What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is awful

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

I just think it's funny that people like you and Kep, as well as the working class whites upon whom you heap your scorn are all saying the exact same thing -- that what is wrong with this country is we need to make it so people are paid an honest days wage for an honest days work. Except when the left speaks it they are usually referring to the unmerited riches of the 1%, while the working class whites are complaining about handouts to those behind them.

Yeah, notice they dont care about the handouts they are getting cause those are fair, it is what everyone else is getting that is wrong...doesnt get much more American than that. (btw I am a working class White Man)

If these Working Class Whites are so worried about their lot they should do a little research before they support a man who is everything they despise.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

I don't think you understand what liberals think. The left doesn't call it unmerited. I have no idea where you get that idea. They just think that the rich should pay their fair share.

So did The Right for a long time...
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

Hillary may be a Wall Street shill...but she and her cronies care more about the disenfranchised than the leadership of the GOP does.

You do realized that is self-contradicting. Wall Street cares zero about "the disenfranchised" as long as they own the party in charge (which is both). Saying Hillary's cronies "care more" is like saying Kim Jong Un is more favorable than Kim Jong Il.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

What'd he get paid for those? ;) :D

And I did say "that" speech.

Right but you are harping on THAT speech like it is the end all be all of WJC speeches on the subject and it somehow proves a point. (which it doesnt)
 
I think that is exactly what working class whites who support Trump believe. That is really the point. They believe they have gotten to their place in line by doing just that. They recognize they are not further ahead, because of their limitations (say,lack of college education). But they object to people advancing ahead of them not through the efforts of those people who were behind them, but because you (who I take to be liberals, government, do-gooders, et al) are moving them there because you have decided they are entitled to this unearned advancement.

I will grant you that this thought process doesn't put a whole lot of thought into why some people behind you in line are behind you, whether it is institutional or historical bias or lack of privileges, or just plain lack of effort. All they know is this is where they are at, and you're trying to pick a chosen few and move them ahead.

What I think is really interesting about the psychology of it is that those people already ahead of them in line really don't bother the working class. Whether those people got ahead of them because they were born there, because they are highly educated, or maybe just lucky. It's like when you show up for a movie or sporting event and there are already a bunch of people in line. You just kind of look at it like "thems the breaks." But if someone shows up after you and tries to jump ahead because a friend offers it to them, now what? We direct a much more discerning eye towards those behind us rather than those ahead.

I really think the line metaphor is an excellent one for where we are at politically, and I wish I had thought of it. For reasons that are beyond me, having someone butt ahead of you in line causes great anger in people. I was reminded of that this weekend in the Twin Cities as I was driving from Bloomington to downtown Minneapolis. As you travel north on 35W there is a horrible bottleneck where westbound I94 traffic is reduced to one lane. Even on an average Saturday afternoon you will see cars backed up miles, waiting in that single lane to take the exit. Meanwhile, in the center and left lanes you have people who whiz along at the speed limit, only to cut in at the last moment to take the exit. You could write a book on human psychology if you sat at that merge point and watched behavior.

I just think it's funny that people like you and Kep, as well as the working class whites upon whom you heap your scorn are all saying the exact same thing -- that what is wrong with this country is we need to make it so people are paid an honest days wage for an honest days work. Except when the left speaks it they are usually referring to the unmerited riches of the 1%, while the working class whites are complaining about handouts to those behind them.
When for centuries your immediate place in line was determined by the color of your skin and then suddenly that stopped (well not stopped entirely) and "those people" started moving up, they just assumed "those people" were getting a handout because that's what they were told. It's racism, plain and simple. They've been conditioned to believe non-whites are lazy and inferior to them so any of them who are successful "obviously" only got there because of "handouts", instead of waking up to the reality that they're being used by the politicians they support.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

What's your reasoning? I voted YES. My thinking was that it doesn't make sense that their salary is effectively frozen in place because of politics.

Because how likely are a group of citizens (even appointed citizens) willing to consider all of the factors that go into the cost of being a legislator? The people who know best work that job. You make a good point about it being frozen because of politics, but I'm not sure that it's a problem yet.

I'm also generally opposed to making constitutional amendments on things like this. I'd rather see it decided legislatively.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

You do realized that is self-contradicting. Wall Street cares zero about "the disenfranchised" as long as they own the party in charge (which is both). Saying Hillary's cronies "care more" is like saying Kim Jong Un is more favorable than Kim Jong Il.

You do realize you can like two things that are on opposite sides right? I know you are not this simplistic.

Hillary has actually spent time working with the poor and the minorities...the GOP does what they can to stop them from voting. Keep trying though facts tend to have a liberal bias :D
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

And they haven't for a long time.

Yeah the Disciples of Trickle Down abandoned common sense long ago...

BTW 538 has her 0ver 71% in all 3 projections with Florida, NC and Nevada blue. That puts her at 302.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

You do realize you can like two things that are on opposite sides right? I know you are not this simplistic.

Hillary has actually spent time working with the poor and the minorities...the GOP does what they can to stop them from voting. Keep trying though facts tend to have a liberal bias :D

Of all the catastrophic effects of the Trump campaign and GOP knuckledragging in general, the voter suppression tactics are going to be the hardest to live down. Even if the party does a 180 degree turn and starts addressing non-whites as something opposite of a scapegoat to blame all of society's problems on, I don't see how they get what is now 30% of the voters to forget that the official stance of the Republican party was that they be denied the right to vote. You don't see Democrats enacting laws restricting the ability of crabby old uneducated white guys from participating in the election.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

Yeah the Disciples of Trickle Down abandoned common sense long ago...

BTW 538 has her 0ver 71% in all 3 projections with Florida, NC and Nevada blue. That puts her at 302.

Does she have to go back to 200 for going over 301?
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

If you're too dumb to figure out how a zipper merge works, maybe you belong at the back of the line.
Wasn't a construction zone, which in Minnesota is where zipper merges are used.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

Yeah, zipper merges are only for construction zones and merge points. Not exits.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

Because how likely are a group of citizens (even appointed citizens) willing to consider all of the factors that go into the cost of being a legislator? The people who know best work that job. You make a good point about it being frozen because of politics, but I'm not sure that it's a problem yet.

I'm also generally opposed to making constitutional amendments on things like this. I'd rather see it decided legislatively.

I'm not all that concerned about your first point. I would think a group of people tasked with understanding the issue in depth would be able to do just that. It's just a matter of bringing in the right people to answer their questions. Your other point is a fair one. I think it makes some sense to ask the voters themselves on this issue, but perhaps it's not worthy of a constitutional amendment. This is the kind of issue where it might be nice to have the option of a statewide referendum.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top