I mean, they are. With the caveat that the republican policy would be just as deadly, if not more so.By this logic, every Democratic voter is morally complicit in the state-sanctioned murder of Afghan children.
I mean, they are. With the caveat that the republican policy would be just as deadly, if not more so.By this logic, every Democratic voter is morally complicit in the state-sanctioned murder of Afghan children.
By this logic, every Democratic voter is morally complicit in the state-sanctioned murder of Afghan children.
Yep
Next
By this logic, every Democratic voter is morally complicit in the state-sanctioned murder of Afghan children.
The problems beig exclusive to rural whites is irrelevant. Saying the policies you prefer helps rural whites and thus you care about them is flawed logic of the main reason you support those policies is that they benefit you as wellI mean, if you count bringing back the coal industry and other wishful thinking, I guess so.
If we're talking about large scale issues like the death of retail and urbanization, those are in no way exclusive to "rural whites". And we "liberals" are the ones voting to fix their shit, so...
By this logic, every Democratic voter is morally complicit in the state-sanctioned murder of Afghan children.
I never said that was a good thing. It's awful. Just don't claim moral high ground when you don't care about them either
How could we all forget the time Obama promised to kill all the Afghan children in his campaign? Man the left really is just like the right, huh.
I myself would like to know which progressive causes are inherently anti-poor rural white, because as much as the cultural differences piss me the fuck off you can't just leave people to wither. There's fair arguments to make about going full speed ahead on globalization without considering or reacting fast enough to the consequences, but the only people who I see putting out realistic solutions for this demographic- namely infrastructure and retraining initiatives to bring new energy industries to dying towns, as well as bolstering welfare and wage standards in the short term- are the Dems. Republicans are instead talking about bringing coal jobs back and stripping us of regulatory protections to protect the environment, while doing anything to increase the minimum wage is not even on the table. If we don't care about poor rural whites, then Republicans must fucking despise them.
The point is that these people are apathetic to the plight of minorities, just as many liberals are apathetic to them. You don't need to be actively against a group to be apatheticI myself would like to know which progressive causes are inherently anti-poor rural white, because as much as the cultural differences piss me the fuck off you can't just leave people to wither. There's fair arguments to make about going full speed ahead on globalization without considering or reacting fast enough to the consequences, but the only people who I see putting out realistic solutions for this demographic- namely infrastructure and retraining initiatives to bring new industries to dying towns, as well as bolstering welfare and wage standards in the short term- are the Dems. Republicans are instead talking about bringing coal jobs back and stripping us of regulatory protections to protect the environment, while doing anything to increase the minimum wage is not even on the table. If we don't care about poor rural whites, then Republicans must fucking despise them.
Voting for trump at minimum means you are ok with racism, homophobia, misogyny and being willfully ignorant. They might be your friends and family, but lets call a spade a spade
The problems beig exclusive to rural whites is irrelevant. Saying the policies you prefer helps rural whites and thus you care about them is flawed logic of the main reason you support those policies is that they benefit you as well
I never said both sides are the same. They absolutely aren't. That doesn't mean everyone who voted Trump is evil and everyone who voted liberal a saintWe absolutely have the higher ground. The people we vote for aren't trying to hurt rural whites. The people they're voting for make hurting minorities part of their platform.
I love this "both sides" bullshit.
The point is that these people are apathetic to the plight of minorities, just as many liberals are apathetic to them. You don't need to be actively against a group to be apathetic
Well if the Democratic voter voted for someone that campaigned on the murder of Afghan children and made that a very big focal point of their campaign, then your comparison would make some sense.
Sadly, it doesn't.
The point is that these people are apathetic to the plight of minorities, just as many liberals are apathetic to them. You don't need to be actively against a group to be apathetic
I totally get where you're coming from, OP. My grandma also chose to vote to enable a racist to run the country because she decided that wasn't so bad as to be worth voting against her fucking tax cut, and I also get very offended when people point this out, because she is very nice to me, which should really excuse all of that, because I am very important.
