So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...

[NoStacheOhio]

Right.  The problem is that the vast majority of Republican voters DO.NOT.PUNISH.THEIR.PARTY for any reason.  Because of this, their candidates can devolve into increasingly awful people without any repercussions.  We are in the downslope now. I'm fairly sure that Roy Moore will be elected, which will lower the floor another few inches (miles) for how awful a GOP candidate can be and still win.  Indeed, there is a sizable portion of the GOP base that sees this awfulness as a feature, not a bug.  But, like the poor, these half-wits will always be with us. It's the non-crazy GOP voters that enable it by understanding full well how awful people like Trump and Roy Moore are, but dutifully voting for them nonetheless. Unlike their elected representatives who line their pockets along the way, these middle class and upper middle class voters have no excuse.  They largely do not want the public benefits in the US to be cut and do not want GOP tax cuts on corporations or the rich.  Their policy preferences line up more squarely with the Democrats, even on many culture war issues.  I do not understand these people and grow weary of trying to even establish a common set of facts with them. 

This lightly describes my mother, and to some extent a large number of the people in my immediate geographic area. They've always voted Republican because they don't like paying taxes, and it never really went further than that. For the most part, they don't really get into culture war stuff.

I think she voted for Obama the second time, and I know she didn't vote in the 2016 Presidential election. I think the Democrats could've run almost anyone except Hillary Clinton, and would've seen much stronger turnout across party lines.

What happened to Musk's plan?

I think the first site just went live this week.

[bacchi]

What happened to Musk's plan?

I think the first site just went live this week.

Word.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/24/tesla-makes-quick-work-of-puerto-rico-hospital-solar-power-relief-project/

If it works half as well as Musk thinks it will, it could have an incredible impact on out-of-the-way facilities.

[Glenstache]

It is as if they have to wait for the right contractor to appear on their radar. Conspiracy theory: the right politically connected contractor to appear.

Ask and ye shall receive:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/10/ryan-zinke-neighbor-puerto-rico-power-contract

Sure am glad that swamp was drained!

[infogoon]

With Flake and Corker announcing that they're not running for reelection, as well as openly trashing the President, the 2018 midterms ought to be interesting. I wonder if that waterlogged hobo corpse Bannon will manage to get a couple of cartoonishly awful candidates on the ballot and hand Arizona and Tennessee over to the Dems.

Don't forget Trump is cartoonishly awful, and now occupies the White House. Anything can happen.

As is Roy Moore.

Last I saw, Roy Moore was polling neck-and-neck with his Democratic opponent. That's some embarrassing shit for the Republican Party, having to spend money to win a campaign in Alabama.

[scottish]

What happened to Musk's plan?

I think the first site just went live this week.

Word.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/24/tesla-makes-quick-work-of-puerto-rico-hospital-solar-power-relief-project/

If it works half as well as Musk thinks it will, it could have an incredible impact on out-of-the-way facilities.

I like it.   The government dithers, while Tesla goes after it.   we need more of this in the world.

[bacchi]

Last I saw, Roy Moore was polling neck-and-neck with his Democratic opponent. That's some embarrassing shit for the Republican Party, having to spend money to win a campaign in Alabama.

Moore has endorsements from Cruz and Paul. For being a constitutionalist. LOL.

It's stunning that the race is so close, in more ways than one.

[A Definite Beta Guy]

With Flake and Corker announcing that they're not running for reelection, as well as openly trashing the President, the 2018 midterms ought to be interesting. I wonder if that waterlogged hobo corpse Bannon will manage to get a couple of cartoonishly awful candidates on the ballot and hand Arizona and Tennessee over to the Dems.

Don't forget Trump is cartoonishly awful, and now occupies the White House. Anything can happen.

Right.  The problem is that the vast majority of Republican voters DO.NOT.PUNISH.THEIR.PARTY for any reason.  Because of this, their candidates can devolve into increasingly awful people without any repercussions.  We are in the downslope now. I'm fairly sure that Roy Moore will be elected, which will lower the floor another few inches (miles) for how awful a GOP candidate can be and still win.  Indeed, there is a sizable portion of the GOP base that sees this awfulness as a feature, not a bug.  But, like the poor, these half-wits will always be with us. It's the non-crazy GOP voters that enable it by understanding full well how awful people like Trump and Roy Moore are, but dutifully voting for them nonetheless. Unlike their elected representatives who line their pockets along the way, these middle class and upper middle class voters have no excuse.  They largely do not want the public benefits in the US to be cut and do not want GOP tax cuts on corporations or the rich.  Their policy preferences line up more squarely with the Democrats, even on many culture war issues.  I do not understand these people and grow weary of trying to even establish a common set of facts with them. 

If you are out there, GOP voters, and you want to know how to stop the madness, I will tell you how. STOP VOTING FOR THESE PEOPLE. Start voting for Democrats.  I've been doing it for years, and I haven't yet turned into a baby killer Antifa zombie welfare queen.  I'm like you, just a reasonable person with a healthy 'stache. I know that Democrats aren't perfect, and they need a responsible opposition party to serve as a check on their policies.  But handing more and more power to crazy Republicans won't make Republicans more responsible.  Both parties are not the same.  One is clearly worse than the other.  Stop rewarding Republican bad behavior and stop pretending that Democrats have to be perfect to get your vote when you'll vote for someone as manifestly awful as Donald Trump.

How convinced are you that the bolded is true? Because that's probably where you will find the biggest disconnect. These people ARE socially conservative: they want their kids to go to good schools, not do drugs, get married, and have 2.5 kids. They look down on people they see making poor life choices (which includes otherwise conservative hicks in trailer parks drinking themselves to death). They also might have a hesitation about cutting funding for some social services, and generally are not a fine of giant tax cuts for rich people, but that does not translate into an overall trust that Dems are good stewards of money.

Many are more extreme and are probably best described as Tea Partiers. The tea party was literally started by a finance guy screaming at the Chicago Board of Trade, not a random backwoods dude at Church.

