (rather than trying to balance the two sides), the working class middle class jobs end up being heavily disfavored and expense to companies under our policies, whereas a company can offshore and ignore most of those environmental and worker regulations and still import their products here (again because our free trade policies don't put any teeth on requiring offshore manufacturers live up to our environmental standards and labor standards).

[Seriati]

   

As for voting for Trump I can think of a few reasons that resonated, one of which you said:

No you can't.  Nothing you've ever said, leads to any ability to believe you understand why other rational thinking people would reach different logical conclusions than yourself.

I thought I could think for myself, but I guess you know better.  I suppose I should just take what you say as fact instead of risking thinking differently.

Enough, you know better than me.

Get off your soap box, you weren't thinking for yourself where I criticized you.  You were "thinking" for the pool of "Trump voters" and ascribing them motivations that you made up.  They've told everyone repeatedly why they think Trump is better for the country than Hillary, or in come cases just think he's good for the country period.  If you want to argue about their motivations start by accurately stating them.

[Wayward Son]

How would YOU feel if someone started pushing a proposal to hike the minimum wage up to the point where the guy flipping burgers at McDonald's will be getting paid the same wage as you? And you're the one who went to (trade) school for several years to do your job, a job you've been performing for years or even decades. While the cook at McDonald's probably hasn't even graduated from High School, and just started his first job last week.

What you forget, TheDaemon, is that after the minimum wage is hiked, the guy who went to school for several years gets his wage hiked, too.  Or else he goes and gets a job flipping burgers and his boss needs to find another skilled worker at $15/hr.  And good luck with that...

[TheDeamon]

How would YOU feel if someone started pushing a proposal to hike the minimum wage up to the point where the guy flipping burgers at McDonald's will be getting paid the same wage as you? And you're the one who went to (trade) school for several years to do your job, a job you've been performing for years or even decades. While the cook at McDonald's probably hasn't even graduated from High School, and just started his first job last week.

What you forget, TheDaemon, is that after the minimum wage is hiked, the guy who went to school for several years gets his wage hiked, too.  Or else he goes and gets a job flipping burgers and his boss needs to find another skilled worker at $15/hr.  And good luck with that...

That's the theory. But many of those (older) skilled workers have been around for previous iterations of the Minimum wage hike. They didn't benefit, their wages didn't go up.

So when you more than double the Federal Minimum wage from $7.25/hr, which is the minimum in much of Rural America, and hike it up to $15/hr, that guy who was making $14/hr may see a hike as well, but it is highly unlikely he's going to start making $28.97/hr because the minium wage went up by 206.9%. If past trends are any indicator, he'll be lucky to be making $21/hr after all is said and done(hey, the minium wage went up by by $7.75/hr it's "only fair" that he also see a $7+/hr pay hike too. Reality is, $18 or $19/hr is far more likely to be his new income bracket, if that.

Now tell me, how did more than doubling the minimum wage benefit that guy making $14 an hour? Because remember, as a consequence of that wage hike, costs of goods and services are also going to increase considerably because of labor suddenly costing more in nearly every step along the way.

Sure, people'll probably see a wage hike to keep them above the new minimum wage rather than at it. But they're going to be much closer to it than they ever were before. Also, it isn't just the people who were earning less than the new minimum wage who get hit, it will be the people who are (comparatively) at or near where the new minimum wage is. The guy who is making $22/hr right now? He's probably going to be lucky to be clearing $25/hr by the end of the year, so he lost out on that deal too.

The "other thing" that happens, in line with the $14/hr wage earner only likely to be seeing $18/hr after such a change is that low skill labor finds itself suddenly "being priced out of the market" in the form of Automation. Congratulations, you just gave a blank check to US Robotics to pursue robo-cook, so McDonalds doesn't have to bother to pay $15/hr for some dude to flip burgers anymore, or pay someone else even more to stand around spending time training the revolving door of people that often work in such positions. (McDonald's already is starting to deploy computer kiosks for placing orders, no cashier required)

This also doesn't even touch on what this does to people who are retired, or about to retire. Then we could also discuss what this potentially does to Social Security and the people who are dependent on that when you suddenly more than double the minimum wage. Of course, other groups of people who receive various kinds of government assistance are also going to be impacted as well, their costs are also going to increase considerably as a consequence of the minimum wage going up.

We should also discuss how markets work and who is most likely to adjust and adapt(automate) their way into a more competitive position as a result of doing such a thing. Wal-mart, or the local "mom and pop" boutique store? McDonald's, or Susan's Fast Food? Kroger's Grocery Stores, or the local family owned grocery store?

