Somehow the sentiment that conservative voters are voting against their own economic interests in the name of religion and xenophobia has morphed, among some circles on the Left, into actually wishing harm on conservatives via the effects of those policies. Perhaps this started as the idea that only harm from some conservative policies, such as the one to throw millions of working- and middle-class Americans off of healthcare, would get enough people in the Republican base to change their minds in future elections. One could make a case that that may happen, but to let that degrade into a desire for harm of conservative voters is an attitude I reject because:
1. Progress is not a zero-sum game. Just because some conservative people get hurt does not mean I get helped.
2. We liberals need to be better than that. Social and economic justice is for everyone, not just those whom we like or whom we agree with; limiting them to that set is just tribalism.
I know that part of the reason for this sentiment is that today's conservative policies will actively target particular groups of people, and this elicits a vengeful, "now you know how it feels" response from some. But that targeting just means that those bad policies need to be stopped. It is not sufficient reason to wish for harm on those who support those policies, no matter how hateful they may be.
You don't know that. You have just been habit trained to think that way.
What have they done for you lately? They put the country on welfare, while changing out it's low wage workforce for immigrants and wondering why these workers are bitter. This is the legacy of the Obama years - a shrinking of the middle class and a stalling of the economy due to excessive regulation.
The democrat party is working for Silicon Valley and other corporate interests who require cheap labor, and face no backlash for taking your jobs overseas. Not so much as a shrug from Obama. This is not your fathers democrat party. If anything, the republicans are the only ones looking out for you.
To make your first point, watch all the bitching and moaning that I said exactly this: the democrats today do not give a rats ass about the middle class who are paying the bills for Federal, state, county, city, and Obamacare which is one giant wealth transfer program away from the middle class to the burgeoning lower classes. Thank you Democrat party.
Somehow the sentiment that conservative voters are voting against their own economic interests in the name of religion and xenophobia has morphed, among some circles on the Left, into actually wishing harm on conservatives via the effects of those policies. Perhaps this started as the idea that only harm from some conservative policies, such as the one to throw millions of working- and middle-class Americans off of healthcare, would get enough people in the Republican base to change their minds in future elections. One could make a case that that may happen, but to let that degrade into a desire for harm of conservative voters is an attitude I reject because:
1. Progress is not a zero-sum game. Just because some conservative people get hurt does not mean I get helped.
2. We liberals need to be better than that. Social and economic justice is for everyone, not just those whom we like or whom we agree with; limiting them to that set is just tribalism.
I know that part of the reason for this sentiment is that today's conservative policies will actively target particular groups of people, and this elicits a vengeful, "now you know how it feels" response from some. But that targeting just means that those bad policies need to be stopped. It is not sufficient reason to wish for harm on those who support those policies, no matter how hateful they may be.
It goes a step further than that. Hillary Clinton wanted to starve and make destitute coal miners because they weren't supporting her politically and she received thunderous applause for promising economic harm. This isn't a new phenomenon among liberals to hate and wish economic and physical harm for the sake of politics. I give you a huge amount of credit though. You actually recognize that other liberals behavior is goddmamn disgusting.
Somehow the sentiment that conservative voters are voting against their own economic interests in the name of religion and xenophobia has morphed, among some circles on the Left, into actually wishing harm on conservatives via the effects of those policies. Perhaps this started as the idea that only harm from some conservative policies, such as the one to throw millions of working- and middle-class Americans off of healthcare, would get enough people in the Republican base to change their minds in future elections. One could make a case that that may happen, but to let that degrade into a desire for harm of conservative voters is an attitude I reject because:
1. Progress is not a zero-sum game. Just because some conservative people get hurt does not mean I get helped.
2. We liberals need to be better than that. Social and economic justice is for everyone, not just those whom we like or whom we agree with; limiting them to that set is just tribalism.
I know that part of the reason for this sentiment is that today's conservative policies will actively target particular groups of people, and this elicits a vengeful, "now you know how it feels" response from some. But that targeting just means that those bad policies need to be stopped. It is not sufficient reason to wish for harm on those who support those policies, no matter how hateful they may be.
How about some examples of conservative policies that target certain groups of people.
Gay marriage bans (at the time)
Abortion
Food stamp recipients being drug tested
Transgender bathroom policies
Muslim immigration ban
Tax cuts for the rich, cuts for the poor
This thread isn't about Hillary. But what you said about her is demonstrably false.