[GuitarStv]

With Flake and Corker announcing that they're not running for reelection, as well as openly trashing the President, the 2018 midterms ought to be interesting. I wonder if that waterlogged hobo corpse Bannon will manage to get a couple of cartoonishly awful candidates on the ballot and hand Arizona and Tennessee over to the Dems.

Don't forget Trump is cartoonishly awful, and now occupies the White House. Anything can happen.

Right.  The problem is that the vast majority of Republican voters DO.NOT.PUNISH.THEIR.PARTY for any reason.  Because of this, their candidates can devolve into increasingly awful people without any repercussions.  We are in the downslope now. I'm fairly sure that Roy Moore will be elected, which will lower the floor another few inches (miles) for how awful a GOP candidate can be and still win.  Indeed, there is a sizable portion of the GOP base that sees this awfulness as a feature, not a bug.  But, like the poor, these half-wits will always be with us. It's the non-crazy GOP voters that enable it by understanding full well how awful people like Trump and Roy Moore are, but dutifully voting for them nonetheless. Unlike their elected representatives who line their pockets along the way, these middle class and upper middle class voters have no excuse.  They largely do not want the public benefits in the US to be cut and do not want GOP tax cuts on corporations or the rich.  Their policy preferences line up more squarely with the Democrats, even on many culture war issues.  I do not understand these people and grow weary of trying to even establish a common set of facts with them. 

If you are out there, GOP voters, and you want to know how to stop the madness, I will tell you how. STOP VOTING FOR THESE PEOPLE. Start voting for Democrats.  I've been doing it for years, and I haven't yet turned into a baby killer Antifa zombie welfare queen.  I'm like you, just a reasonable person with a healthy 'stache. I know that Democrats aren't perfect, and they need a responsible opposition party to serve as a check on their policies.  But handing more and more power to crazy Republicans won't make Republicans more responsible.  Both parties are not the same.  One is clearly worse than the other.  Stop rewarding Republican bad behavior and stop pretending that Democrats have to be perfect to get your vote when you'll vote for someone as manifestly awful as Donald Trump.

How convinced are you that the bolded is true? Because that's probably where you will find the biggest disconnect. These people ARE socially conservative: they want their kids to go to good schools, not do drugs, get married, and have 2.5 kids. They look down on people they see making poor life choices (which includes otherwise conservative hicks in trailer parks drinking themselves to death). They also might have a hesitation about cutting funding for some social services, and generally are not a fine of giant tax cuts for rich people, but that does not translate into an overall trust that Dems are good stewards of money.

Many are more extreme and are probably best described as Tea Partiers. The tea party was literally started by a finance guy screaming at the Chicago Board of Trade, not a random backwoods dude at Church.

The Tea Party was literally started when the Koch brothers, Phillip Morris, and RJ Reynolds decided that they wanted more control of the GOP by adding their money together and selectively creating/funding people and organizations.  The Koch brothers State Policy Network, Citizens for a Sound Economy (and their successor Americans for Prosperity) were used to coordinate national tea party efforts, the Sam Adams Alliance was used to direct grassroots efforts, and the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity was the propaganda wing.  All of these groups were essential in the formation of the Tea Party and came out of that initial alliance.

So yeah, I totally agree that it wasn't a backwoods dude at a Church.

[Malloy]

These people ARE socially conservative: they want their kids to go to good schools, not do drugs, get married, and have 2.5 kids. They look down on people they see making poor life choices (which includes otherwise conservative hicks in trailer parks drinking themselves to death). They also might have a hesitation about cutting funding for some social services, and generally are not a fine of giant tax cuts for rich people, but that does not translate into an overall trust that Dems are good stewards of money.

I wasn't aware that there are culture war fights about wanting kids to go to good schools.  The idea that conservatives see those values as belonging to them and not liberals is infuriating.  Just about every liberal I know is on their original marriage, is a dedicated parent, values education, etc.  And, btw, the states that score high on indicators of responsible parenting (high quality schools, low divorce rates, low out of wedlock and teen birth rates, higher age at first sexual experience) and all of those things you claim are socially conservative are blue states.  It turns out those godless liberals in Massachusetts and Vermont have a few things to teach conservatives about "socially conservative" values. 

To me, as one of those liberals living an exemplary socially conservative life, those aren't the flash points of the left/right culture wars, which largely center around abortion, gay marriage, access to birth control, religious freedom.  And, it turns out that many socially conservative people have come around on legal weed, gay marriage, and birth control.  There is quite a bit of common ground there. 

[sequoia]

These people ARE socially conservative: they want their kids to go to good schools, not do drugs, get married, and have 2.5 kids. They look down on people they see making poor life choices (which includes otherwise conservative hicks in trailer parks drinking themselves to death). They also might have a hesitation about cutting funding for some social services, and generally are not a fine of giant tax cuts for rich people, but that does not translate into an overall trust that Dems are good stewards of money.

I wasn't aware that there are culture war fights about wanting kids to go to good schools.  The idea that conservatives see those values as belonging to them and not liberals is infuriating.  Just about every liberal I know is on their original marriage, is a dedicated parent, values education, etc.  And, btw, the states that score high on indicators of responsible parenting (high quality schools, low divorce rates, low out of wedlock and teen birth rates, higher age at first sexual experience) and all of those things you claim are socially conservative are blue states.  It turns out those godless liberals in Massachusetts and Vermont have a few things to teach conservatives about "socially conservative" values. 

To me, as one of those liberals living an exemplary socially conservative life, those aren't the flash points of the left/right culture wars, which largely center around abortion, gay marriage, access to birth control, religious freedom.  And, it turns out that many socially conservative people have come around on legal weed, gay marriage, and birth control.  There is quite a bit of common ground there.

+1

We should focus on the common ground!

[A Definite Beta Guy]

These people ARE socially conservative: they want their kids to go to good schools, not do drugs, get married, and have 2.5 kids. They look down on people they see making poor life choices (which includes otherwise conservative hicks in trailer parks drinking themselves to death). They also might have a hesitation about cutting funding for some social services, and generally are not a fine of giant tax cuts for rich people, but that does not translate into an overall trust that Dems are good stewards of money.

