There’s some of those, sure, but this shit like banning contraceptives, banning no fault divorce, attacking Medicare and social security-these are universally unpopular policies. That’s why trump is trying to pretend his campaign didn’t literally write this shit.
The conversations I’ve had in the Deep South with Republicans always boil down to: they have no idea.
I have found that the best way to argue with republicans is to tell them directly what they’re actually voting for, because they don’t know. They’re either dumb as shit, or they’re greedy and think democrats will raise taxes.
I wish i could talk to some. The few i know are work friends so i don’t want to go there with them. In the very few conversations we’ve had they try to talk about the economy/stock market.
The positions that a lot of the trump supporters take up are whatever they all mutually agree are their positions, and/or whatever they are told is their position du jour… in other words, today they may say that they are pro one thing and con a different thing, but their loyalty is to the party, not to the merits of the positions they espouse.
The moment they were told that they no longer feared and hated Russia, they started saying “you know that Putin guy isn’t so bad after all”, as if the Cold War never happened, as if their perceived greatest enemy for the last 50 years wasn’t Russia and communism.
A lot of them hated Jews too until they were told that their side supports Israel.
It’s straight out of 1984… “We were always at war with Eastasia.”
They will easily adopt the project 2025 positions if that’s what their god emperor tells them to do.
A lot of them hated Jews too until they were told that their side supports Israel.
They still do hate Jews. They just consider Israel to be a convenient solution to their “Jew problem”. Not to mention that it’s the sort of ethnostate a lot of them would really like to create themselves.
I live in the South, you have people who actually study politics (Left Wingers), and Right Wingers who get told Democrats are “Just people from up North coming to take your fried chicken and make you drink chai tea out of a paper straw instead!” who “Can’t take a joke, cause they’re too busy putting men in little girl’s pp places” by Fox News
Luckily the second they actually get a fuck clue, they’re quick the switch sides. The problem is the older ones that are already set in their ways and only vote how the Baptist Church tells them to.
Don’t forget helping the poor bad. I’m pretty sure they hate the poor more than any other category. They don’t help the poor, just like american jesus intended.
Which usually includes implied “follow my religious beliefs to be eligible.” A big difference between personal giving and allowing a social safety net is the decision to limit who gets your money. Which I do get; I want my team dollars going to stuff that helps everyone, like welfare, education, transportation, etc, not to military industrial complex or subsidies for already massive and union busting billionaires.
Still, on the conservative side it tends to aim more towards extremely limited targets, usually filtered through a lens of bigotry.
there’s a pretty big difference between what you are saying, “i don’t like the way they help”, and what the person i responded to was saying, “they don’t help and hate the poor”.
Regressives only give to people selectively. The statement above reminds me of the Sikh family that moved to my hometown in the early 80’s when I was a kid. They came to take over a gas station that one of their family members had recently bought. They were the only sikh in town. All kinds of names thrown at them like towel heads, sand n*****r and so on. A unofficial but damn near complete boycott of the gas station commenced. Their kids were treated like shit at school by nearly everyone bar the Catholics who were mostly Hispanic. I was eye witness to that part. The station was not making enough money and rather than ask their family for help they finally reached out for help feeding their kids to a local food bank that was christian in everything but name but were rejected. They however stuck it out and finally after thirty years or so sold it to a regressive couple who promptly ran it into the ground after embezzling lottery money.
The only family from India who owned both motels were treated fairly well, to their face at least.
I haven’t been following the bridge situation, but I thought the idea was that the company would ideally pay eventually, but by having the government pay now they get a bridge much sooner than waiting for years as the shipping company drags it though the courts? Assuming the shipping company doesn’t pull some “we aren’t American, you can’t make us pay shit” move.
Biden could just seize their assets and auction them off till it pays the debts. It’s a multi-billion dollar international shipping company with probably more assets just in that one port than it would cost to replace the bridge…
And before you say “that would be wrong”.
Reminder that civil asset forfeiture is still a thing. If a cop finds $5k in cash on you he can just fucking take it.
Pro tip: open a checking account with a brokerage, like Charles Schwab or Fidelity. Everything is free with ridiculously generous terms: no fees, free check books, ATM fee refunds, excellent foreign exchange rates on your debit card. They’ll blow any credit union out of the water.
The reason is that these companies make their money on stock accounts (via trading commissions and the like), and view these checking accounts as just a value-add / loss-leader to get you to park your investments with them. And they’re rolling in dough from options trading and shit like that, so the terms on the loss-leaders are really good.
I’ve had a checking account with Schwab for like 20 years, and they’ve never so much as whispered changing this dynamic.
They were sent the questions by the campaign, “approved” 4, and then the campaign choose the ones she approved?
It’s backwards from how it should work…
On CNN earlier Saturday, Andrea Lawful-Sanders, the host of WURD’s “The Source,” said Biden officials provided her with a list of eight questions ahead of their interview with Biden.
“The questions were sent to me for approval; I approved of them,” she said.
“I got several questions — eight of them,” she continued. “And the four that were chosen were the ones that I approved.”
It’s a new thing to compensate for his poor performances, the article lists two other examples pre-debate where the campaign was more “you should ask about these topics”.
These interviews are being presented to voters as Biden being able to think on he’s feet.
Everyone here complaining about it, do y’all really want to go back to the days of having to smash up random crates in secret rooms to find the matching ammo of the 6 different types of guns you are holding?
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.