Only certain religious extremists believe in SSM bans, IMHO. I know I'm not against SSM.Gay marriage bans (at the time)
That's not a cut a dried topic. I'm pro-choice, but not after the fetus is viable. I support Roe v Wade.Abortion
You have to pass a drug test to get just about any other type of money from the feds, why not welfare? Do we want to spend our limited tax money on people that will use the money to trade for or buy drugs instead of feeding their kids? It happens. I don't have a problem with drug testing for welfare recipients (SNAP and especially WIC would be fine to not drug test for if there was a way to ensure the SNAP and WIC money was not being traded to drug dealers)Food stamp recipients being drug tested
There needs to be a reasonable understanding here. The City of Charlotte made it impossible for the CMPD to even address a person that was potentially a sexual predator in a public restroom, bathroom, or changing room. Then the State of North Carolina went nuts and the pendulum swung from one idiotic extreme to another. I don't have a problem allowing transgender people to use the restroom, bathroom, or changing room that they wish to use. I do have a problem with creating ordnances that tie the hands of police by not allowing them to even ask why a person is in a particular area or what they are doing there. Both the City of Charlotte and the North Carolina General Assembly were wrong on that one. Big time.Transgender bathroom policies
The First Amendment prevents such a ban, and Trump was damned wrong when he said that. However, what I am in favor of is restricting the immigration of people from areas of the world where there is no reasonable expectation of the US Government being able to vet potential immigrants, including war zones, areas where terrorist groups are a high percentage of the population, areas where the local government either doesn't exist or is lacking in the ability to provide background data on the people that live there, or a number of other reasons that should be simple common sense if it were not for politics.Muslim immigration ban
That doesn't really happen. It's just an over used talking point that doesn't end up ever happening by the time laws finally make it through Congress. Plus, have you really looked at who pays the taxes in this country? The rich pay the taxes, but the Middle Class is who's getting screwed, not the poor. 45% of Americans pay no income taxes, and the top 20% of earners (a chunk of the upper middle class and of course, the rich folks) pay almost 87% of the federal income taxes.Tax cuts for the rich, cuts for the poor
Except for what I wrote, I agree, that should do it for now.That should do it for now
They were not opposed to gay marriage to target gays, but because they believed marriage was between a man and a woman. Having values on how things should be doesn't mean you're out to target people when you defend them, but that you want to uphold your values.
Bull. They are not opposed to abortion to target women.
So targeting people that use a government program? You realize that the government has the authority and duty to make terms of use for their programs, right?
So being against transgenders using bathrooms of the opposite sex is targeting them? ok? I guess agreeing with different bathrooms for the sexes is targeting only one group of people now. Who knew?
What Muslim immigration ban?
Are both those points about taxes? If so, that seems equal to me.
Only certain religious extremists believe in SSM bans, IMHO. I know I'm not against SSM.
That's not a cut a dried topic. I'm pro-choice, but not after the fetus is viable. I support Roe v Wade.
You have to pass a drug test to get just about any other type of money from the feds, why not welfare? Do we want to spend our limited tax money on people that will use the money to trade for or buy drugs instead of feeding their kids? It happens. I don't have a problem with drug testing for welfare recipients (SNAP and especially WIC would be fine to not drug test for if there was a way to ensure the SNAP and WIC money was not being traded to drug dealers)
There needs to be a reasonable understanding here. The City of Charlotte made it impossible for the CMPD to even address a person that was potentially a sexual predator in a public restroom, bathroom, or changing room. Then the State of North Carolina went nuts and the pendulum swung from one idiotic extreme to another. I don't have a problem allowing transgender people to use the restroom, bathroom, or changing room that they wish to use. I do have a problem with creating ordnances that tie the hands of police by not allowing them to even ask why a person is in a particular area or what they are doing there. Both the City of Charlotte and the North Carolina General Assembly were wrong on that one. Big time.
The First Amendment prevents such a ban, and Trump was damned wrong when he said that. However, what I am in favor of is restricting the immigration of people from areas of the world where there is no reasonable expectation of the US Government being able to vet potential immigrants, including war zones, areas where terrorist groups are a high percentage of the population, areas where the local government either doesn't exist or is lacking in the ability to provide background data on the people that live there, or a number of other reasons that should be simple common sense if it were not for politics.
That doesn't really happen. It's just an over used talking point that doesn't end up ever happening by the time laws finally make it through Congress. Plus, have you really looked at who pays the taxes in this country? The rich pay the taxes, but the Middle Class is who's getting screwed, not the poor. 45% of Americans pay no income taxes, and the top 20% of earners (a chunk of the upper middle class and of course, the rich folks) pay almost 87% of the federal income taxes.
Except for what I wrote, I agree, that should do it for now.
No, that's a thing. An actual thing. Just ask people of targeted groups who can't even go out in public without fearing for their safety.
I know this is a common sentiment, and while I do not entirely agree with it, I admit that there are grains of truth in there. The economy improved substantially during the time that Obama was in office, but most of those gains went to the very top. Too many people in the working class are still struggling to pay the bills through no fault of their own. And those in this group who voted for Trump should not have harm wished upon them, although I fear they may have brought some upon themselves.