No, it's just reasoning: Democratic policy would benefit them. The GOP fucks them over. The still go with the R time and time again.The problems beig exclusive to rural whites is irrelevant. Saying the policies you prefer helps rural whites and thus you care about them is flawed logic of the main reason you support those policies is that they benefit you as well
I never said both sides are the same. They absolutely aren't. That doesn't mean everyone who voted Trump is evil and everyone who voted liberal a saint
No, it's just reasoning: Democratic policy would benefit them. The GOP fucks them over. The still go with the R time and time again.
This continued display of ignorance and indoctrination is the source of derision and contempt from my side, not their mere existance or lack of acknowledgement of their problems.
"Apathy" is one way to sugarcoat things. There is irrefutable data that this country is racist, and the racism is stronger on one end than the other. Nothing changed with Trump, the GOP and a big portion of their base are racist. Lee Atwater and Trump are more honest than their base.The point is that these people are apathetic to the plight of minorities, just as many liberals are apathetic to them. You don't need to be actively against a group to be apathetic
The point is that these people are apathetic to the plight of minorities, just as many liberals are apathetic to them. You don't need to be actively against a group to be apathetic
FireApathy in a vacuum is not the point here. It's apathy in regards to direct harm from the candidates we're voting on that's the issue in contention here.
Thus, I'm asking for an equivalence in platform because- even if I don't personally care about poor rural whites (and I'm gonna be honest, they're not at the top of my list in terms of priorities)- no one has demonstrated how my voting patterns have been directly instrumental in fucking them over. I voted for Obama both times and then for Hillary who, as far as I could tell, were intent on trying to implement realistic solutions to help them, or at least put that shit in their platform.
On the other side of the coin, Trump voters elected someone who wants to send more unchecked police into my community to "reinstate law and order," either because they really believe something is inherently wrong with black people or because they're so apathetic to black people that they don't particularly care even when voting for a candidate that's two steps removed from being a Grand Wizard on the side, because hey, taxes and jobs amirite?
So yeah, there is a difference in how the apathy between Dems and Repubs has been contextualized by their actions, and it's disingenuous to ignore all that and put us to task because white people aren't our biggest priority.
Apathy in a vacuum is not the point here. It's apathy in regards to direct harm from the candidates we're voting on that's the issue in contention here.
Thus, I'm asking for an equivalence in platform because- even if I don't personally care about poor rural whites (and I'm gonna be honest, they're not at the top of my list in terms of priorities)- no one has demonstrated how my voting patterns have been directly instrumental in fucking them over. I voted for Obama both times and then for Hillary who, as far as I could tell, were intent on trying to implement realistic solutions to help them, or at least put that shit in their platform.
On the other side of the coin, Trump voters elected someone who wants to send more unchecked police into my community to "reinstate law and order," either because they really believe something is inherently wrong with black people or because they're so apathetic to black people that they don't particularly care to stop and think if voting for a candidate that's two steps removed from being a Grand Wizard is okay because he said "taxes" and "jobs" a whole bunch of times.
So yeah, there is a difference in how the apathy between Dems and Repubs has been contextualized by their actions, and it's disingenuous to ignore all that and put us to task because white people aren't our biggest priority.
Apathy in a vacuum is not the point here. It's apathy in regards to direct harm from the candidates we're voting on that's the issue in contention here.
Thus, I'm asking for an equivalence in platform because- even if I don't personally care about poor rural whites (and I'm gonna be honest, they're not at the top of my list in terms of priorities)- no one has demonstrated how my voting patterns have been directly instrumental in fucking them over. I voted for Obama both times and then for Hillary who, as far as I could tell, were intent on trying to implement realistic solutions to help them, or at least put that shit in their platform.
On the other side of the coin, Trump voters elected someone who wants to send more unchecked police into my community to "reinstate law and order," either because they really believe something is inherently wrong with black people or because they're so apathetic to black people that they don't particularly care to stop and think if voting for a candidate that's two steps removed from being a Grand Wizard is okay because he said "taxes" and "jobs" a whole bunch of times.
So yeah, there is a difference in how the apathy between Dems and Repubs has been contextualized by their actions, and it's disingenuous to ignore all that and put us to task because white people aren't our biggest priority.
So I go back to my original point: Whether or not you feel justified in these labels does it actually accomplish anything positive for the country? Or is it just selfish catharsis through moral shaming?
I mean, they are. With the caveat that the republican policy would be just as deadly, if not more so.