I wasn't aware that there are culture war fights about wanting kids to go to good schools.  The idea that conservatives see those values as belonging to them and not liberals is infuriating.  Just about every liberal I know is on their original marriage, is a dedicated parent, values education, etc.  And, btw, the states that score high on indicators of responsible parenting (high quality schools, low divorce rates, low out of wedlock and teen birth rates, higher age at first sexual experience) and all of those things you claim are socially conservative are blue states.  It turns out those godless liberals in Massachusetts and Vermont have a few things to teach conservatives about "socially conservative" values. 

To me, as one of those liberals living an exemplary socially conservative life, those aren't the flash points of the left/right culture wars, which largely center around abortion, gay marriage, access to birth control, religious freedom.  And, it turns out that many socially conservative people have come around on legal weed, gay marriage, and birth control.  There is quite a bit of common ground there.

I don't really disagree with this, but I'm not really a low-information voter. Conservative UMC voters who don't like Dems think of Dems as the party of sex, drugs, and rock and roll. They don't really see a lot of common ground to be found.

Conservative commentators who ARE high-information do realize that upper middle class and middle class liberals live conservative lives, and think highly of that. But that doesn't mean they will vote for Democrats. They almost universally think the welfare state is pissing away the money of hard-working families and creating cycles of poverty that will never be broken. The best anti-poverty measure is a strong economy and strong families from their POV, so they support those.

[Malloy]

These people ARE socially conservative: they want their kids to go to good schools, not do drugs, get married, and have 2.5 kids. They look down on people they see making poor life choices (which includes otherwise conservative hicks in trailer parks drinking themselves to death). They also might have a hesitation about cutting funding for some social services, and generally are not a fine of giant tax cuts for rich people, but that does not translate into an overall trust that Dems are good stewards of money.

I wasn't aware that there are culture war fights about wanting kids to go to good schools.  The idea that conservatives see those values as belonging to them and not liberals is infuriating.  Just about every liberal I know is on their original marriage, is a dedicated parent, values education, etc.  And, btw, the states that score high on indicators of responsible parenting (high quality schools, low divorce rates, low out of wedlock and teen birth rates, higher age at first sexual experience) and all of those things you claim are socially conservative are blue states.  It turns out those godless liberals in Massachusetts and Vermont have a few things to teach conservatives about "socially conservative" values. 

To me, as one of those liberals living an exemplary socially conservative life, those aren't the flash points of the left/right culture wars, which largely center around abortion, gay marriage, access to birth control, religious freedom.  And, it turns out that many socially conservative people have come around on legal weed, gay marriage, and birth control.  There is quite a bit of common ground there.

I don't really disagree with this, but I'm not really a low-information voter. Conservative UMC voters who don't like Dems think of Dems as the party of sex, drugs, and rock and roll. They don't really see a lot of common ground to be found.

Conservative commentators who ARE high-information do realize that upper middle class and middle class liberals live conservative lives, and think highly of that. But that doesn't mean they will vote for Democrats. They almost universally think the welfare state is pissing away the money of hard-working families and creating cycles of poverty that will never be broken. The best anti-poverty measure is a strong economy and strong families from their POV, so they support those.

So they think that Dems are the party of sex?  That explains why they voted for a man on his third marriage to a woman I've seen nude and who bragged about watching teenage girls in a dressing room.

As for pissing away money, I didn't hear many conservatives complaining about Steve Mnuchin asking taxpayers to fund his honeymoon travel.  And I don't hear them complain when Uncle Steve the cop games overtime his last few years of service so that he's pulling in over 100k in pension in retirement.  Conservatives don't care about pissing away money when it goes to them. No, they EARNED that. 

[partgypsy]

These people ARE socially conservative: they want their kids to go to good schools, not do drugs, get married, and have 2.5 kids. They look down on people they see making poor life choices (which includes otherwise conservative hicks in trailer parks drinking themselves to death). They also might have a hesitation about cutting funding for some social services, and generally are not a fine of giant tax cuts for rich people, but that does not translate into an overall trust that Dems are good stewards of money.

I wasn't aware that there are culture war fights about wanting kids to go to good schools.  The idea that conservatives see those values as belonging to them and not liberals is infuriating.  Just about every liberal I know is on their original marriage, is a dedicated parent, values education, etc.  And, btw, the states that score high on indicators of responsible parenting (high quality schools, low divorce rates, low out of wedlock and teen birth rates, higher age at first sexual experience) and all of those things you claim are socially conservative are blue states.  It turns out those godless liberals in Massachusetts and Vermont have a few things to teach conservatives about "socially conservative" values. 

To me, as one of those liberals living an exemplary socially conservative life, those aren't the flash points of the left/right culture wars, which largely center around abortion, gay marriage, access to birth control, religious freedom.  And, it turns out that many socially conservative people have come around on legal weed, gay marriage, and birth control.  There is quite a bit of common ground there.

I don't really disagree with this, but I'm not really a low-information voter. Conservative UMC voters who don't like Dems think of Dems as the party of sex, drugs, and rock and roll. They don't really see a lot of common ground to be found.

Conservative commentators who ARE high-information do realize that upper middle class and middle class liberals live conservative lives, and think highly of that. But that doesn't mean they will vote for Democrats. They almost universally think the welfare state is pissing away the money of hard-working families and creating cycles of poverty that will never be broken. The best anti-poverty measure is a strong economy and strong families from their POV, so they support those.

I think most "liberals" feel that the welfare state has not "caused" cycles of poverty that will never be broken. It's putting the cart before the horse. You have to ask why we have a poor, un or underemployed group of people, not why there is welfare to prevent them from falling even farther. It is a trend that both state and federal government are cutting down on what would be considered long term welfare state funding (I'm not including social security, medicare, Medicaid). Instead, you have to look at the factors that cause long term joblessness and poverty. It could be lack of quality education, living in unsafe, unhealthy environments, lack of consistent healthcare or unstable family life, and larger macro economic trends that make working class type jobs outsourced or replaced. Democrats try to address these more systemic issues, while Republicans seem to discount the fact that these larger issues are causing systemic inequalities or should even be solved from a governmental POV. 