Well, actually, I guess we could offset a great deal of the economic inflation that should ensue from a more than doubling of the minimum wage by importing as many goods and services as possible. But of course, that means people in the United States would have to give up their jobs so that their employers can offshore their work.

[Pete at Home]

. If past trends are any indicator, he'll be lucky to be making $21/hr after all is said and done(hey, the minium wage went up by by $7.75/hr it's "only fair" that he also see a $7+/hr pay hike too. Reality is, $18 or $19/hr is far more likely to be his new income bracket, if that.

That's still a fair deal for him, and more than offsetting the slight inflation for goods and services. Economies of scale may actually lower some goods prices.


Here's my alternative to a forced minimum.

Stop charging the employer's side of social security for the first $30/hour that the employee makes, if and only if all employees in the company get some baseline treatment, including but not limited to $15/hour, overtime pay, etc.

Make up the shortfall with a 1% value added tax on goods that have been transferred over state lines.

[Seriati]

. If past trends are any indicator, he'll be lucky to be making $21/hr after all is said and done(hey, the minium wage went up by by $7.75/hr it's "only fair" that he also see a $7+/hr pay hike too. Reality is, $18 or $19/hr is far more likely to be his new income bracket, if that.

That's still a fair deal for him, and more than offsetting the slight inflation for goods and services. Economies of scale may actually lower some goods prices.

Why do you think it'll be a slight inflation?  The minimum wage is a heavy factor in very basic level services, particularly foodstuffs.  I have no inside insight, but it looks as if a McDonald's franchise spends somewhere between 18-25% of their revenue on labor costs, while not all of that would straight up double, you'd have to think it's going to go up a big chunk.  Even if it's just a 50% increase, that's a 10% increase in expenses.  No idea if they'd raise prices by 5%, 10% or even 20% to meet that burden, but any of those price increases are going to hit industry wide.

Mom and Pop places already have less efficiency and higher expenses and this kind of change will make their competitiveness against a Walmart or Amazon even worse. 

What's the real gain?  People won't magically decide to pay more than they can afford, or pay more for work that isn't really worth it, they'll forgo the work or they'll automate it.  So you'll less jobs, and more importantly far less entry level jobs or jobs that can be done part time, and higher living costs.  Where's the gain?

[NobleHunter]

It's in response to a left that treats whites,and,Christians as a greater threat than Islamist terrorism

Sweet mother of cod, that's because they are. The latter is a group that struggles to conduct organized activity in the US and only connected to anything in the US because they can claim an association with any brown guy who decides to kill a bunch of people. They have no official power, no ability to exercise control over anyone in the US, nor any ability to cause meaningful change.

The former dominates every branch and department of the US government. Their organized activities are usually just called the government. Their most pernicious acts aren't usually criminal because they're in charge of making law. They are responsible for the worst race riots in US history. They are the foremost opponents of the separation of church and state, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, really most of the bill of rights except the 2nd amendment (so long as the rights of white and proper Christians are respected). Granted, they aren't as monolithic as Islamist Terrorism but that just means different factions have different power bases. (You want to know how to come up with a dystopia? Write a story about all the stuff that happens to minorities only make the victims white Christians.)

Islamism is evil but it's not a serious threat to the United States. Terrorism isn't either. Unless MAD makes a comeback (which Trumps seems to think is okay) the only existential threat to the US comes from within.

[TheDeamon]

Why do you think it'll be a slight inflation?  The minimum wage is a heavy factor in very basic level services, particularly foodstuffs.  I have no inside insight, but it looks as if a McDonald's franchise spends somewhere between 18-25% of their revenue on labor costs, while not all of that would straight up double, you'd have to think it's going to go up a big chunk.  Even if it's just a 50% increase, that's a 10% increase in expenses.  No idea if they'd raise prices by 5%, 10% or even 20% to meet that burden, but any of those price increases are going to hit industry wide.

It compounds further than that, even for McDonald's. Even if only 25%of their direct expenses are labor. They'll presumably going to be spending even more for their supplies and transportation of them. Transportation costs will go up, that Truck Driver is going to need to a pay hike as well. Food stock costs will also go up, the food processing facilities and distribution center workers are going to be highly likely to see considerable pay hikes as a consequence as well.