Yeah I think you're both right. As citizens we're obviously partly culpable for actions our government takes in our name. We do, should on paper at least, have the power to remove troublesome elements of our government from power, whether through voting them out, jailing criminal behavior or outright rebellion and overthrowing the government. The fact we don't means that as far as we're concerned killing brown people overseas isn't a deal breaker for us and as a people we should be shamed for that. It's shameful that any party can survive killing as many as we do and that not really be a concern within our voting base.Ah yes, one of Obama's more controversial campaign promises.
The problems beig exclusive to rural whites is irrelevant. Saying the policies you prefer helps rural whites and thus you care about them is flawed logic of the main reason you support those policies is that they benefit you as well
This might be a plausible excuse for 2008, but by 2012 it should have been very clear what the Obama administration's foreign policy methods were. Why is the fact he didn't explicitly campaign on it something that morally distinguishes it? It was still something that any reasonably informed person would have been aware he intended to do if re-elected.
And no, I'm not saying both sides. One side is quite clearly worse. I'm pointing out that nobody approves of every single policy choice of the politician that they vote for.
Why do you say this? Did liberals vote for an anti-poor, rural white candidate?
This might be a plausible excuse for 2008, but by 2012 it should have been very clear what the Obama administration's foreign policy methods were. Why is the fact he didn't explicitly campaign on it something that morally distinguishes it? It was still something that any reasonably informed person would have been aware he intended to do if re-elected.
And no, I'm not saying both sides. One side is quite clearly worse. I'm pointing out that nobody approves of every single policy choice of the politician that they vote for.
There's no moral shaming in calling a spade a spade. If you're racist, you've participated in or supported or spread ideals and policies that work to make the lives of minorities worse. If you're sexist, you've participated in or supported or spread ideals that take away women's autonomy. If you're anti-gay, you've participated in or supported or spread ideals that result in the erasure and marginalization of gay people. When I was living at the point that I thought feminism was nonsense, I was being a sexist. They're no two ways about it. That is what I was. I was also mature and self-aware enough to work to change my outlook and mindset from a sexist one to one that was considerate of women's rights and place in society. If people are willing to close themselves off because they hear words they don't like, language softening isn't going to do much. Holding back from calling a racist a racist when the entire point of their world view is that they don't think minorities are equal to them, isn't going to do much in the first place. Labeling these acts is supposed to make it clear to all of society, not just singular people, that these behaviors, acts and rhetoric they adhere to do in fact make matters worse for others, should be intolerable and changed.
And no, I'm not saying both sides. One side is quite clearly worse. I'm pointing out that nobody approves of every single policy choice of the politician that they vote for.
So you completely missed the point of my post.
No Trump supporter would be inviting someone who looks like me to their table.The views in this thread remind me of the days when pushy atheists ruled the internet. You all sound just as fun around the dinner table.
These nazi family members no doubt love you and keep inviting you to the table just so they have the honor of being demeaned by someone so intellectually and morally superior. Maybe worry about those bonds for once.
This might be a plausible excuse for 2008, but by 2012 it should have been very clear what the Obama administration's foreign policy methods were. Why does the fact he didn't explicitly campaign on it something that morally distinguishes it? It was still something that any reasonably informed person would have been aware he intended to do if re-elected.
And no, I'm not saying both sides. One side is quite clearly worse. I'm pointing out that nobody approves of every single policy choice of the politician that they vote for.
Funnily enough Trump and his voters conceivably fall into both those categories. Otherwise I'm not really sure what you're getting at.Realistically I suppose everyone should be aware they're getting played to some degree, that not all aspects of a campaign will, or even should, survive the move from campaign to administration intact and instead vote for people whom they feel has the best moral compass and guiding principles rather than who made the best promises. But, I have a much easier time sympathizing with a voter who voted his or her conscious for a candidate who outright promised them what they wanted and then broke that promise than I do a voter who voted for their candidate despite what they said because they figured it was all BS and are now angry that it's being followed through on.
What are some of Trump's legitimate policies worthy of support?
The views in this thread remind me of the days when pushy atheists ruled the internet. You all sound just as fun around the dinner table.
These nazi family members no doubt love you and keep inviting you to the table just so they have the honor of being demeaned by someone so intellectually and morally superior. Maybe worry about those bonds for once.