I don't see how conservatives think they are working to make stronger families, when they are trying to prevent sex ed and limit or even prevent women from having access to contraceptives and birth control methods, to have a say so in when or how many children they have. I don't see how they say they want stronger families, when they are trying to take away affordable healthcare from families. And ditto for defunding public education, and "food stamps", or meals on wheels.  But as long as they mouth "family values" they don't have to actually support the programs that help families and individuals. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-budget/trumps-budget-cuts-to-domestic-aid-programs-draw-republican-scorn-idUSKBN16M1DO

[A Definite Beta Guy]

These people ARE socially conservative: they want their kids to go to good schools, not do drugs, get married, and have 2.5 kids. They look down on people they see making poor life choices (which includes otherwise conservative hicks in trailer parks drinking themselves to death). They also might have a hesitation about cutting funding for some social services, and generally are not a fine of giant tax cuts for rich people, but that does not translate into an overall trust that Dems are good stewards of money.

I wasn't aware that there are culture war fights about wanting kids to go to good schools.  The idea that conservatives see those values as belonging to them and not liberals is infuriating.  Just about every liberal I know is on their original marriage, is a dedicated parent, values education, etc.  And, btw, the states that score high on indicators of responsible parenting (high quality schools, low divorce rates, low out of wedlock and teen birth rates, higher age at first sexual experience) and all of those things you claim are socially conservative are blue states.  It turns out those godless liberals in Massachusetts and Vermont have a few things to teach conservatives about "socially conservative" values. 

To me, as one of those liberals living an exemplary socially conservative life, those aren't the flash points of the left/right culture wars, which largely center around abortion, gay marriage, access to birth control, religious freedom.  And, it turns out that many socially conservative people have come around on legal weed, gay marriage, and birth control.  There is quite a bit of common ground there.

I don't really disagree with this, but I'm not really a low-information voter. Conservative UMC voters who don't like Dems think of Dems as the party of sex, drugs, and rock and roll. They don't really see a lot of common ground to be found.

Conservative commentators who ARE high-information do realize that upper middle class and middle class liberals live conservative lives, and think highly of that. But that doesn't mean they will vote for Democrats. They almost universally think the welfare state is pissing away the money of hard-working families and creating cycles of poverty that will never be broken. The best anti-poverty measure is a strong economy and strong families from their POV, so they support those.

So they think that Dems are the party of sex?  That explains why they voted for a man on his third marriage to a woman I've seen nude and who bragged about watching teenage girls in a dressing room.

As for pissing away money, I didn't hear many conservatives complaining about Steve Mnuchin asking taxpayers to fund his honeymoon travel.  And I don't hear them complain when Uncle Steve the cop games overtime his last few years of service so that he's pulling in over 100k in pension in retirement.  Conservatives don't care about pissing away money when it goes to them. No, they EARNED that.

And my liberal friends all whine about their taxes and are the ones who talk the most about minimizing and/or cheating on their taxes. When businesses do it that's treason, when they do it, it's just good business!

It really doesn't help to understand people or get them to switch votes if you're just going to attack them. People don't look in the mirror and see hypocrites, they see fine, upstanding people.

I think most "liberals" feel that the welfare state has not "caused" cycles of poverty that will never be broken. It's putting the cart before the horse. You have to ask why we have a poor, un or underemployed group of people, not why there is welfare to prevent them from falling even farther. It is a trend that both state and federal government are cutting down on what would be considered long term welfare state funding (I'm not including social security, medicare, Medicaid). Instead, you have to look at the factors that cause long term joblessness and poverty. It could be lack of quality education, living in unsafe, unhealthy environments, lack of consistent healthcare or unstable family life, and larger macro economic trends that make working class type jobs outsourced or replaced. Democrats try to address these more systemic issues, while Republicans seem to discount the fact that these larger issues are causing systemic inequalities or should even be solved from a governmental POV. 

I don't see how conservatives think they are working to make stronger families, when they are trying to prevent sex ed and limit or even prevent women from having access to contraceptives and birth control methods, to have a say so in when or how many children they have. I don't see how they say they want stronger families, when they are trying to take away affordable healthcare from families. And ditto for defunding public education, and "food stamps", or meals on wheels.  But as long as they mouth "family values" they don't have to actually support the programs that help families and individuals. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-budget/trumps-budget-cuts-to-domestic-aid-programs-draw-republican-scorn-idUSKBN16M1DO

Re: the bolded. This isn't complicated at all. Simple Calvinist/Protestant thinking: you're poor because you suck. You're lazy, you don't save, you make poor life choices, and that's why your life is in the shitter.

Conservative upper class don't buy into your worldview and therefore don't buy into your policies. "Systemic inequality" "privilege" blah blah blah. They don't think you are a single mother because of systemic inequality, they think you're a single mother because you made some poor decisions. Giving you more money is going to result in wasted money because you make poor decisions. Sure, send your kids to school, that should be paid for, but they think your kids are going to be screwed because they have a crappy parent and Daddy ran off and there's nothing the schools are going to be able to do to fix that.

They generally believe quite strongly in education: they just don't necessarily believe in well-funded PUBLIC education. There is a difference between these two. They'd never tell their kids not to go to college, but they might not have a problem saying too many people as a whole are going to college, because they mean there are dumb kids out there getting federal money to go to college...and the college won't help them.

You can say it's heartless, but they aren't totally without compassion. They just don't believe in these programs anywhere near as much as your typical Dem voter.

I don't typically agree with all their specific thoughts, but I agree with some of the general thrust of their thoughts.

[partgypsy]

These people ARE socially conservative: they want their kids to go to good schools, not do drugs, get married, and have 2.5 kids. They look down on people they see making poor life choices (which includes otherwise conservative hicks in trailer parks drinking themselves to death). They also might have a hesitation about cutting funding for some social services, and generally are not a fine of giant tax cuts for rich people, but that does not translate into an overall trust that Dems are good stewards of money.