Which isn't to mention the farming side of things, the cost of harvesting crops is going to increase. Which will increase the cost for feedstock for livestock by itself. That is before we even get into the labor needed for raising and subsequent transportation and processing of them as well.

[Fenring]

What's the real gain?  People won't magically decide to pay more than they can afford, or pay more for work that isn't really worth it, they'll forgo the work or they'll automate it.  So you'll less jobs, and more importantly far less entry level jobs or jobs that can be done part time, and higher living costs.  Where's the gain?

You probably won't find this reasoning appealing, but as I see it raising the minimum wage significantly could have one of two effects, both of which I think are positive. One, which we've seen in certain test cities, would be that it wouldn't grossly effect the ability for business in general to operate, and although in the short term staffing would be a logistical issue to solve, in the long term the increased money in the system being spent by the people earning a higher wage might more than offset the staffing costs through increased demand for product. A staffing cost increase is linear and has a ceiling; the multiplier of increased aggregate spending has greater potential for economic return. The other possibility, of course, is that it buries the ability for many companies to staff properly, reducing the net amount of jobs, probably replacing workers with automation. In this scenario one merely hastens the day when it's generally recognized that only a basic income will solve the systemic problems; the economy gets pushed towards the inevitable cliff. So win-win, but the win verging towards a basic income will certainly be painful to an extent.

The former dominates every branch and department of the US government. Their organized activities are usually just called the government. Their most pernicious acts aren't usually criminal because they're in charge of making law. They are responsible for the worst race riots in US history. They are the foremost opponents of the separation of church and state, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, really most of the bill of rights except the 2nd amendment (so long as the rights of white and proper Christians are respected). Granted, they aren't as monolithic as Islamist Terrorism but that just means different factions have different power bases. (You want to know how to come up with a dystopia? Write a story about all the stuff that happens to minorities only make the victims white Christians.)

Just so I'm clear, you're painting white Christians as the greatest danger to America? I would suggest that if so you'd be falling into the trap of accepting the tribal divide laid out for you in the divide-and-conquer method. The whites vs minorities divide is just another version of the Republicans vs Democrats divide, and both are mouse traps set up to blind everyone to the parties actually perpetuating the things you describe; namely, the unofficial aristocrats. While it's true that many of them may be white 'Christians', in absolute terms they are a tiny fraction of the general population and control the vast majority of the wealth and power. I find it less relevant to discuss what they look like than to discuss what they do, as it is the same thing people who want power and money do everywhere. Their skin color and alleged religion are incidental to this. I mostly agree with the school of thought that suggests that what many people observe to be race or religious issues tend to actually be class issues when the illusions are swept away.

[TheDeamon]

. If past trends are any indicator, he'll be lucky to be making $21/hr after all is said and done(hey, the minium wage went up by by $7.75/hr it's "only fair" that he also see a $7+/hr pay hike too. Reality is, $18 or $19/hr is far more likely to be his new income bracket, if that.

That's still a fair deal for him, and more than offsetting the slight inflation for goods and services. Economies of scale may actually lower some goods prices.

You do realize the people working the docks in many of the Distribution Centers across the US earn considerably less than $15/hr on average? That many people "in the transportation sector" that aren't management also tend to be in the <$15/hr crowd as well? It isn't going to be a "slight inflation" just by how it would impact the distribution chain, even before you get into anything else. And in this era of "Just in Time" the only "fat" left to cut is to further invest in automation, which means cutting jobs and replacing them with more machines.

Not that there is much more that can be easily automated, as Amazon and WalMart can attest to. Which basically just means increased costs for doing business, and passing those costs on to their customers.

The distributors wouldn't be the only ones in such a position either. They'll automate what they can, cutting their employment roster even further. They'll offshore what they can, to send the work to areas where the costs of labor + transportation are advantageous to them, which won't be hard, given the more than doubling of the minimum wage. All of these things, as mentioned previously, are job killers, and not a path towards meaningful and well paid employment for most people. Instead, it does the exact opposite. But as you've already directly ignored this point once in this very thread, I'm guessing you're going to continue to handwave this matter away.

Here's my alternative to a forced minimum.

Stop charging the employer's side of social security for the first $30/hour that the employee makes, if and only if all employees in the company get some baseline treatment, including but not limited to $15/hour, overtime pay, etc.

Oh, so now we're going induce a huge Cost of Living spike, negatively impacting the overwhelming majority of retired persons, that should also, as a consequence, also greatly increase spending on Social Security as their COLA adjusts to the new reality. Which means the trust fund will run dry sooner, rather than later, and now your making a proposal that will reduce the amount of money flowing into that very same trust fund? Are you deliberately trying to deplete the social security trust fund and kick the elderly out into the streets or are you just being obtuse?