Gay marriage bans (at the time)
Abortion
Food stamp recipients being drug tested
Transgender bathroom policies
Muslim immigration ban
Tax cuts for the rich, cuts for the poor
That should do it for now
Somehow the sentiment that conservative voters are voting against their own economic interests in the name of religion and xenophobia has morphed, among some circles on the Left, into actually wishing harm on conservatives via the effects of those policies. Perhaps this started as the idea that only harm from some conservative policies, such as the one to throw millions of working- and middle-class Americans off of healthcare, would get enough people in the Republican base to change their minds in future elections. One could make a case that that may happen, but to let that degrade into a desire for harm of conservative voters is an attitude I reject because:
1. Progress is not a zero-sum game. Just because some conservative people get hurt does not mean I get helped.
2. We liberals need to be better than that. Social and economic justice is for everyone, not just those whom we like or whom we agree with; limiting them to that set is just tribalism.
I know that part of the reason for this sentiment is that today's conservative policies will actively target particular groups of people, and this elicits a vengeful, "now you know how it feels" response from some. But that targeting just means that those bad policies need to be stopped. It is not sufficient reason to wish for harm on those who support those policies, no matter how hateful they may be.
See my hat in my avatar? I were it in public any time I please, never had no guff over it and better not.They feel that way because they've been told to feel that way, not because of any real threat. Look at this country over the last year or so and what you will see is LIBERALS attacking people for being conservatives, not the other way around. If there is a group that has cause to be afraid to go out in public, it's conservatives in cities that are liberal bastions of intolerance. But you know what?? We aren't afraid to go out in public. Why? Because we're adults and adults face their fears head on.
The biggest opposition to homosexual marriage has come from the black community - overwhelmingly liberal.
So trying to help people stop using drugs when they too poor to afford them is a bad thing...???
99% of us don't care what bathroom you use, a lot of us do care what locker room you use.
There is no Muslim immigration ban.
We want tax cuts across the board, coupled with spending cuts.
These are the kind of lies you've been indoctrinated with. NOT ONE SINGLE THING YOU SAID WAS TRUE.
When you're out to specifically force your views onto others, damn straight it is targeting. Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry someone of the same sex. But conservatives were even against civil unions which left no choice but for gays to seek out the right to be married. It was the Republican platform that conservatives supported. so yes, it was a targeted policy by conservatives.
Bull**** they aren't. In some states conservatives even forced policy such as forcing a woman to get an ultrasound and see propaganda. Save it hypocrites.
It still is targeting them. I never said they didn't have the authority. I said they used policy to target folks. I am right.
Targeting policy by conservatives non the less and transgendered people were ALREADY using the restrooms of their choice.
The one Trump railed about in his speeches in the campaign. Even judges saw through his BS and that is why his immigration ban has been halted, thank god. You can play dumb all you want (maybe it's not playing I don't know), we all know what Trump was doing with his ban and that was targeting Muslims.
No, cut in taxes for the rich and cut in benefits for the poor. But then you knew that already and just play dumb.
They feel that way because they've been told to feel that way, not because of any real threat.
Look at this country over the last year or so and what you will see is LIBERALS attacking people for being conservatives, not the other way around. If there is a group that has cause to be afraid to go out in public, it's conservatives in cities that are liberal bastions of intolerance. But you know what?? We aren't afraid to go out in public. Why? Because we're adults and adults face their fears head on.
Marriage is a government contract, so whoever won the gay marriage fight was going to be forcing their views on others in some way or another.
And? The idea is that these women will change their mind if they see what they doing. Does it work? Well, no, not usually, but that is the point of it. The fact is they are focusing on protecting life in everything they do.
The program affects the poor, so naturally whatever policy they create with it will target that audience. You're basically complaining that the government is regulating its own programs.
People believe that those little signs should be obeyed. That's all there really is to it. Yes, that means transgenders have to obey those signs just like everyone else. You also helped my argument when you stated they were already violating the signs. Why do you think they were the focus? Maybe because they were the ones constantly breaking the conservatives view of the rules.
Speeches doesn't equal the EO's. Find it in the EO's or find another argument.
[/quote]Actually, no I didn't. You framed your sentence in such a way to give off the impression both were about taxes. I just figured that was really strange and asked for clarity before putting too much effort into responding. Anyway, many conservatives are against public assistance so as a result they will try to destroy such programs. This doesn't mean they are attacking the poor, but actually means they are attacking the existence of public assistance in government.
Are you forced to marry someone of the same sex? No, therefore it isn't being forced on you.
These women already have a lot going on, they don't need to pay or get probed by force. You support that, typical conservative nonsense.
No, it is NEGATIVELY affecting the poor and again, you don't care about cocaine or heroine abusers, it targets marijuana users. Another targeted group by cons.
and when a transgender who looks like a man (but is a woman) goes into the women's restroom, they are going to be harassed. Again, you don't care like the con you are.
Wrong, it does because it shows intent which is what the judges ruled on.
And that attacks the poor by con policy.
Again, all you have done is proven me right. Cons target groups by their policies.
See my hat in my avatar? I were it in public any time I please, never had no guff over it and better not.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?