I wasn't aware that there are culture war fights about wanting kids to go to good schools.  The idea that conservatives see those values as belonging to them and not liberals is infuriating.  Just about every liberal I know is on their original marriage, is a dedicated parent, values education, etc.  And, btw, the states that score high on indicators of responsible parenting (high quality schools, low divorce rates, low out of wedlock and teen birth rates, higher age at first sexual experience) and all of those things you claim are socially conservative are blue states.  It turns out those godless liberals in Massachusetts and Vermont have a few things to teach conservatives about "socially conservative" values. 

To me, as one of those liberals living an exemplary socially conservative life, those aren't the flash points of the left/right culture wars, which largely center around abortion, gay marriage, access to birth control, religious freedom.  And, it turns out that many socially conservative people have come around on legal weed, gay marriage, and birth control.  There is quite a bit of common ground there.

I don't really disagree with this, but I'm not really a low-information voter. Conservative UMC voters who don't like Dems think of Dems as the party of sex, drugs, and rock and roll. They don't really see a lot of common ground to be found.

Conservative commentators who ARE high-information do realize that upper middle class and middle class liberals live conservative lives, and think highly of that. But that doesn't mean they will vote for Democrats. They almost universally think the welfare state is pissing away the money of hard-working families and creating cycles of poverty that will never be broken. The best anti-poverty measure is a strong economy and strong families from their POV, so they support those.

So they think that Dems are the party of sex?  That explains why they voted for a man on his third marriage to a woman I've seen nude and who bragged about watching teenage girls in a dressing room.

As for pissing away money, I didn't hear many conservatives complaining about Steve Mnuchin asking taxpayers to fund his honeymoon travel.  And I don't hear them complain when Uncle Steve the cop games overtime his last few years of service so that he's pulling in over 100k in pension in retirement.  Conservatives don't care about pissing away money when it goes to them. No, they EARNED that.

And my liberal friends all whine about their taxes and are the ones who talk the most about minimizing and/or cheating on their taxes. When businesses do it that's treason, when they do it, it's just good business!

It really doesn't help to understand people or get them to switch votes if you're just going to attack them. People don't look in the mirror and see hypocrites, they see fine, upstanding people.

I think most "liberals" feel that the welfare state has not "caused" cycles of poverty that will never be broken. It's putting the cart before the horse. You have to ask why we have a poor, un or underemployed group of people, not why there is welfare to prevent them from falling even farther. It is a trend that both state and federal government are cutting down on what would be considered long term welfare state funding (I'm not including social security, medicare, Medicaid). Instead, you have to look at the factors that cause long term joblessness and poverty. It could be lack of quality education, living in unsafe, unhealthy environments, lack of consistent healthcare or unstable family life, and larger macro economic trends that make working class type jobs outsourced or replaced. Democrats try to address these more systemic issues, while Republicans seem to discount the fact that these larger issues are causing systemic inequalities or should even be solved from a governmental POV. 

I don't see how conservatives think they are working to make stronger families, when they are trying to prevent sex ed and limit or even prevent women from having access to contraceptives and birth control methods, to have a say so in when or how many children they have. I don't see how they say they want stronger families, when they are trying to take away affordable healthcare from families. And ditto for defunding public education, and "food stamps", or meals on wheels.  But as long as they mouth "family values" they don't have to actually support the programs that help families and individuals. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-budget/trumps-budget-cuts-to-domestic-aid-programs-draw-republican-scorn-idUSKBN16M1DO

Re: the bolded. This isn't complicated at all. Simple Calvinist/Protestant thinking: you're poor because you suck. You're lazy, you don't save, you make poor life choices, and that's why your life is in the shitter.

Conservative upper class don't buy into your worldview and therefore don't buy into your policies. "Systemic inequality" "privilege" blah blah blah. They don't think you are a single mother because of systemic inequality, they think you're a single mother because you made some poor decisions. Giving you more money is going to result in wasted money because you make poor decisions. Sure, send your kids to school, that should be paid for, but they think your kids are going to be screwed because they have a crappy parent and Daddy ran off and there's nothing the schools are going to be able to do to fix that.

They generally believe quite strongly in education: they just don't necessarily believe in well-funded PUBLIC education. There is a difference between these two. They'd never tell their kids not to go to college, but they might not have a problem saying too many people as a whole are going to college, because they mean there are dumb kids out there getting federal money to go to college...and the college won't help them.

You can say it's heartless, but they aren't totally without compassion. They just don't believe in these programs anywhere near as much as your typical Dem voter.

I don't typically agree with all their specific thoughts, but I agree with some of the general thrust of their thoughts.

Wow. A huge amount of generalizations and stereotyping in that one post, particularly what you think about Democrats and liberals. I've learned it's not productive to engage in discourse with  people who write off entire of classes of people and indulge in knee jerk simplistic thinking. 

[Kris]

And my liberal friends all whine about their taxes and are the ones who talk the most about minimizing and/or cheating on their taxes. When businesses do it that's treason, when they do it, it's just good business!

Huh. I'd venture to say I know a lot more Democrats than you do. And I can't think of any discussions I've ever had with any of them where they talked about wanting to minimize or cheat on their taxes. That they wish the government would make better use of their tax dollars, yes. But Democrats recognize that taxes are a fee for services. And that services cost money.

I'm not going to go quite so far as to say you're lying, but... perhaps taking a little creative license, though.

[Glenstache]

I really feel like we should take the list of cognitive biases and make a bingo sheet out of them. It would make threads like this much more entertaining and provide some structure to the picking apart of each other's statements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases#Decision-making.2C_belief.2C_and_behavioral_biases

I can check a lot of these off in the last few pages.

[ixtap]

And my liberal friends all whine about their taxes and are the ones who talk the most about minimizing and/or cheating on their taxes. When businesses do it that's treason, when they do it, it's just good business!