Make up the shortfall with a 1% value added tax on goods that have been transferred over state lines.

 

[NobleHunter]

Just so I'm clear, you're painting white Christians as the greatest danger to America? I would suggest that if so you'd be falling into the trap of accepting the tribal divide laid out for you in the divide-and-conquer method. The whites vs minorities divide is just another version of the Republicans vs Democrats divide, and both are mouse traps set up to blind everyone to the parties actually perpetuating the things you describe; namely, the unofficial aristocrats. While it's true that many of them may be white 'Christians', in absolute terms they are a tiny fraction of the general population and control the vast majority of the wealth and power. I find it less relevant to discuss what they look like than to discuss what they do, as it is the same thing people who want power and money do everywhere. Their skin color and alleged religion are incidental to this. I mostly agree with the school of thought that suggests that what many people observe to be race or religious issues tend to actually be class issues when the illusions are swept away.

Except for the part where white people, including poor white people, actually do oppress and discriminate against minorities. It's very not incidental to the experience of the people on the short end of the stick.

The disadvantaged might have more common interests than not but you're not going to get very far by insisting the people getting the *censored* kicked out of them should just stop complaining and go after their *real* oppressors.

[Pete at Home]

Just so I'm clear, you're painting white Christians as the greatest danger to America? I would suggest that if so you'd be falling into the trap of accepting the tribal divide laid out for you in the divide-and-conquer method. The whites vs minorities divide is just another version of the Republicans vs Democrats divide, and both are mouse traps set up to blind everyone to the parties actually perpetuating the things you describe; namely, the unofficial aristocrats. While it's true that many of them may be white 'Christians', in absolute terms they are a tiny fraction of the general population and control the vast majority of the wealth and power. I find it less relevant to discuss what they look like than to discuss what they do, as it is the same thing people who want power and money do everywhere. Their skin color and alleged religion are incidental to this. I mostly agree with the school of thought that suggests that what many people observe to be race or religious issues tend to actually be class issues when the illusions are swept away.

Except for the part where white people, including poor white people, actually do oppress and discriminate against minorities. It's very not incidental to the experience of the people on the short end of the stick.

The disadvantaged might have more common interests than not but you're not going to get very far by insisting the people getting the *censored* kicked out of them should just stop complaining and go after their *real* oppressors.

Yeah, sure that disabled white kid probably had it coming.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4093434/amp/Obama-says-live-streamed-video-black-youths-torturing-white-disabled-man-alleged-hate-crime-despicable-says-race-relations-NOT-getting-worse.html?client=ms-android-verizon


NH, are two different people using your account?  Because I have a hard time believing the [insert mean word here] that wrote that last bit, inhabits the same body as the guy that writes most of your stuff.

[Fenring]

Except for the part where white people, including poor white people, actually do oppress and discriminate against minorities. It's very not incidental to the experience of the people on the short end of the stick.

The disadvantaged might have more common interests than not but you're not going to get very far by insisting the people getting the *censored* kicked out of them should just stop complaining and go after their *real* oppressors.

But you were just saying that white Christians were more dangerous than Islamic terrorists because they largely control government. What has that got to do with what poor white people do in their daily lives? In one instance you're discussing systemic abuse, and in the other personal bigotry. Comparing government abuses to abuses incurred by foreign parties is one thing; but comparing the state of race relations on the street level to Islamic terrorism seems silly to me.

[NobleHunter]

Yeah, sure that disabled white kid probably had it coming.

NH, are two different people using your account?  Because I have a hard time believing the [insert mean word here] that wrote that last bit, inhabits the same body as the guy that writes most of your stuff.

I'm feeling contrary and channeling some of the less decorous people on my twitter feed. They're pretty sick of the whole just get along with white people and stop calling them racists thing.

But you were just saying that white Christians were more dangerous than Islamic terrorists because they largely control government. What has that got to do with what poor white people do in their daily lives? In one instance you're discussing systemic abuse, and in the other personal bigotry. Comparing government abuses to abuses incurred by foreign parties is one thing; but comparing the state of race relations on the street level to Islamic terrorism seems silly to me.

Street level relations and day-to-day experience has to do with why "the Left" treat white Christians as enemies. The government abuse is on the same continuum as street level stuff.