Interesting. It is all Trump supporters who are upset that I won't lie about how much they paid so that they can avoid use tax. They literally go on rants about avoiding tax because of the socialists and because freedom. I just respond that I like my freedom so much that I prefer not to go to jail. And my Trump supporting family members and colleagues think I am a lunatic for declaring the cash that my business takes in.

[Lagom]

I really feel like we should take the list of cognitive biases and make a bingo sheet out of them. It would make threads like this much more entertaining and provide some structure to the picking apart of each other's statements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases#Decision-making.2C_belief.2C_and_behavioral_biases

I can check a lot of these off in the last few pages.

Or, you know, we could just stop the endless tu quoque.

[A Definite Beta Guy]

And my liberal friends all whine about their taxes and are the ones who talk the most about minimizing and/or cheating on their taxes. When businesses do it that's treason, when they do it, it's just good business!

Huh. I'd venture to say I know a lot more Democrats than you do. And I can't think of any discussions I've ever had with any of them where they talked about wanting to minimize or cheat on their taxes. That they wish the government would make better use of their tax dollars, yes. But Democrats recognize that taxes are a fee for services. And that services cost money.

I'm not going to go quite so far as to say you're lying, but... perhaps taking a little creative license, though.

I can't really speak for other social groups, just the ones that I happen to travel in. The Dems are almost as interested in moving to no-income taxes states as the GOPers (though the Dems prefer Washington to Tennessee for obvious reasons). They are also more interested in discussing various tax minimization or outright evasion strategies. YMMV.

Either way, I'm not going to say they are horrible idiots or hypocrites or whatever for wanting to minimize their tax burdens while simultaneously supporting a strong welfare state. That's just being human. Same with the Ron Swanson types who criticize the government while working for it and trying to maximize their pension value.

FWIW, my social group is are the Purple North and Northwest suburbs of Chicago. IL is a solid Democrat state, but the Democrats from here (and other Great Lake States) tend to be more Blue Dog than New England and California Dems. So this may not be representative of ALL Dems. On the flip-side, the GOPers here aren't really representative of typical GOPers, either. Our last GOP Senator was Mark Kirk, who is ideologically more similar to the Murkowski/Collins wing than the Cruz/Sessions wing.

Wow. A huge amount of generalizations and stereotyping in that one post, particularly what you think about Democrats and liberals. I've learned it's not productive to engage in discourse with  people who write off entire of classes of people and indulge in knee jerk simplistic thinking.   

Everyone likes to write off entire classes of people and indulge in knee jerk feeling. That's politics for you!
You can't build a political coalition solely out of people you 100% respect and 100% agree with. If you want to convince the upper-class GOPers to NOT vote for Trump, you have to start with not calling them all idiots.

Not sure where you are getting anything that I think about Dems and liberals from that post. There's one comment about the specific Dems/liberals in my social group. The majority of the post is talking about the UMC GOPer mindset.

[BlueMR2]

And my liberal friends all whine about their taxes and are the ones who talk the most about minimizing and/or cheating on their taxes. When businesses do it that's treason, when they do it, it's just good business!

Unfortunately I've noticed the same thing.  My strongest liberal identifying friends are the most vocal about getting taxes and making new laws to stop all kinds of things.  They're also the ones that are always gaming the system or outright breaks laws.  It's really disappointing.  The actual reasonable people I know don't identify as either liberal or conservative (conservatives have all their own issues that I'm not going to bother with here).

[Kris]

And my liberal friends all whine about their taxes and are the ones who talk the most about minimizing and/or cheating on their taxes. When businesses do it that's treason, when they do it, it's just good business!

Unfortunately I've noticed the same thing.  My strongest liberal identifying friends are the most vocal about getting taxes and making new laws to stop all kinds of things.  They're also the ones that are always gaming the system or outright breaks laws.  It's really disappointing.  The actual reasonable people I know don't identify as either liberal or conservative (conservatives have all their own issues that I'm not going to bother with here).

Where do you live, BlueMR2? This is just... kind of baffling to me.

[partgypsy]

yeah me too. You aren't confusing liberals with libertarians are you? Those are the ones I know from my personal experience who both complain about taxes and seek means to avoid paying taxes including ones that may be not legal (one I remember bragged he essentially said that all of his expenses were business expenses, when obviously they were not).  Most of the people I hang with are "liberals". I honestly can't remember a conversation of people complaining about taxes, in fact usually discuss and vote for the referendums and bonds to improve say local parks and bike paths and the public library. The only tax "avoidance" is simply taking the usual exemptions, etc that are available to everyone. And I'm originally from the Chicago suburbs, same group you are talking about.   

You can look at William Buffet as an example. He would be considered a "rich liberal". Even he admits the tax structure existing favors him over say his secretary. He fully pays his taxes, but of course takes the available legal exceptions, etc to minimize taxes, which I assume everyone would do. But he doesn't cheat on his taxes, which is what you are implying liberals do but well off GOPers do not.

I am all for increasing auditing of tax returns so that we have have equal accountability for paying taxes. The IRS has been underfunded so that less than 2% of all filings get audited. That's leaving 300 billion on the table (the gap between what the estimate should be paid, versus what is paid). 

Unfortunately Trump wants to go backward and have even LESS oversight which = more tax evasion.  That's just not fair for law abiding tax payers.

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-treasury-tax-rollback-inversions-c3d157c4956e/ 

[BlueMR2]

yeah me too. You aren't confusing liberals with libertarians are you?

Nope, I do know a couple libertarians too, and they're survival prepper nuts...  They're so far out there that taxes and laws aren't even on their radar.

[Just Joe]

The liberals I know want clean air and for the GOp to quit telling them who people can marry. Oh - and for the conservatives to quit treating women like children.

[JLee]

The liberals I know want clean air and for the GOp to quit telling them who people can marry. Oh - and for the conservatives to quit treating women like children.

That about sums it up for my experience as well, with some frustration at the ridiculously inefficient health care system we have.

[Just Joe]

That too.

[NoStacheOhio]

The liberals I know want clean air and for the GOp to quit telling them who people can marry. Oh - and for the conservatives to quit treating women like children.

That about sums it up for my experience as well, with some frustration at the ridiculously inefficient health care system we have.

Some of this may be generational.

FWIW, I think younger left-ish people tend to view taxes as more transactional than the older population. Don't get me wrong, I generally try to (legally) minimize what I pay. At the same time, I view paying taxes more like I view purchasing services. Obviously, I don't get as much say in how much or what I'm buying, but that's part of the original reason we elected people to represent our interests in government. At this point, it's gotten totally fucked up, but the original intent wasn't for policy to reflect the will of donors.

[A Definite Beta Guy]

The solution to not having policy reflect the will of the donors was having a large republic with lots of checks and balances. That makes it difficult to get ANYTHING done, and by making it difficult to get anything done, you make it so only things that have the support of a large majority of people can get done.

The modern preference of selecting preferring the speech of favored groups is definitely not what anyone intended.

[wenchsenior]

The solution to not having policy reflect the will of the donors was having a large republic with lots of checks and balances. That makes it difficult to get ANYTHING done, and by making it difficult to get anything done, you make it so only things that have the support of a large majority of people can get done.

The modern preference of selecting preferring the speech of favored groups is definitely not what anyone intended.

Except that part of the checks and balances system (the judiciary, typically) is set up to function to protect minority views and actions, DESPITE what the majority of the populace might want.  If this were not true, we might still have slavery, no vote for women, open discrimination based on minority religious views etc. etc etc etc.

[NoStacheOhio]

The solution to not having policy reflect the will of the donors was having a large republic with lots of checks and balances. That makes it difficult to get ANYTHING done, and by making it difficult to get anything done, you make it so only things that have the support of a large majority of people can get done.

The modern preference of selecting preferring the speech of favored groups is definitely not what anyone intended.

Except that part of the checks and balances system (the judiciary, typically) is set up to function to protect minority views and actions, DESPITE what the majority of the populace might want.  If this were not true, we might still have slavery, no vote for women, open discrimination based on minority religious views etc. etc etc etc.

Yes. BUT, the judicial check exists to defend the Constitutional rights of minorities, not to allow them to run roughshod over everyone else.

[JLee]

The solution to not having policy reflect the will of the donors was having a large republic with lots of checks and balances. That makes it difficult to get ANYTHING done, and by making it difficult to get anything done, you make it so only things that have the support of a large majority of people can get done.

The modern preference of selecting preferring the speech of favored groups is definitely not what anyone intended.

Except that part of the checks and balances system (the judiciary, typically) is set up to function to protect minority views and actions, DESPITE what the majority of the populace might want.  If this were not true, we might still have slavery, no vote for women, open discrimination based on minority religious views etc. etc etc etc.

Yes. BUT, the judicial check exists to defend the Constitutional rights of minorities, not to allow them to run roughshod over everyone else.

Are you implying that minorities are running roughshod over everyone else?

[NoStacheOhio]

Are you implying that minorities are running roughshod over everyone else?

I'm implying that it does indeed happen.

[Glenstache]

Are you implying that minorities are running roughshod over everyone else?

I'm implying that it does indeed happen.

Really?

[GuitarStv]

Are you implying that minorities are running roughshod over everyone else?

I'm implying that it does indeed happen.

Really?

Could you give some examples where minorities treat you in an oppressive/harsh/domineering manner?

[NoStacheOhio]

Are you implying that minorities are running roughshod over everyone else?

I'm implying that it does indeed happen.

Really?

Could you give some examples where minorities treat you in an oppressive/harsh/domineering manner?

Treat me or treat other people?

I'm not saying I'm a victim of persecution. I'm not.

The biggest things that come to mind are when people legislate their religious doctrine. The whole "religious liberty" movement springs to mind. I suppose from one point of view, it's one minority trying to oppress a different minority, but things like equal treatment in business transactions and access to evidence-based birth control affect everyone.

[JLee]

Are you implying that minorities are running roughshod over everyone else?

I'm implying that it does indeed happen.

Really?

Could you give some examples where minorities treat you in an oppressive/harsh/domineering manner?

Treat me or treat other people?

I'm not saying I'm a victim of persecution. I'm not.

The biggest things that come to mind are when people legislate their religious doctrine. The whole "religious liberty" movement springs to mind. I suppose from one point of view, it's one minority trying to oppress a different minority, but things like equal treatment in business transactions and access to evidence-based birth control affect everyone.

You're going to have a hard time persuading me that Christians are a minority. They like to think they are, though.

[GuitarStv]

Are you implying that minorities are running roughshod over everyone else?

I'm implying that it does indeed happen.

Really?

Could you give some examples where minorities treat you in an oppressive/harsh/domineering manner?

Treat me or treat other people?

I'm not saying I'm a victim of persecution. I'm not.

The biggest things that come to mind are when people legislate their religious doctrine. The whole "religious liberty" movement springs to mind. I suppose from one point of view, it's one minority trying to oppress a different minority, but things like equal treatment in business transactions and access to evidence-based birth control affect everyone.

You're going to have a hard time persuading me that Christians are a minority. They like to think they are, though.

Last I checked, they were a minority of 83% in the US.

[ixtap]

Are you implying that minorities are running roughshod over everyone else?

I'm implying that it does indeed happen.

Really?

Could you give some examples where minorities treat you in an oppressive/harsh/domineering manner?

Treat me or treat other people?

I'm not saying I'm a victim of persecution. I'm not.

The biggest things that come to mind are when people legislate their religious doctrine. The whole "religious liberty" movement springs to mind. I suppose from one point of view, it's one minority trying to oppress a different minority, but things like equal treatment in business transactions and access to evidence-based birth control affect everyone.

You're going to have a hard time persuading me that Christians are a minority. They like to think they are, though.

I do think the anti birth control, anti personal choice Christians are in the minority. Or, at least I like to think that.

[A Definite Beta Guy]

The solution to not having policy reflect the will of the donors was having a large republic with lots of checks and balances. That makes it difficult to get ANYTHING done, and by making it difficult to get anything done, you make it so only things that have the support of a large majority of people can get done.

The modern preference of selecting preferring the speech of favored groups is definitely not what anyone intended.

Except that part of the checks and balances system (the judiciary, typically) is set up to function to protect minority views and actions, DESPITE what the majority of the populace might want.  If this were not true, we might still have slavery, no vote for women, open discrimination based on minority religious views etc. etc etc etc.

That's not really the function of the judiciary. The judiciary interprets the Constitution. Votes for women and abolition of slavery are the result of Constitutional Amendments, not judicial action. If anything, the Supreme Court was pro-slavery prior to the Civil War. The Dred Scott decision, in combination with the Fugitive Slave Act, basically made every state a Slave State.

Last I checked, they were a minority of 83% in the US.

"Christian" isn't a homogenous group. Catholics and Mormons have both been oppressed minorities. The Ku Klux Clan is specifically anti-Catholic.

[JLee]

Are you implying that minorities are running roughshod over everyone else?

I'm implying that it does indeed happen.

Really?

Could you give some examples where minorities treat you in an oppressive/harsh/domineering manner?

Treat me or treat other people?

I'm not saying I'm a victim of persecution. I'm not.

The biggest things that come to mind are when people legislate their religious doctrine. The whole "religious liberty" movement springs to mind. I suppose from one point of view, it's one minority trying to oppress a different minority, but things like equal treatment in business transactions and access to evidence-based birth control affect everyone.

You're going to have a hard time persuading me that Christians are a minority. They like to think they are, though.

Last I checked, they were a minority of 83% in the US.

Reminds me of this:

“Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely! In broad daylight! Openly wearing the symbols of their religion... perhaps around their necks? And maybe -- dare I dream it? -- maybe one day there can be an openly Christian President. Or, perhaps, 43 of them. Consecutively.”


― Jon Stewart

[NoStacheOhio]

"Christian" isn't a homogenous group. Catholics and Mormons have both been oppressed minorities. The Ku Klux Clan is specifically anti-Catholic.

This.

Fundamentalists/Evangelicals are definitely not a majority in the United States. They like to act like they have a monopoly on the label "Christian," but they don't.

[Just Joe]

Definitely a regional thing. Move further south. CA might off-set the national stats but consider the Bible Belt alone and its easy to see how they shape the culture in the south.

[DarkandStormy]

Think about how much Trump has normalized unethical actions in less than a year.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/26/politics/donald-trump-gag-order-fbi-informant/index.html

President Donald Trump made it clear he wanted the gag order lifted on an undercover informant who played a critical role in an FBI investigation into Russian efforts to gain influence in the uranium industry in the United States during the Obama administration, according to two sources familiar with the President's actions.

The President directed his senior staff "to facilitate the Justice Department's full cooperation with Congress to lift the gag order," one of the sources said. The sources said White House counsel Don McGahn then relayed the message to the Justice Department.

Imagine Barack Obama and Eric Holder trying to lift the gag order of an undercover informant for the FBI simply to play "gotcha" with GWB.  It would be a month long scandal.  But thanks to Trump's unhinged tweets and ever-growing Russia scandal, it's not even a blip on the news radar.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/20/trump-nominees-working-senate-approval-243972

Trump nominees who have not been confirmed are still showing up to work at their various posts.  This is a direct violation of the Constitution and a blatant violation of executive overreach.  No one even cares.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/25/16548688/trump-administration-delaying-russia-sanctions

President Donald Trump’s administration missed its deadline to implement sanctions on Russia — and Republicans in Congress are starting to worry about why.

...

The law, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress and which Trump signed into law in early August, required the administration to identify which Russian entities would be penalized with new sanctions by October 1. They still have not done so.

[Kris]

Meanwhile, Trump has so deluded some of his supporters that they are refusing retrain8ng because they actually think coal is going to come back.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-effect-coal-retraining-insight/awaiting-trumps-coal-comeback-miners-reject-retraining-idUSKBN1D14G0?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=59f9b3c204d3012d1336fa38&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook

Sigh.

[GuitarStv]

Meanwhile, Trump has so deluded some of his supporters that they are refusing retrain8ng because they actually think coal is going to come back.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-effect-coal-retraining-insight/awaiting-trumps-coal-comeback-miners-reject-retraining-idUSKBN1D14G0?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=59f9b3c204d3012d1336fa38&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook

Sigh.

It's like that old proverb:

God helps those who sit on their ass and hope that the glory days of the past will be revived through some kind of magical plan that has never been articulated clearly.

That's how it goes right?

[Inaya]

So now they're barring from the EPA Science Advisory Board any independent scientist who has ever received an EPA grant. Because they can't be objective if they've received EPA money. Yet somehow we can trust the objectivity of industry scientists working for companies who are subject to EPA regulation. Drainin' that swap every day.

[partgypsy]

So now they're barring from the EPA Science Advisory Board any independent scientist who has ever received an EPA grant. Because they can't be objective if they've received EPA money. Yet somehow we can trust the objectivity of industry scientists working for companies who are subject to EPA regulation. Drainin' that swap every day.

WTF???
Also, since Trump has decided climate change is "fake news" he is suppressing information about climate change
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/22/climate/epa-scientists.html?smid=tw-share

If you don't like what the scientists are saying, muzzle them.

[DarkandStormy]

http://thehill.com/policy/international/358560-us-backs-out-of-global-oil-anti-corruption-effort

Draining the swamp?

US backs out of global oil anti-corruption effort

[EscapeVelocity2020]

I hereby predict that next week is an utter Trump disaster and a new low for the US, as 'Not My President' represents his best interests abroad.

Saying he will likely meet with the Russian leader on the sidelines of an economic conference in Vietnam later this week, Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One, "We want Putin's help on North Korea."

Before leaving Hawaii, Trump stopped for a visit to one of his hotels. "It has been a tremendously successful project," Sanders said, "and he wanted to say hello and thank you to the employees for all their hard work.”

#BizzrroWorld